Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Not being able to leave the Catholic Church - Violation of Human Rights?

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,323 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    MrPudding wrote: »
    So more information is required as to how exactly they use the information. How do they get a meaningful result from it? To me it seems like a very poor tool to use.
    We do need more information, and it’s not easily obtained. But one of the things we do know is that the church’s own membership estimates, in Ireland at any rate, tally reasonably closely with the state measurement, through the census and similar exercises, of religious self-identification.

    In other words, whatever methods the church uses seem to produce a reasonably solid result. That rules out the possibility that they are simply totting up all the people who have ever been baptized in each diocese, and assuming that they are all still Catholics living in that diocese. They may be using the baptismal records, but not in that way.

    A more sophisticated way to use the baptismal records would be look at the total number baptized in each year in the past, and then make assumptions about how many persons in each cohort had died, left the diocese, left the church, etc. Assumptions about death would be reasonably solid, since there is plenty of good actuarial data available. Assumptions about population movements, not quite so solid but, still, they’re not plucked out of the air, since from the census and other sources a reasonable picture of the trends can be built up. Assumptions about how many leave the church would be the weakest of all, but you could build some by looking at things like

    · How many people have notified the bishop/priests that they have left? Even if the notification doesn’t result in an entry in a baptismal register, that doesn’t mean they would ignore it in their estimates (assuming they want an accurate estimate). You’d assume, of course, that the number of notifications was just a fraction of the total number of departures, but if the rate at which you received notifications went up then you would revise upwards your estimate of departures.
    · After allowing for death and migration, how many adult baptized persons are still living in the diocese? Using publicly available demographic information, how many children are they having? How many children are actually being presented for baptism? The gap between the last two figures will give you some handle on how many of the adults have ceased to be Catholics.

    And no doubt there are other ways you could try to frame an estimate of the number of Catholics who have left. The fact that the church estimates, overall, tally reasonably closely with the census results does suggest to me that, whatever methods the church uses to estimate defections must be reasonably robust, since they are producing a result which seems broadly to be more or less about right.

    Be that as it may, if the use of the baptismal register is anything like I have described, then I don’t see that anyone can claim that “the church counts me as a member”. Once the baptismal register figures are adjusted for deaths, population movements, defections, etc, then the church isn’t counting any identifiable person as a member. The church is, in effect, saying that “we know the names of all the people baptized in this diocese in (say) 1985, and we estimate that (say) 80% of them are still members of the church in this diocese, but we are not saying which 80%, because we don’t know.” Even if the church makes no assumption at all that any people have left the church (and I doubt that they do) they still wouldn’t be saying that any particular individual who had, in fact, left the church was still a Catholic. All they are doing is estimating total numbers of Catholics; they are not naming Catholics.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    I think you have misunderstood me. I am all for separation of church and state, in fact, I can't get enough of it. What I meant when I said it was an embarrassment and hoped it would would change was the deference shown to the church. I am embarrassed that governments won't tell the churches what to do. They tell other organisations what to do , why not the church...?

    No offence, but I don’t think “separation of church and state” means what you think it means. In classic liberal political thought it means that (among other things) the governments cannot control the churches. They cannot tell churches what to preach, or how to conduct worship, or how to organize themselves, or what theology or ecclesiology to adopt, or anything of the kind. If you believe that the state should] do these things, then it is seriously misleading of you to say that you favour separation of church and state, unless you also say that you understand the term in a somewhat idiosyncratic way.

    (And, for the purposes of this thread, it might be helpful if you elaborated on what you think the phrase means. In the classic formulation, traced to the writings of John Locke, it’s a consequence of freedom of conscience; people are free to believe and worship as they wish, and the state cannot restrict that freedom.)

    MrPudding wrote: »
    This is just plain wrong. As far as the courts are concerned things like a persons state of mind can be proven. Every time someone is found guilty of murder the prosecution have "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" that the newly labelled murderer intended to cause death or really serious harm. If someone of found not guilty by reason of insanity or is able to rely on the partial defences of diminished responsibility or loss of control the courts are deciding what that persons state of mind was at the time of the crime. They do this by looking at all the evidence. I have bolded the important word, that is the thing religion does not have, and that is why the courts are not interested in the actual nuts and bolts of a person's belief.

    But whether you are a member of a church is as much a question capable of proof as whether you are a member of the IRA, or the Communist Party, or of any other class, category or group. The reason the courts don’t rule on whether you are a member of the church is not because it is incapable of proof, but because it doesn’t matter (for any purpose that would interest a court).

    MrPudding wrote: »
    So how does one satisfy the german tax authorities that they are not a member of a church?

    You make a declaration to the tax authorities that you are not (or have ceased to be) a Catholic. They accept it. Viola!

    MrPudding wrote: »
    I think that there is an arguable breach of Art 11 here. The freedom of association could very well extend to a negative right.

    I think you’ll have to expand on that. Are you saying that the right of freedom of association extends to not having somebody claim you as a “member” of a group if they do so on the basis of a concept of “membership” which you do not accept as valid?

    It’s arguable, I suppose, but I don’t see you - or anyone else - actually making the argument. I’m open to being persuaded, but at this point it looks like a bit of a stretch to me.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Unless you are the personal embodiment of the European court I don't think you are qualified to make this statement.

    Well, that comment cuts both ways;-)

    MrPudding wrote: »
    It is not unreasonable to suppose that art 11, in addition to giving a person the right to be associated with a particular organisation will also give the right not to be associated with a particular organisation.

    Depends. If the only association claimed by the church is (a) this bloke was baptized by us, and (b) that gives him a status with us that he wouldn’t otherwise have, how can you claim that you have a right for that association not to exist? The plain fact of the matter is that that association does exist, and the Convention confers no right to have reality reconstructed.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    As I said, until someone tries it we won't know.

    We can hazard a guess, though!

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Again, neither I nor the courts care for some ridiculous metaphysical mumbo jumbo claim. The issue is using me as a +1 to their membership list for secular purposes.

    Well, as we’ve agreed earlier in this thread, I think, at this point we don’t have any evidence that they do treat MrPudding as a +1 for their membership list for secular purposes (and I myself strongly doubt that they do).

    But park that. Let’s assume we can show that the church’s membership estimates, otherwise accurate, are inflated by a methodology which makes no allowance for people deciding not to be Catholics any more. And let’s also assume that the church employs these inflated membership figures in lobbying the state in relation to public policy. And let’s also assume - this is a big assumption, but let’s make it anyway - that the court accepts that the use of these inflated figures has given the church an advantage or benefit in the formation or implementation of public policy that they wouldn’t otherwise have had. (Let’s say they’re given control of an extra ten schools, to make the example concrete.)

    This is clearly wrong. But who is wronged?

    It seems to me a mistake to argue that the victims are the people who have decided not to be Catholics any more. They are not especially adversely affected, by comparison with the rest of the community, by having the ten extra schools placed under church patronage. The problem here is that the church membership estimate is inaccurate, and the church knows or should know that it is inaccurate, and they should not be advancing it as a consideration in the formation of public policy. The details of how it’s wrong, or the reason why it’s wrong, is not the point. The harm done would be just as great if the church had erred by, say, not properly counting deaths, or emigrations. The people wronged are not the members of the group that was counted in an unjustifiable fashion, but the people affected by the public policy secured in this defective way. I think by trying to shoehorn this into a “freedom of association/freedom of conscience” case you are (a) putting considerable evidentiary and legal barriers in the way of success, and (b) obscuring the real problem, and the real victims.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭ Robert ninja


    Nobody seems to be worried about the issue of the church taking control of your funeral arrangements and you forever being marked down as a catholic death. This is the biggest reason I am upset at the catholic cult not letting me leave.


  • Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭ beerbuddy


    Nobody seems to be worried about the issue of the church taking control of your funeral arrangements and you forever being marked down as a catholic death. This is the biggest reason I am upset at the catholic cult not letting me leave.

    Sorry but there is no concept of leaving because you dont become a member.
    A baptimismal cert means you were baptised nothing else.
    You have left already get on with your life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭ Robert ninja


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Sorry but there is no concept of leaving because you dont become a member.
    A baptimismal cert means you were baptised nothing else.
    You have left already get on with your life.

    Get on with my life? You mean like how I do everyday? Except when I post on boards.ie I guess... then suddenly I'm not getting on with my life and I need you to tell me that. Cheers.

    TwW1X.gif


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,323 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    Nobody seems to be worried about the issue of the church taking control of your funeral arrangements and you forever being marked down as a catholic death.
    Have you considered taking control of your own funeral arrangements? Make a will indicating what you want. Make sure your family knows of your wishes.

    The Catholic church will not give you a funeral unless someone asks for one.
    This is the biggest reason I am upset at the catholic cult not letting me leave.
    Honestly, I’ve often heard of the notion of people being complicit in their own oppression, but the phenomenon is very plainly illustrated on this board.

    You’re free to leave the Catholic church, and the church will make no attempt to stop you. If you insist that not getting a formal acknowledgement from the church that you have left means that you are still a member, you are the person who is identifying yourself as a member of the church. Take responsibility for that, and stop blaming the church.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭ nozzferrahhtoo


    And yet one wonders if when the heads of this organisation go before our politicians campaigning for their views do they do so while citing the number of members that does, or does not, include those people who they cynically changed canon law to prevent the official departure of.

    If "with" then I think we can keep blaming the church and decry the fact quite happily that they are presuming to speak in the name of those people who actually want nothing to do with them. That is why people want to leave it officially, not just some petty snub and an official document.

    If even one of these people cites membership figures to a politician to strengthen their position on a case that includes my name on it - that is one too many.


  • Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭ beerbuddy


    And yet one wonders if when the heads of this organisation go before our politicians campaigning for their views do they do so while citing the number of members that does, or does not, include those people who they cynically changed canon law to prevent the official departure of.

    If "with" then I think we can keep blaming the church and decry the fact quite happily that they are presuming to speak in the name of those people who actually want nothing to do with them. That is why people want to leave it officially, not just some petty snub and an official document.

    If even one of these people cites membership figures to a politician to strengthen their position on a case that includes my name on it - that is one too many.

    give me one quote from an irish bishop saying this ?
    We have x amount of members blah blah blah


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭ nozzferrahhtoo


    Why? I think if you read my post and pay special attention to the "Ifs" in it you might see I never once claimed to have any such information. I said one wonders if they do this and if they do which figures exactly they are quoting. The actual figures... and if so how do they get them... or the doctored figures that retain people who have not defected.

    Do you often ask people for evidence they never claimed to have, or to defend positions they never actually espoused?

    The only thing we can be pretty certain of is that when someone comes before a politician the first concern of that politician is how many people the visitor represents. Such are the vagaries of democracy. If even one of those people has ever stood before a politician and quoted doctored figures with me in it... then that is one too many already. They do not speak for me and I will do anything I can, no matter how small, to ensure they do not try.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭ Robert ninja


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Have you considered taking control of your own funeral arrangements?

    Have so. Done so.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Honestly, I’ve often heard of the notion of people being complicit in their own oppression, but the phenomenon is very plainly illustrated on this board.

    You’re free to leave the Catholic church, and the church will make no attempt to stop you. If you insist that not getting a formal acknowledgement from the church that you have left means that you are still a member, you are the person who is identifying yourself as a member of the church. Take responsibility for that, and stop blaming the church.

    Okay Peregrinus, it's clear from this kind of talk that you definitely do not understand the depth of why myself and others may want an official acknowledgement of separation. You have a very one dimensional thought process about this whole thing and I can tell you don't seem to understand principal.

    Many schools in Ireland do not allow children who are not catholic - This was a problem for me (and was the only reason I was baptised) and will be a problem for my children. I do not want to be seen or remembered iby people or in records as a member of a church in which I truly believe to be a sick cult with a long history of child abuse and I also don't want to sit idly and think my own inaction to do anything about it is enough to do that.

    Most churches will not allow a person to marry unless they carry a baptismal cert, either. Marriage is a secular act now and I don't even have any interest to ever get married but I very easily could get married because guess what, I do have a baptismal cert and am welcome to get married in any catholic church because I will be officially seen and welcomed AS A CATHOLIC. I do not wish this to be so... and yet my wishing for it not to be so doesn't seem to change the reality of things like you would have forum readers here believe. And it's not that I just wish to limit my options, I wish to cut off options that tie in with this sick cult.

    It's the principal of the matter but you really don't seem to get it or think that it doesn't matter and that only practical changes matter and that me just THINKING I'm not a member of the catholic church is enough to change things. As much as I wish I had such power, the world does not actually work that way.
    one wonders if they do this and if they do which figures exactly they are quoting. The actual figures... and if so how do they get them... or the doctored figures that retain people who have not defected.

    The church has a deep hitory of secrecy. Who knows what they really do with such information or where they get their figures - afterall, it's populated with people who believe that the voices in their head is the creator of the universe. The pope himself could say god told him that theres only 50'000 'true' catholics left and that it was a message from god and the flock would have nothing to do but agree and guess that they're one of the honoured. How can one take anything they say seriously or believe or word of them when for centuries they've proven to be liars, hypocrites and child abusers. I wouldn't trust them with my information and wouldn't ever believe a word they say... not with a record like that - a record I now wish to officially detach myself from as much as I can.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,380 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    Most churches will not allow a person to marry unless they carry a baptismal cert, either. Marriage is a secular act now and I don't even have any interest to ever get married but I very easily could get married because guess what, I do have a baptismal cert and am welcome to get married in any catholic church because I will be officially seen and welcomed AS A CATHOLIC. I do not wish this to be so... and yet my wishing for it not to be so doesn't seem to change the reality of things like you would have forum readers here believe. And it's not that I just wish to limit my options, I wish to cut off options that tie in with this sick cult.
    regardless of hat you claim, this comes across like you are saying 'the church wouldn't reject me if i came to them to get married in a church, but i want them to reject me if i ask could i get married in a church, even though i'd never consider asking'.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭ Robert ninja


    regardless of hat you claim, this comes across like you are saying 'the church wouldn't reject me if i came to them to get married in a church, but i want them to reject me if i ask could i get married in a church, even though i'd never consider asking'.

    Indeed it could come accross like that if you like strawmen - or it come accross that I wish to cut my ties to that church on principal that it is a vile organisation, despite the consequences of having options limited.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,380 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    by playing by their rules, you're validating those rules.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭ robindch


    by playing by their rules, you're validating those rules.
    Been a while since it last came up, but why not add a rule to Pastafarianism by which all people who've been baptized are also, de facto, Pastafarians and will be translated to the Great Beer Volcano cum stripper factory upon the occasion of their death?

    It could be held to be on account of "ontological and permanent bonds" which are created by declaration and "not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection" (point 7).


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,796 ✭✭✭ MrPudding


    robindch wrote: »
    Been a while since it last came up, but why not add a rule to Pastafarianism by which all people who've been baptized are also, de facto, Pastafarians and will be translated to the Great Beer Volcano cum stripper factory upon the occasion of their death?

    It could be held to be on account of "ontological and permanent bonds" which are created by declaration and "not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection" (point 7).
    I think, if you don't mind me saying, you are making the same mistake that others here are making.

    I am pretty sure that everyone that want a formal declaration of their non membership does not want it for any reason other than making sure the church does not count them amongst their member when they are telling the government or the EU or the UN how many adherents they have.

    As I have said in previous posts it is not about a religious, metaphysical makey uppy claim, it is about the numbers being used by the church in a secular manner to justify their privileged position in society or organisations like the EU ans UN.

    There are several poster on this particular thread, and other like it, that have been at great pains to point this out. We know we don't need permission to stop being a catholic, we know we can stop whenever we want. What we don't know is how the church gets it membership numbers and if we are counted in those numbers. It is that and nothing more.

    MrP


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,796 ✭✭✭ MrPudding


    by playing by their rules, you're validating those rules.

    This is a theoretical problem. There is a possibility that the catholic church counts people who do not want to be associated with that church in their membership numbers.

    If that is the case then it means the church lobbies governments and other organisations and uses the membership numbers to justify and demand special privileges.

    Some people may not want to be used in that way. If the only way to not be one of those numbers is to follow a process that the church has, then you follow that process.

    This is no different form the myriad of rules and regulation that you follow everyday which you might not agree with. The system is the system and you have to work with it. And to be honest, where the system requires you to effectively say "I want to leave because your organisation is a pile of makey uppy sh1t" I would have to say I question exactly how much validation that provides.

    MrP


  • Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭ beerbuddy


    Do you often ask people for evidence they never claimed to have, or to defend positions they never actually espoused?

    .

    I think the word i am looking for is insinuation, you offered no evidence and will not provide any to the contrary ,you obviously did not come with the opinion that the Catholic church rocks but i can infer from your tone that you will not be asking the local bishop around for Christmas dinner.Ops i said the word Christ maybe i should have said XMAS.

    O my God a cross in xmas i have done it now.
    Omg is said the G word
    Dammit an upper case g


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,323 ✭✭✭✭ Peregrinus


    Okay Peregrinus, it's clear from this kind of talk that you definitely do not understand the depth of why myself and others may want an official acknowledgement of separation. You have a very one dimensional thought process about this whole thing and I can tell you don't seem to understand principal . . .

    No, no. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again now. I absolutely understand, and sympathise with, the desire of someone who leaves the Catholic church to have an explicit acknowledgement from the church that they have left. I completely see why they would have strong feelings about that, and those feelings are entirely justified.

    But where I draw the line is at any suggestion that, because they don’t get such an acknowledgement, therefore they are still members, or are still regarded as members by the church. This just isn’t true, and I’m compelled to point this out, firstly by a regard for truth (and shouldn’t all skeptics be concerned about truth?) and secondly because it seems to me that by creating and propagating ideas like this people are, in effect, creating psychological chains for themselves; they’re choosing to impose church membership on themselves, and then feeling aggrieved about it. This is not a good thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,275 ✭✭✭ nozzferrahhtoo


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    I think the word i am looking for is insinuation, you offered no evidence and will not provide any to the contrary ,you obviously did not come with the opinion that the Catholic church rocks but i can infer from your tone that you will not be asking the local bishop around for Christmas dinner.Ops i said the word Christ maybe i should have said XMAS.

    I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here or how it relates to what I was saying, or what "evidence" you want from me exactly. All I said was I wonder what figures are cited in such cases. More than that I did not say. So what you want from me now is unclear to me and, I rather suspect, to you too. I mean do you actually want evidence to prove that I really do wonder what I am claiming I wonder? Have we reached that level of ridiculousness?

    All we can be somewhat sure of is that politicians when being campaigned by someone will be interested to know how many voters the person represents. When campaigning we therefore would like the politician to think we represent as many people as possible to ensure the politician takes us seriously. So one would be rather forgiven for at least suspecting that given the choice between the actual figures (and I have no idea how they even compile them) and the doctored ones.... which one will actually be used.

    If even one person from that organisation cited a figure including my name, that is one too many. That is all I am saying and this is the reason people worry about whether the church still counts them as "members" or not.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,380 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    MrPudding wrote: »
    This is a theoretical problem. There is a possibility that the catholic church counts people who do not want to be associated with that church in their membership numbers.
    it's been gone over time and again that it's census figures which are used.


  • Moderators Posts: 51,171 ✭✭✭✭ Delirium


    it's been gone over time and again that it's census figures which are used.

    Then why did an diocesan office give me information contrary to that when I asked for information as to how they collate their membership numbers?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,380 Mod ✭✭✭✭ magicbastarder


    they believe that they eat the flesh of their undead leader every time they go to mass, so i don't care what they claim is their membership.
    the census figures are used for government policy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭ Amtmann


    Defection is still possible. In the count me out thread, I posted the following message, which I received from the secretary of the bishop of Cashel and Emly:
    Tremelo wrote: »
    As per my post above, here is the reply:

    Dear xxx,

    The procedure regarding formally defecting from the faith is a simple one. Write to me with your relevant details: Name, Address, Date of Birth, Parents’ Names; Parish of Baptism. I will then process your request. I will contact the Parish Priest of the parish of your baptism and ask him to include an annotation regarding your defection in the baptismal records. Once I have received confirmation from the Parish Priest that he has recorded your formal defection from the Catholic Church in the Baptismal Register, I will forward a copy of your Baptismal Certificate carrying the annotation.

    Yours sincerely,


  • Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭ beerbuddy


    Tremelo wrote: »
    Defection is still possible. In the count me out thread, I posted the following message, which I received from the secretary of the bishop of Cashel and Emly:

    Great why then dosent everybody moaning on this form do the same then we can close the thread. By the way it is the census figures that are taken into
    account.Do you think there is somebody in the church with a computer programe crossing off people when they die and emigrate or even defect.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭ Amtmann


    Here it is:

    192484.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,837 TanG411


    So all you have to do now is to write to your Bishop? Seems too easy. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 347 ✭✭ quietriot


    Amtmann wrote: »
    Here it is:

    192484.jpg

    tve48290-00000306-897.gif


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,537 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Dades


    Thanks, LEN!


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,447 ✭✭✭✭ expectationlost


    there was a bit of update to the dormant countmeout campaign http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0215/1224311799604.html
    a canon lawyer told them that the process still applies.


  • Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭ beerbuddy


    there was a bit of update to the dormant countmeout campaign http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0215/1224311799604.html
    a canon lawyer told them that the process still applies.

    Well it just made it informal so the hype would die down.
    Now nobody has to go ape anymore they just need to write a simple letter and thats it, no hoops to jump through. He is still noted as being baptised though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,447 ✭✭✭✭ expectationlost


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    Well it just made it informal so the hype would die down.
    Now nobody has to go ape anymore they just need to write a simple letter and thats it, no hoops to jump through. He is still noted as being baptised though.

    no the point of that is that there wasn't any actual change


Advertisement