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.
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
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.
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.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
robindch wrote: » BTW, http://www.catholic.ie redirects to http://www.notme.ie after somebody rather famously forgot to renew the catholic.ie domain.
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.
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.
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.
ScumLord wrote: » 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.
ScumLord wrote: » None of that will be an issue in Ireland though. So instead he has to pretend that the thing he had no say in means anything? 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.
infogiver wrote: » Sure who is asking him to "pretend" anything? Not the Church? They're not asking him anything at all. Nada. Zilch. He is asking for the impossible. For people to pretend something DIDNT happen, when it quite clearly did. He can't pretend that he wasn't baptised. He was. What do you want the Church to do exactly? The record says he was baptised on a particular date and who his parents were/are and who did the baptising and who were/are the godparents. This actually happened. He nor the priest nor anyone can't make it "unhappen". What is it ideally you would like to happen? Get a time machine and go back?
oldrnwisr wrote: » You don't really need a time machine. As I explained in my last post marriage gives us an indication as to what is possible. A religious marriage (as opposed to a legal marriage) is recorded in the church records as having happened. If subsequently, it is found that one or other party to the marriage was coerced, then the marriage is deemed null and void and a notation is made on the appropriate record. Similarly, since infant children aren't capable of giving consent, once said lack of consent and disagreement with the rite itself are brought to the attention of the church, they could simply make a notation in the church record declaring the baptism null and void. Simples. As TheChizler and others have pointed out there is an argument to be made here about validating the church's rules by buying into them. However, as an ex-Catholic who has been through the countmeout process, there was a certain element of closure in telling the church that not only did you no longer believe their teachings but that you were sufficiently repulsed by their behaviour that you formally signalled your intention to sever all ties. It's not just about not believing but letting the church know that you don't believe.
infogiver wrote: » You've severed all ties and you've got closure but you can't resist or leave the whole thing be. You come back over and over to comment and repeat your declaration that your "done with it". How do you explain that?
oldrnwisr wrote: » Explain what exactly? You've made the comment that I come back over and over and yet this is only my fourth post in this thread. The first post was to explain the difference between birth and baptismal certs to Walter H Price. The second post was responding to your point about how baptism was a historic event which was incapable of being changed. You didn't engage with the point I made but rather posted the exact same point again. Now when I responded to your point a second time you again failed to engage with the point and brushed it aside with a snide comment. So maybe you can explain how it is that I've come back over and over and maybe even better you can actually respond to the point that I made?
infogiver wrote: » If I'd cut my ties with something, divorced myself so to speak, left it all behind etc I'd imagine I'd be actively avoiding becoming involved in any discussions, cyber or real life on that subject Life's too short and all that I'm interested in the psychology of it I suppose It's like "I'm leaving...but one last thing..." I've left things behind me in my time, with good reasons, like you. Men, jobs, friendships etc and once I've made up my mind there's no turning back. It's as if that person that job that relationship never existed. I don't properly understand the born again atheists continually returning to the subject that caused them so much pain and anger. That's all
Confused mum84 wrote: » Just out of interest does the Catholic Church maintain some sort of ledger of members I.e. When a child is baptised does their details get added to a list that's maintained centrally ?
