Is there anyway out ?

Walter H Price

A few months ago a friend of mine found out his uncle (whom hes very close too) had been abused by a priest as a child , now my mate would never have been religious by any stretch anyway , but he decided after his uncle told the family about what happened to him that he wanted to effectively officially leave the RCC.

This is something i had thought about doing myself a few times as well but was never actually engaged enough to go about looking into doing it. Long story short my mate was over for dinner recently and i just asked him more in passing and out of interest, if he had he actually managed to officially leave the church he said he had't and that he wasn't sure you actually could he had done a bit of research online and that and it looked like it was an option up until a few years back but couldn't be done now , Is this true ?

Just wondering if anyone here knows if there is anyway you can go about annulling (in effect) your baptism or conformation and officially leaving the RCC or is it a bit of a once your in your type cult. Just wondering really , Has anyone on here tried to do this and run into similar problems or has anyone actualy managed to do it ?

Cabaal

From the Catholic Church's viewpoint, they closed the loop hole that used to be promoted by countmeout.ie

So since then as far as the church is concerned, once a catholic, always a catholic. Its like hotel California

Nearest you'll get is this http://www.notme.ie/2014/10/170/

Walter H Price

Cabaal wrote: »

From the Catholic Church's viewpoint, they closed the loop hole that used to be promoted by countmeout.ie

So since then as far as the church is concerned, once a catholic, always a catholic. Its like hotel California

Closest you'll get is this http://www.notme.ie/2014/10/170/

That's really surprising ,

you know i thought when i asked him the other night he was making it up a bit that it was so hard to leave. I thought maybe he was trying to save a bit of face because he was so fire and brimstone about the whole leaving the church thing over the summer, he made Richard Dawkins sound like an alter boy , totally understandable of course given what his uncle went through and that.

I had just assumed it would be a fairly strait forward thing to do , write to a bishop or fill out some form or other

robindch

Walter H Price wrote: »

he wanted to effectively officially leave the RCC

Short answer is he won't be able to, at least, not according to the RCC anyway.

The longer answer is that the church is playing a set of language games with the topic and you've to figure out to whom you want to devolve the power to make the determination that he's managed to "leave the RCC" (whatever that means). I've tried to find the list of attributes + processes by which the RCC claims that an individual becomes "a catholic" in good standing, but haven't been able to find a definitive list. Baptism is one of the processes, and it's considered the main one, but things like confirmation, communion and the acceptance of various doctrines are listed in various places as requirements too.

A few years ago, there was a website (here) which used what was arguably a loophole in Canon Law which allowed people to register that they did not consider themselves "catholic" and the church would respond acknowledging this. However, the loophole was closed and the best that can be done these days is that you can request the RCC to annotate the relevant baptismal register to indicate that you no longer consider yourself a catholic - and they may or may not acknowledge that they've done this. Be aware that there are rumours that such an annotation, or belief that an individual did not consider themselves a catholic, can result in the RCC refusing access to a graveyard for the grieving family of a dead atheist. See this news item.

However, the RCC won't acknowledge that you are no longer a catholic, since they assert that once one has become a catholic (via undergoing the debatable list of processes), or once one has at one point believed that one is a catholic (via processes, plus beliefs), then one has acquired a characteristic which one cannot then be removed. The RCC justifies this by means of the related, but irrelevant, point that the baptismal register is a register of an event and you can't delete an event from the past. They do not discuss or admit the possibility of a process which removes whatever characteristic they claim is added by baptism (etc). Sorry this is so wordy, but that's what the RCC does.

A simpler, and perhaps more cathartic process, might be for your friend's uncle to write a short letter to the local PP, saying that he no longer wants to be considered a member of the RCC, perhaps outlining the reasons why, and simply sitting back and seeing what happens - some priests might do the decent thing and acknowledge the non-membership (by mistake) or at least, acknowledge the letter and the uncle's wishes. Some might send back an unhelpful response all the same though and he'll need to be prepared for that.

See Cabaal's comment on Hotel California.

TheChizler

Personally I'm happy with just not supporting them in any way. They can believe me to be a Catholic, but I don't let it have any impact on my life.

magicbastarder

yeah, i'm definitely in the 'i'm not validating their rules by applying for something based on them' camp.

filbert the fox

Just do the modern thing - txt them and tell them it's all off!

ScumLord

There doesn't seem to be anything stopping Catholics changing religion though.

He could switch to Islam, you can then leave that religion. Plus create some very frightening statistics for the Catholic church.

Walter H Price

robindch wrote: »

Short answer is he won't be able to, at least, not according to the RCC anyway.

The longer answer is that the church is playing a set of language games with the topic and you've to figure out to whom you want to devolve the power to make the determination that he's managed to "leave the RCC" (whatever that means). I've tried to find the list of attributes + processes by which the RCC claims that an individual becomes "a catholic" in good standing, but haven't been able to find a definitive list. Baptism is one of the processes, and it's considered the main one, but things like confirmation, communion and the acceptance of various doctrines are listed in various places as requirements too.

A few years ago, there was a website (here) which used what was arguably a loophole in Canon Law which allowed people to register that they did not consider themselves "catholic" and the church would respond acknowledging this. However, the loophole was closed and the best that can be done these days is that you can request the RCC to annotate the relevant baptismal register to indicate that you no longer consider yourself a catholic - and they may or may not acknowledge that they've done this. Be aware that there are rumours that such an annotation, or belief that an individual did not consider themselves a catholic, can result in the RCC refusing access to a graveyard for the grieving family of a dead atheist. See this news item.

However, the RCC won't acknowledge that you are no longer a catholic, since they assert that once one has become a catholic (via undergoing the debatable list of processes), or once one has at one point believed that one is a catholic (via processes, plus beliefs), then one has acquired a characteristic which one cannot then be removed. The RCC justifies this by means of the related, but irrelevant, point that the baptismal register is a register of an event and you can't delete an event from the past. They do not discuss or admit the possibility of a process which removes whatever characteristic they claim is added by baptism (etc). Sorry this is so wordy, but that's what the RCC does.

A simpler, and perhaps more cathartic process, might be for your friend's uncle to write a short letter to the local PP, saying that he no longer wants to be considered a member of the RCC, perhaps outlining the reasons why, and simply sitting back and seeing what happens - some priests might do the decent thing and acknowledge the non-membership (by mistake) or at least, acknowledge the letter and the uncle's wishes. Some might send back an unhelpful response all the same though and he'll need to be prepared for that.

See Cabaal's comment on Hotel California.

That's mad so. so in affect theres no way out

looksee

Leaving Islam can have some even dodgier results, I think?

I like the point about not validating the rules by asking about them.

looksee

The RCC justifies this by means of the related, but irrelevant, point that the baptismal register is a register of an event and you can't delete an event from the past.

But yet a marriage is registered as an event, and it is possible to have it annulled. Surely if you argue that the baptism was not legitimate as you had not given permission for it and were not mature enough at 12 to confirm this life decision, it should automatically be invalid? After all an organisation that can offer masses for the (unknown) intentions of a list of names that do not even have to be seen to be included, it can cope with undoing something it did without permission.

Jayop

What do you need to do to get excommunicated?

magicbastarder

Walter H Price wrote: »

That's mad so. so in affect theres no way out

it's not like you're trapped, a believing catholic with no way to stop believing.

Stealthfins

Get dried out....

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

robindch wrote: »

...
can result in the RCC refusing access to a graveyard for the grieving family of a dead atheist. See this news item.
.

Her remains could not be buried in Donegal. She was buried in a Derry city cemetery instead.

The city council's cemeteries department, when asked if they could bury an atheist, said they had different areas in the municipal graveyard for Catholics, Protestants and even Muslims.

Asked whether they were starting an atheist section for Mrs Greenslade the reply was: "No, we're putting her in with the Protestants."

well. I guess that answers that question...

Walter H Price

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not like you're trapped, a believing catholic with no way to stop believing.

its not really a case of belief obviously faith isn't compulsory and i haven't ever had a faith only made my communion and confo to keep the nana's happy and because i wanted the cash , i suppose that's why i never got exercised enough to go looking into formally leaving the church myself.

I do understand why my mate wants to be fully removed as a member of the Church from their perspective given the crimes committed againt his uncle and the fact that the church covered it up and moved the priest around.

Is excommunication still a thing ? and if so what do you have to do to get excommunicated

TheChizler

Even if excommunicated the Church considers you a Catholic. Albeit not a very good one. Surely by playing by their rules you validate them?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Walter H Price

TheChizler wrote: »

Even if excommunicated the Church considers you a Catholic. Albeit not a very good one. Surely by playing by their rules you validate them?

So even if you do somthing totaly against the rules or whatever and they in effect kick you of the club , they still count you as a member , how does that work :P

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Id be a bit the same never go except weddings or funerals and at that its only for the couple or the family , i don't take the bread or join in, in any of the jesus says stuff ... if it was an option and easy to do i would probably fill out a form or whatever to ecommunicate myself but like i said never looked into it much myself , what caught my attention was i know how determined my mate was to "leave" the church in the summer but he kinda now seems to have accepted there's no actual way of going about doing that having spent a few months trying to find a way.

ScumLord

looksee wrote: »

Leaving Islam can have some even dodgier results, I think?

In the more extreme Muslim countries they can kill you for leaving Islam, but in more tolerant countries you just leave Islam. If there's no Sharia law to punish you then nothing can happen.

Hotblack Desiato

ScumLord wrote: »

If there's no Sharia law to punish you then nothing can happen.

Apart from what those who take the law into their own hands might do. It's not as if the atheist bloggers getting hacked to death in Bangladesh are being killed legally, but the justice system seems disinclined to do anything much about it, either.

robindch wrote: »

A few years ago, there was a website (here) which used what was arguably a loophole in Canon Law which allowed people to register that they did not consider themselves "catholic" and the church would respond acknowledging this. However, the loophole was closed and the best that can be done these days is that you can request the RCC to annotate the relevant baptismal register to indicate that you no longer consider yourself a catholic - and they may or may not acknowledge that they've done this.

Nitpick - it was countmeout.ie which offered this service - a form letter which you then sent off to the appropriate diocese. I see that countmeout.ie now redirects to notme.ie. Notme.ie was set up by Atheist Ireland after the process CountMeOut used was closed off.

pauldla

Walter H Price wrote: »

So even if you do somthing totaly against the rules or whatever and they in effect kick you of the club , they still count you as a member , how does that work :P


.....

Except they don't kick you out; you're still a member, but you're not allowed to the Spiritual Snack Bar until you mend your ways (or to put it less flippantly, you are no longer in communion with the Church, and are thus excommunicated).

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nitpick - it was countmeout.ie which offered this service - a form letter which you then sent off to the appropriate diocese. I see that countmeout.ie now redirects to notme.ie. Notme.ie was set up by Atheist Ireland after the process CountMeOut used was closed off.

Yes, that's correct - there's only so much detail one can fit into a reply before one begins to look like one suffers from OCD

BTW, http://www.catholic.ie redirects to http://www.notme.ie after somebody rather famously forgot to renew the catholic.ie domain.

Walter H Price

robindch wrote: »

Yes, that's correct - there's only so much detail one can fit into a reply before one begins to look like one suffers from OCD

BTW, http://www.catholic.ie redirects to http://www.notme.ie after somebody rather famously forgot to renew the catholic.ie domain.

so whats the actual difference between not and count me out.

The Catholic.ie thing is brilliant too btw

robindch

Walter H Price wrote: »

so whats the actual difference between not and count me out.

Countmeout was set up by some guy, I believe down in the midlands somewhere and it guided people through whatever process the RCC had at the time.

Once the RCC abandoned that process - and I can't help but wonder if countmeout helped hasten its demise - countmeout went into something of a decline and I believe the site was taken over some while later by AI, then rebranded as notme.ie with the guidance it has now on how to follow the "annotation of the birth registry" procedure.

Walter H Price

robindch wrote: »

Countmeout was set up by some guy, I believe down in the midlands somewhere and it guided people through whatever process the RCC had at the time.

Once the RCC abandoned that process - and I can't help but wonder if countmeout helped hasten its demise - countmeout went into something of a decline and I believe the site was taken over some while later by AI, then rebranded as notme.ie with the guidance it has now on how to follow the "annotation of the birth registry" procedure.

is that effectivly having your religion removed from your birth cert ? so effectively the church would still consider you a member but the state would not ?

Elemonator

What happened to the letter of enunciation?

Walter H Price

Elemonator wrote: »

What happened to the letter of enunciation?

What was that

infogiver

Walter H Price wrote: »

A few months ago a friend of mine found out his uncle (whom hes very close too) had been abused by a priest as a child , now my mate would never have been religious by any stretch anyway , but he decided after his uncle told the family about what happened to him that he wanted to effectively officially leave the RCC.

This is something i had thought about doing myself a few times as well but was never actually engaged enough to go about looking into doing it. Long story short my mate was over for dinner recently and i just asked him more in passing and out of interest, if he had he actually managed to officially leave the church he said he had't and that he wasn't sure you actually could he had done a bit of research online and that and it looked like it was an option up until a few years back but couldn't be done now , Is this true ?

Just wondering if anyone here knows if there is anyway you can go about annulling (in effect) your baptism or conformation and officially leaving the RCC or is it a bit of a once your in your type cult. Just wondering really , Has anyone on here tried to do this and run into similar problems or has anyone actualy managed to do it ?

I'm sorry that your friend has had such a sad experience.
If he was baptised confirmed married etc within the Rites of RCC then there's no possible way to rewrite history and "pretend" that he wasn't baptised etc etc
There is a written record of his receiving those sacraments and crossing his name of will not mean that it didn't happen any more than crossing my name off the register of births will mean that I wasn't born.
There isn't a list of RCC members anywhere
The Church is the people, not the hierarchy, not the buildings
Probably best to just divorce himself from RCC in his own head or even have some kind of symbolic burning of Certificates at home.

oldrnwisr

Walter H Price wrote: »

is that effectivly having your religion removed from your birth cert ? so effectively the church would still consider you a member but the state would not ?

Your religion isn't recorded on your birth certificate. I think you're getting birth cert and baptismal cert mixed up. Your birth certificate is a legal document of the state (Civil Registration Act 2004) which records the following information:

• First name(s) and surname(s) of the person as registered
• Date of birth (there is a checkbox which should be selected if the applicant is not sure of the exact date and has chosen an approximate date)
• Gender
• Father's full name (first name(s) and surname(s)
• Mother's first name(s) and birth surname(s)

The only passing reference to religion is a field which can be filled in if the child is baptised at a later date under a different name to that recorded on the birth certificate.





By contrast, a baptismal cert is an internal church document which gets used among other things, for weddings and, unfortunately, to act as an obstacle in getting your child into the local national school.



Following the old countmeout process or the manual process detailed at notme.ie will simply result in an annotation being made on the baptismal register which impacts on your baptismal cert. It doesn't however have any effect on your records held by the state. The state collects this information using the census.

Walter H Price

infogiver wrote: »

I'm sorry that your friend has had such a sad experience.
If he was baptised confirmed married etc within the Rites of RCC then there's no possible way to rewrite history and "pretend" that he wasn't baptised etc etc
There is a written record of his receiving those sacraments and crossing his name of will not mean that it didn't happen any more than crossing my name off the register of births will mean that I wasn't born.
There isn't a list of RCC members anywhere
The Church is the people, not the hierarchy, not the buildings
Probably best to just divorce himself from RCC in his own head or even have some kind of symbolic burning of Certificates at home.

Hes not married so its really only the other three , but surely it make' sense that you can renounce your faith and the Church records no longer record you as a catholic.

we all said similar to what you suggested to him at the time that he just mentally divorce himself from it but it didn't seem enough for him , and i do get why. i was more asking here because i was skeptical that it could be that hard to have it officially recognized by the church that you have renounced your faith and longer identify as a catholic. Im just surprised and kind of interested as to why it is so difficult, particularly given the fact that the 3 sacraments you mention where you confirm your faith or are entered in to the faith are all done when your a child under 12

.......

This post has been deleted.

Walter H Price

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Your religion isn't recorded on your birth certificate. I think you're getting birth cert and baptismal cert mixed up. Your birth certificate is a legal document of the state (Civil Registration Act 2004) which records the following information:

• First name(s) and surname(s) of the person as registered
• Date of birth (there is a checkbox which should be selected if the applicant is not sure of the exact date and has chosen an approximate date)
• Gender
• Father's full name (first name(s) and surname(s)
• Mother's first name(s) and birth surname(s)

The only passing reference to religion is a field which can be filled in if the child is baptised at a later date under a different name to that recorded on the birth certificate.





By contrast, a baptismal cert is an internal church document which gets used among other things, for weddings and, unfortunately, to act as an obstacle in getting your child into the local national school.



Following the old countmeout process or the manual process detailed at notme.ie will simply result in an annotation being made on the baptismal register which impacts on your baptismal cert. It doesn't however have any effect on your records held by the state. The state collects this information using the census.

im not really ofey with any of the documention at all to be honest hahaha

So basicly thae by going via count me out you can follow to steps to have your baptisimal record amended , to say what , just that you no longer consider yourself a roman catholic or something along those lines.

infogiver

Walter H Price wrote: »

Hes not married so its really only the other three , but surely it make' sense that you can renounce your faith and the Church records no longer record you as a catholic.

we all said similar to what you suggested to him at the time that he just mentally divorce himself from it but it didn't seem enough for him , and i do get why. i was more asking here because i was skeptical that it could be that hard to have it officially recognized by the church that you have renounced your faith and longer identify as a catholic. Im just surprised and kind of interested as to why it is so difficult, particularly given the fact that the 3 sacraments you mention where you confirm your faith or are entered in to the faith are all done when your a child under 12

Your baptismal certificate reflects the baptismal record which states the FACT that you were baptised. It's simply impossible to "undo" a fact . Do you agree?
The priest cannot cross out the record and say Joe Bloggs wasn't baptised at all.
That would be completely untrue.

oldrnwisr

infogiver wrote: »

I'm sorry that your friend has had such a sad experience.
If he was baptised confirmed married etc within the Rites of RCC then there's no possible way to rewrite history and "pretend" that he wasn't baptised etc etc
There is a written record of his receiving those sacraments and crossing his name of will not mean that it didn't happen any more than crossing my name off the register of births will mean that I wasn't born.
There isn't a list of RCC members anywhere
The Church is the people, not the hierarchy, not the buildings
Probably best to just divorce himself from RCC in his own head or even have some kind of symbolic burning of Certificates at home.

Well you see here's the thing. Marriage is one of the things you list that there's "no possible way to rewrite history". Except that's not the case. Section 1625 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:

"The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law"

So not only does the rites of the CC provide for negating a sacrament ex-post facto, this section also provides a means for allowing baptisms to be similarly annulled.

If consent is such a deeply important element of marriage, then why shouldn't it also be a feature of what is arguably an even more important relationship with God, namely baptism. Since you didn't consent to being baptised (or more likely were incapable of giving consent) then it stands to reason that this would be appropriate grounds for having it annulled. Instead, however, it would seem that the church just makes up the rules, not to be consistent, but to suit itself.

Walter H Price wrote: »

im not really ofey with any of the documention at all to be honest hahaha

So basicly thae by going via count me out you can follow to steps to have your baptisimal record amended , to say what , just that you no longer consider yourself a roman catholic or something along those lines.

The record gets amended to say that you had followed the Actus Formalis Defectionis ab Ecclesia Catholica, a formal act of defection from the church. I'm not sure what the exact wording was, I don't have the letter I received to hand but basically it was that you had complied with the terms of the defection above.

TheChizler

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This has been debated many times on this forum; there's little to no evidence that the church uses baptismal records as part of lobbying. It would be a very awkward source to derive meaningful data from; people can move away, change religion, die, etc. If they used that as a basis it would give hugely inaccurate numbers without some serious statistical massaging. Much easier to use the readily available census stats, which they do use.

In all likelyhood the baptismal record sits untouched in a filing cabinet from baptism until either it being amended or an ancestor into genealogy unearths it.

magicbastarder

there's a big difference between the status of a marriage and of a baptism though; in that a baptism has no weight in law, but it'd be a damn odd marriage which has no weight in law.
you can get your marriage annulled by the church, sure, but that makes little difference to the legal process you have to go through to get the state to recognise the same.

iirc (citation needed) an annulment would be granted on certain grounds, such as failure to consummate, etc.; rather than an 'i've changed my mind' basis.

all that said, it still comes down to the fact that if you ask to be excluded from the church according to their rules, you are agreeing that their rules actually matter.

Cabaal

TheChizler wrote: »

This has been debated many times on this forum; there's little to no evidence that the church uses baptismal records as part of lobbying. .

Indeed it has been,
However, one has to question why the Church closed the opt-out loophole.
Surely it was no skin off their nose to loose "members" that didn't believe in their religion.

Why would you want to keep members on the books (numbers wise) that don't want to be members and don't believe in your core beliefs? It boggles the mind.

magicbastarder

Cabaal wrote: »

However, one has to question why the Church closed the opt-out loophole.
Surely it was no skin off their nose to loose "members" that didn't believe in their religion.

Why would you want to keep members on the books (numbers wise) that don't want to be members and don't believe in your core beliefs? It boggles the mind.

manpower, maybe?
has anyone actually checked that the note was actually made for them in the baptismal records?
and fwiw, i have no issue with the defence of 'it's an historical record'. i'm on a baptismal roll somewhere, but i don't believe it makes me a member of the church.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

- not being under constraint;

- not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law"

So not only does the rites of the CC provide for negating a sacrament ex-post facto, this section also provides a means for allowing baptisms to be similarly annulled.

Been a while since I looked at the relevant prose, but my memory is that "not impeded by any natural ... law" includes the possibility that at least one participant is unable to contribute to the conception of a child. In the case of a subsequent anulment, the marriage isn't "uncreated", but declared not to have happened in the first place since the conditions for a valid marriage were not met.

The prose doesn't discuss the validity of marriages where the people knew in advance - for example, due to age or illness - that they were unable to conceive.

Anyhow, I have to hand it to the Vatican - the intentional slipperiness of their prose is a wonderful thing.

Huntergonzo

Cabaal wrote: »

Indeed it has been,
However, one has to question why the Church closed the opt-out loophole.
Surely it was no skin off their nose to loose "members" that didn't believe in their religion.

Why would you want to keep members on the books (numbers wise) that don't want to be members and don't believe in your core beliefs? It boggles the mind.

I suppose with the Catholic Church we're talking about an organisation that finds things like facts, legitimacy, consistency and honesty all very inconvenient and unwelcome. Nothing would surprise me about them at this stage, they really are shameless in the extreme.

looksee

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's a big difference between the status of a marriage and of a baptism though; in that a baptism has no weight in law, but it'd be a damn odd marriage which has no weight in law.
you can get your marriage annulled by the church, sure, but that makes little difference to the legal process you have to go through to get the state to recognise the same.

iirc (citation needed) an annulment would be granted on certain grounds, such as failure to consummate, etc.; rather than an 'i've changed my mind' basis.

all that said, it still comes down to the fact that if you ask to be excluded from the church according to their rules, you are agreeing that their rules actually matter.

A religious marriage has no weight in law either. It is possible for the legal part to take place during a religious wedding, but if the marriage gets annulled you will still have to have a state divorce to make it legal in a civil sense.

Huntergonzo

Just in response to the OP, I'm sure this point has been made a few times but just to back it up, don't bother asking the church for permission to leave, that just validates their already illegitimate (as I honestly see it) claim over you.

Just declare yourself a non catholic (privately or publicly, whatever takes your fancy) and it's done. Let's be honest, probably very very few of us actually willingly singed up as informed adults anyway, for most of us it was done well before we had any opinion or say in the matter.

Anyway, I don't recognise the church as a legitimate organisation, it's just a load of silly nonsense, so I couldn't care less what their opinion of me is and there's a pretty good chance they have no opinion of me because they never see me!

magicbastarder

looksee wrote: »

A religious marriage has no weight in law either. It is possible for the legal part to take place during a religious wedding, but if the marriage gets annulled you will still have to have a state divorce to make it legal in a civil sense.

that's exactly what i was getting at. that an annulment is usually the least of your worries in a marriage gone wrong.

looksee

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Just in response to the OP, I'm sure this point has been made a few times but just to back it up, don't bother asking the church for permission to leave, that just validates their already illegitimate (as I honestly see it) claim over you.

Just declare yourself a non catholic (privately or publicly, whatever takes your fancy) and it's done. Let's be honest, probably very very few of us actually willingly singed up as informed adults anyway, for most of us it was done well before we had any opinion or say in the matter.

Anyway, I don't recognise the church as a legitimate organisation, it's just a load of silly nonsense, so I couldn't care less what their opinion of me is and there's a pretty good chance they have no opinion of me because they never see me!

That is fine, but the point is that the State recognises the church as not only a legitimate organisation, but one that has to be given special respect and authority.

magicbastarder

that's not the point though; state recognition of the church is nothing to do with taking your name off the baptismal register, which does precisely nothing to change the state's attitude to the church.

Huntergonzo

looksee wrote: »

That is fine, but the point is that the State recognises the church as not only a legitimate organisation, but one that has to be given special respect and authority.

And that is a national embarrassment which should be strongly opposed, trouble is we have no party in this country committed to opposing this and given the populist nature of politicians it's unlikely to be given much attention anytime soon.

TheChizler

Cabaal wrote: »

Indeed it has been,
However, one has to question why the Church closed the opt-out loophole.
Surely it was no skin off their nose to loose "members" that didn't believe in their religion.

Why would you want to keep members on the books (numbers wise) that don't want to be members and don't believe in your core beliefs? It boggles the mind.

Could be something as simple as reducing admin. When countmeout was running whoever was processing the requests must have been overwhelmed. And since the church will consider you a Catholic no matter what, what is effectively a just an admin intensive note on you in their system probably doesn't rank high on their list of priorities to be spending resources on.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

BTW, http://www.catholic.ie redirects to http://www.notme.ie after somebody rather famously forgot to renew the catholic.ie domain.

domain: ionainstitute.ie
descr: Lolek Ltd
descr: Body Corporate (Ltd,PLC,Company)
descr: Registered Trade Mark Name
admin-c: ACL269-IEDR
tech-c: TDI2-IEDR
registration: 28-August-2006
renewal: 28-August-2017
holder-type: Billable
locked: NO
ren-status: Active
in-zone: 1
nserver: ken.ns.cloudflare.com
nserver: uma.ns.cloudflare.com
source: IEDR

person: Patrick Kenny
nic-hdl: ACL269-IEDR
source: IEDR

person: Technical Department Irish Domains
nic-hdl: TDI2-IEDR
source: IEDR


set your reminders now

Hotblack Desiato

TheChizler wrote: »

Could be something as simple as reducing admin. When countmeout was running whoever was processing the requests must have been overwhelmed. And since the church will consider you a Catholic no matter what, what is effectively a just an admin intensive note on you in their system probably doesn't rank high on their list of priorities to be spending resources on.

Honestly surprised they didn't try and monetise it with an "administration fee" :pac:

ScumLord

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Apart from what those who take the law into their own hands might do. It's not as if the atheist bloggers getting hacked to death in Bangladesh are being killed legally, but the justice system seems disinclined to do anything much about it, either.

None of that will be an issue in Ireland though.

infogiver wrote: »

I'm sorry that your friend has had such a sad experience.
If he was baptised confirmed married etc within the Rites of RCC then there's no possible way to rewrite history and "pretend" that he wasn't baptised etc etc

So instead he has to pretend that the thing he had no say in means anything?

There is a written record of his receiving those sacraments and crossing his name of will not mean that it didn't happen any more than crossing my name off the register of births will mean that I wasn't born.

It would be more like the British government claiming you were British and that you have British ideals because a British politician poured some water on your head when you were a baby.