How to get Excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church?

topmanamillion

Anyone know of a way to do this? That doesn't involve 7 trials or a bit of alone time in the desert.
I'd be really interested in getting excommunicated.
There'd be a novelty factor to it and any excommunication that I got would be framed and have pride of place.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

I don't think they give out certificates.... Also, you'd still be part of the church. Just not able to receive communion, among other things

pauldla

^^^

What Second_Toughest said. Excommunication doesn't mean 'You are no longer a Catholic', it means 'You're such a bad Catholic that we won't let you receive sacraments (is it all sacraments? I do not know)...but you're still a Catholic'.

Novelty factor, though? You want to be excommunicated for a novelty?

Cabaal

I suppose since the catholic church won't actually allow you to leave for some people it could be considered something if atleast the catholic church viewed them as so bad they won't provide them with services anymore,

dinorebel

Snort coke and keep Nazi memorabilia.

Squall Leonhart

Dara O'Briain once said something along the lines of

"I'm Catholic. I don't believe in god, but, still Catholic. It's the most adhesive religion known to man"

In the eyes of the Catholic church it seems once you've ever been Catholic, you'll always be Catholic!

Lucena

Cabaal wrote: »

I suppose since the catholic church won't actually allow you to leave for some people it could be considered something if atleast the catholic church viewed them as so bad they won't provide them with services anymore,

We're not allowed to leave? Were there not people getting in contact a while back to get removed from the membership list? Or has that changed?

Squall Leonhart

Nope, you're not allowed to leave!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_act_of_defection_from_the_Catholic_Church

In late August 2010, the Holy See confirmed that it was no longer possible to defect formally from the Catholic Church. However, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin declared on 12 October 2010 that it intended to keep a register of those who expressed the wish to defect.

Cabaal

Lucena wrote: »

We're not allowed to leave? Were there not people getting in contact a while back to get removed from the membership list? Or has that changed?

You are referring to countmeout.ie

They closed CountMeOut.ie after church law was changed to frustrate people trying to record their defection. Read more details here.

The catholic church closed that loophole by changing Canon Law (their silly laws)

Lucena

Missed my chance, so!

Ah boll*x, that means I have to go to mass on Sunday. No more lie-ins for Lucena.:(

josey_whale

dinorebel wrote: »

Snort coke and keep Nazi memorabilia.

Unlikely to work either

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-35688401

Kiwi in IE

If you want to cease being a Catholic, don't go to a RCC church, don't use the RCC church for rituals such as marriage, baptism etc, mark down either your new religion or no religion on official forms, census etc. The RCC can continue to 'believe' that you are a Catholic to their hearts content, but at the end of the day if you don't believe in their god, or you actively practice another religion, you are not a Catholic are you? The beliefs of the RCC are non reality based in most areas, so this believing non Catholics to be Catholics nonsense is hardly an inconsistency for them. There is very little point in challenging their non sensical beliefs. It is for you to decide whether or not you are a Catholic, not the RCC. I am not a stamp collector, and if the Irish Stamp Collectors Association decided to declare that I was one, it would not make it so.

eviltwin

What Kiwi said. I haven't practiced my religion in 24 years. I don't care what the church say I am NOT Catholic. The only opinion that matters is your own. Enjoy your lie in.

Mr. CooL ICE

♫♫ You can check in at any time of night, but you can never lee-eave ♫♫

*guitar solo*

Squall Leonhart

Just to clarify, my post above wasn't an instruction or a command!

I am not catholic despite being baptised and confirmed, nor do I accept that people can describe me as one because as a child I was brought up in that faith. I'm an atheist.

Lucena

Oh, I'll be having my lie-in, don't ye worry.

I don't need a bit of paper to tell me I'm not what I already know I'm not.

Hotblack Desiato

In late August 2010, the Holy See confirmed that it was no longer possible to defect formally from the Catholic Church. However, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin declared on 12 October 2010 that it intended to keep a register of those who expressed the wish to defect.

The only thing more loony than deciding that people inducted shortly after birth into your organisation are members forever and can't leave, is keeping a list of people who want to leave, who you accept want to leave, but you won't let leave.

topmanamillion

pauldla wrote: »

^^^

What Second_Toughest said. Excommunication doesn't mean 'You are no longer a Catholic', it means 'You're such a bad Catholic that we won't let you receive sacraments (is it all sacraments? I do not know)...but you're still a Catholic'.

Novelty factor, though? You want to be excommunicated for a novelty?

Absolutely what's so strange about that?
Excommunication is a mad notion that everyone is supposed to fear.
I'm not expecting a certificate but I was thinking maybe there'd be a letter from a bishop or some sort of correspondence if I sought it.

Kiwi in IE

I don't know why anyone would buy into this nonsensical assertion from the RCC that no one is 'allowed to leave'. Of course you are allowed to leave. If you decide not to identify as Catholic, then you have left. Acknowledging the absurd, ridiculous assertion that non Catholics are in fact Catholic, because they say so, is buying into their over inflated perception of the power and influence they have in society.

wokingvoter

topmanamillion wrote: »

Absolutely what's so strange about that?
Excommunication is a mad notion that everyone is supposed to fear.
I'm not expecting a certificate but I was thinking maybe there'd be a letter from a bishop or some sort of correspondence if I sought it.

What would this letter say? Would it say
"Please please please don't leave! Your contribution has been immeasurable! We only have about a billion members left! I'm personally devastated at the very idea you'd leave , but if your sure your never ever ever ever going to come near us again, then ok, here, your excommunicated. Go right ahead and get yourself a tattoo or get it shaved into your hair so that others will be in awe at your coolness "
Something along those lines?
I can write a letter like that and get the Archbishop to sign it if you like.

pauldla

topmanamillion wrote: »

Absolutely what's so strange about that?
Excommunication is a mad notion that everyone is supposed to fear.
I'm not expecting a certificate but I was thinking maybe there'd be a letter from a bishop or some sort of correspondence if I sought it.

Well I've never heard of somebody seeking to be excommunicated for the novelty, so I regard it as strange. Usually, when the topic comes up on these pages, it's due to people not understanding what exactly excommunication is; it is, basically, the RCC reasserting authority over an errant follower. I'd suppose that you would need to show that you consider the excommunication to be of come consequence for you for it to be pronounced upon you; and as far as I know, you don't get a letter from the Bishop (but I could well be wrong). If you're seeking to be excommunicated for your own amusement, I don't think you're going to get very far; maybe Netflix might be a better option?

magicbastarder

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I don't know why anyone would buy into this nonsensical assertion from the RCC that no one is 'allowed to leave'. Of course you are allowed to leave. If you decide not to identify as Catholic, then you have left. Acknowledging the absurd, ridiculous assertion that non Catholics are in fact Catholic, because they say so, is buying into their over inflated perception of the power and influence they have in society.

+1
seeking to be excommunicated or somehow officially expelled only gives weight to the rules you supposedly refute.

Hotblack Desiato

That's what I used to think, and then they shut down the process CountMeOut used, and now I wish I hadn't missed the boat

I already know that those ****ers have no power over me. What I want is for them to recognise this. They are already spooked by the large increase in non-church weddings, they know that pressure for secular education is building all the time, if there was a process to 'officially' leave/reject the church/whatever you want to call it, and a significant number of Irish people availed of it, it would seriously weaken their position. And they know this.

Why do you think they stopped it?

There was a post by Atheist Ireland on Twitter a few months back showing that you can commit apostasy still. Technically this means that you leave by joining another religion but some lad was removed from the list of cat lovers by showing that he had become a fully paid member of the Atheist Ireland organisation

Absolam

topmanamillion wrote: »

Absolutely what's so strange about that?
Excommunication is a mad notion that everyone is supposed to fear.
I'm not expecting a certificate but I was thinking maybe there'd be a letter from a bishop or some sort of correspondence if I sought it.

I don't think everyone is supposed to fear it; it's a form of censure. When applied it's supposed to make a Catholic aware that they are at odds with the Church and need to mend their ways (from the Church's point of view).

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I don't know why anyone would buy into this nonsensical assertion from the RCC that no one is 'allowed to leave'.

The Church doesn't say that no one is 'allowed to leave though'. It says that "the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection." So not so much that one can't leave as the bond of belonging cannot be lost; even if one 'leaves' (which kind of misses the concept) on returning one is treated as having never left.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's what I used to think, and then they shut down the process CountMeOut used, and now I wish I hadn't missed the boat

I wouldn't lose any sleep about it; as far as the Church was concerned an act of defection didn't sever the bond of baptism anyway, so countmeout didn't achieve anything other than letting people feel they achieved something.
That said, I wouldn't have lost any sleep about it in the first place.....

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

The Church doesn't say that no one is 'allowed to leave though'. It says that "the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection." So not so much that one can't leave as the bond of belonging cannot be lost; even if one 'leaves' (which kind of misses the concept) on returning one is treated as having never left.

So what you're saying is the church is like a crazy nutbag ex-girlfriend who thinks the relationship has never ended?

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why do you think they stopped it?

I think it was discussed fully on a couple of other thread a ways back, but there is a whole thing about why on vatican.va The short version is the purpose of the act of defection was to allow people to demonstrate a particular position with regards to the Church that would enable them to engage in a mixed marriage in good faith; the Church altered it's stance on what was required when engaging in a mixed marriage rendering the requirement for an act of defection obsolete. Meanwhile those who had seized on the word 'defection' as appearing to mean something it actually didn't were left feeling hard done by since they couldn't now engage in it. Though to my mind those who did defect should be the ones feeling hard done by since it never meant what they thought it did; a quick repentance and confession and they would have been full on Catholics again with nary a stain on their religious credentials.

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

So what you're saying is the church is like a crazy nutbag ex-girlfriend who thinks the relationship has never ended?

Oh no, not at all. The Church knows it can never end..... EVER.

Bristolscale7

Heinous crimes like raping children are not enough to get one excommunicated. Based on the history of the Catholic Church I'd say the best way to get excommunicated is to declare yourself the true Pope and tell your followers that the guy in Rome is Satan's spawn.

vibe666

i think it's an italian thing!

uck51js9zml2yt

topmanamillion wrote: »

Anyone know of a way to do this? That doesn't involve 7 trials or a bit of alone time in the desert.
I'd be really interested in getting excommunicated.
There'd be a novelty factor to it and any excommunication that I got would be framed and have pride of place.

I take it that since you're posting in A&A that you're not catholic so its a mute point really.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think everyone is supposed to fear it; it's a form of censure. When applied it's supposed to make a Catholic aware that they are at odds with the Church and need to mend their ways (from the Church's point of view).

The Church doesn't say that no one is 'allowed to leave though'. It says that "the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection." So not so much that one can't leave as the bond of belonging cannot be lost; even if one 'leaves' (which kind of misses the concept) on returning one is treated as having never left.
I wouldn't lose any sleep about it; as far as the Church was concerned an act of defection didn't sever the bond of baptism anyway, so countmeout didn't achieve anything other than letting people feel they achieved something.
That said, I wouldn't have lost any sleep about it in the first place.....

These assertions are nonsensical and extremely arrogant (not your post, the position of the RCC on the matter). If a person decides that they do not believe in the RC religion, or God at all, and that they have no bond with the RC church, then they do not. It is not for the church to decide whether or not a person has a bond with them. I swore allegiance to the Girlguides once, however I am not a Girlguide and do not have any bond with the organisation. Babies and children do not choose to be baptised, so the RCC claiming a forced 'eternal bond' is completely illegitimate in the world of logic (from which I do realise they are far removed).

Bristolscale7

Related, the Mormons posthumously baptise Jews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/jews-take-issue-with-posthumous-mormon-baptisms-beliefs.html?_r=0

lazygal

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Related, the Mormons posthumously baptise Jews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/jews-take-issue-with-posthumous-mormon-baptisms-beliefs.html?_r=0

They baptise anyone who didn't die as a Mormon. Not just jews.

Huntergonzo

I thought once or twice about writing to the local bishop to see if I could formally leave the church. But then I thought fúck that, that only gives them the power of refusal so I decided to formally declared myself a non-catholic, it's quick, simple and satisfying.

So there you have it, I'm offically no longer a catholic because I said so, now put that in your pipe and smoke it! :-)

Pherekydes

Misael Immense Case wrote: »

I take it that since you're posting in A&A that you're not catholic so its a mute point really.

It's not a mute point; he's being very vocal about it.

galljga1

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

These assertions are nonsensical and extremely arrogant (not your post, the position of the RCC on the matter). If a person decides that they do not believe in the RC religion, or God at all, and that they have no bond with the RC church, then they do not. It is not for the church to decide whether or not a person has a bond with them. I swore allegiance to the Girlguides once, however I am not a Girlguide and do not have any bond with the organisation. Babies and children do not choose to be baptised, so the RCC claiming a forced 'eternal bond' is completely illegitimate in the world of logic (from which I do realise they are far removed).

I hear you collect stamps.

lazygal

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not a mute point; he's being very vocal about it.

Would it be a moot point maybe?

magicbastarder

i think you missed the joke.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

These assertions are nonsensical and extremely arrogant (not your post, the position of the RCC on the matter). If a person decides that they do not believe in the RC religion, or God at all, and that they have no bond with the RC church, then they do not. It is not for the church to decide whether or not a person has a bond with them. I swore allegiance to the Girlguides once, however I am not a Girlguide and do not have any bond with the organisation. Babies and children do not choose to be baptised, so the RCC claiming a forced 'eternal bond' is completely illegitimate in the world of logic (from which I do realise they are far removed).

I think if you see the assertions as nonsensical or arrogant you're simply failing to see the Church's point of view; if you could, you'd see they're neither nonsensical or arrogant. To be entirely fair I would suggest that far more thought and consideration has gone into how the Catholic Church perceives the sacrament of baptism than has gone into your own assertion that it is 'completely illegitimate in the world of logic'.

But it only makes a difference if you want to participate in the Church. If you don't, what their opinion on the state of your soul is will not make any difference to you.

PS Did you really swear allegiance to the Girl Guides? The Girl Guides I know never swore allegiance to the organisation, though they promised to obey the Girl Guide Law :-)

Cabaal

Absolam wrote: »

I think if you see the assertions as nonsensical or arrogant you're simply failing to see the Church's point of view; if you could, you'd see they're neither nonsensical or arrogant. To be entirely fair I would suggest that far more thought and consideration has gone into how the Catholic Church perceives the sacrament of baptism than has gone into your own assertion that it is 'completely illegitimate in the world of logic'.

But it only makes a difference if you want to participate in the Church. If you don't, what their opinion on the state of your soul is will not make any difference to you.

Thats not the case at all though, many people are understandably extremely offended by the church's stance on a number of issues and the abuse they allowed to happen. As such they want NOTHING to do with the organisation upto and including the church listing them as a member.

Its only right for the church to remove members who do in no way want to be associated with it anymore.

You seem to think its ok for the church to refuse to do this, but ask yourself this. If your parents made you a member of the KKK when you were born and the KKK still classed you as a member and refused to strike you off your membership list would you be ok with that?

Sure you may not be a practicing KKK member but if they believed "once a KKK'er always a KKK'er" you're telling me you'd be fine with the KKK still listing you as a member?

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

PS Did you really swear allegiance to the Girl Guides? The Girl Guides I know never swore allegiance to the organisation, though they promised to obey the Girl Guide Law :-)

Haha I can't remember exactly what way it was, so looked it up. OK, it wasn't exactly an oath of allegiance, but one has to make a promise to 'live by girl guide law'. Because I made that promise when I was 10 however, it would be a bit silly if the NZ Girl Guides stated that they hold me to it now, and consider me a current member of the NZ Girl Guides, because I made that promise as a 10 year old. Similar to the RCC's stance on baptism.

https://www.girlguidingnz.org.nz/about-us/about-girlguiding-new-zealand/promise-and-law

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats not the case at all though, many people are understandably extremely offended by the church's stance on a number of issues and the abuse they allowed to happen. As such they want NOTHING to do with the organisation upto and including the church listing them as a member.

That's perfectly understandable. Even though the Church doesn't list them as a member, I understand a desire to disassociate oneself from an organisation one is fundamentally at odds with, but claiming their theological assertions are nonsensical and extremely arrogant is simply failing to grasp what they're saying in those assertions.

Cabaal wrote: »

Its only right for the church to remove members who do in no way want to be associated with it anymore.

The Church doesn't claim to have members; it's not a club. Nor is there any reason think it's only right that it should remove members who don't want to be associated with it, it's right that those members should remove themselves.

Cabaal wrote: »

You seem to think its ok for the church to refuse to do this, but ask yourself this. If your parents made you a member of the KKK when you were born and the KKK still classed you as a member and refused to strike you off your membership list would you be ok with that?

I've taken the time to consider what the meaning of baptism is within the Church, and what it entails. It means I can see why your comparison is fundamentally flawed, but if you don't want to take the time to understand it, see if you can get a membership list of the Catholic Church. If you can't find your name on the Church's membership list, will you agree you don't need to have your name taken off it?

Cabaal wrote: »

Sure you may not be a practicing KKK member but if they believed "once a KKK'er always a KKK'er" you'd telling me you'd be fine with the KKK still listing you as a member?

Like I said, the comparison is fundamentally flawed; the Church doesn't refuse to take peoples names off its membership list. It doesn't have a membership list. It doesn't have members; the Catechism states "we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission" and 'Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church." The principle is that people aren't members of the Church, people are the Church.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Haha I can't remember exactly what way it was, so looked it up. OK, it wasn't exactly an oath of allegiance, but one has to make a promise to 'live by girl guide law'. Because I made that promise when I was 10 however, it would be a bit silly if the NZ Girl Guides stated that they hold me to it now, and consider me a current member of the NZ Girl Guides, because I made that promise as a 10 year old. Similar to the RCC's stance on baptism.

If you don't still try to live by the Girl Guide Law Kiwi, then I'm very disappointed in you, even if the Girl Guides don't come after you to hold you to it The Kiwi Girl Guide Law (in fact most of the Scouting Laws I've come across) is not a bad set of rules to live your life by.

Law
As a Guide I will try to:
be honest and trustworthy.
be friendly and cheerful.
be a good team member.
be responsible for what I say and do.
respect and help other people.
use my time and abilities wisely.
face challenges and learn from experiences.
care for the environment.

FishOnABike

galljga1 wrote: »

I hear you collect stamps.

Should we all collect stamps now ?

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

If you don't still try to live by the Girl Guide Law Kiwi, then I'm very disappointed in you, even if the Girl Guides don't come after you to hold you to it The Kiwi Girl Guide Law (in fact most of the Scouting Laws I've come across) is not a bad set of rules to live your life by.

Law
As a Guide I will try to:
be honest and trustworthy.
be friendly and cheerful.
be a good team member.
be responsible for what I say and do.
respect and help other people.
use my time and abilities wisely.
face challenges and learn from experiences.
care for the environment.

I am currently sitting wasting lots of time on Boards. I have failed the Girl Guides. Will I be excommunicated?

wokingvoter

Absolam on this forum cheers me up at the end of a long working day. His calm patient reasoning is a joy to behold, and you are all very lucky that he's here to answer so many, many questions.

Shrap

wokingvoter wrote: »

Absolam on this forum cheers me up at the end of a long working day. His calm patient reasoning is a joy to behold, and you are all very lucky that he's here to answer so many, many questions.

....and in such detail too :pac: Whatever turns you on really. I personally prefer to read people reasoning out their own opinions rather than reasoning for the sake of being the most reasonable.

wokingvoter

Shrap wrote: »

....and in such detail too :pac: Whatever turns you on really. I personally prefer to read people reasoning out their own opinions rather than reasoning for the sake of being the most reasonable.

Yep, he surely is a thorn in your side!

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am currently sitting wasting lots of time on Boards. I have failed the Girl Guides. Will I be excommunicated?

Dunno... some of those Brown Owls were pretty tough cookies as I recall, so you might be in for at least a stern talking to if they catch up with you. You should probably put down the keyboard and go and help some old people with their shopping

EDIT: Which is not to infer help with shopping is the best use of your time and abilities! Only that it is one of the things we were exhorted to do when I was a young cub scout.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

....and in such detail too :pac: Whatever turns you on really. I personally prefer to read people reasoning out their own opinions rather than reasoning for the sake of being the most reasonable.

If it makes you feel more turned on (though I can't imagine how), it is my opinion that trying to be reasonable when reasoning out your opinions often results in a more reasonable opinion