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

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Hello,

This is my first time posting in this forum, and to be honestly it's my first time actually being on the Atheism and Agnosticism forum. It has been recommended to me to start this thread here.

A while ago in After Hours (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056513606) I started a thread looking to raise awareness of the following: (note that the text in italics is taken directly from my OP in AH).

According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, humans are entitled to basic human rights, two of which are:

Article 18: The Freedom of Religion

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

and

Article 20:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

As you can see from the above, by the catholic church denying me the right to leave their cult, they are violating Articles 18 and 20 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and are therefore violating my human rights.

Like a lot of people in our little country, I was baptised as a child. And I also made communion and confirmation - I only did this for the money.

Looking back on it, they are among the biggest mistakes of my life (although I didn't have any choice in the baptism). I no longer want to be a part of this disgusting organisation, and as such I want to leave.

The reasons are plentiful - but the main ones are the abuse of children and it's cover-up by those in the Vatican, and also the fact that I do not believe in a God or any fairytales like that, and am quite offended by it. I must stress however that I fully respect the rights of people to believe in this if they so wish.

Countmeout.ie, a website dedicated to helping people leave the church, was a great thing for people wishing to leave the church. But no, I am unable to leave because the church changed the 'Canon Law' which governs this stuff (because people were leaving in their droves), and this led to the countmeout website becoming defunct, in a sense. So technically, in their eyes, I am a catholic forever.

Freedom of Religion is a a fundamental human right. But how am I supposed to exercise this right if I am being forced to remain a member of the catholic church against my will? What right do the church have to do this to me and countless others?

I have looked into the possibility of taking this case to the European Court of Human Rights (EUCtHR), and several posters in the AH thread have put their support forward also. However, having looked at the EUCtHR website, it appears that because the Vatican is not party to the Convention on Human Rights, they cannot be taken to court.

Also, before taking cases to EUCtHR, all avenues must be exhausted domestically first. So I may try to figure out what to do here with regard to the Courts, and will attempt to write to the bishops/parish etc to see what I can do.

Basically my case is as follows:

The catholic church is forcing me to remain a member of their sect and therefore infringing on and violating my human rights of freedom of religion and not being compelled to belong to an association.

It is disgusting that the catholic church changed their canon law which stopped us being able to leave. As several posters have mentioned over in the AH thread, if the catholic church had nothing to fear and if people leaving the church was not a problem to them, then they wouldn't have removed the option to leave the church.

Can anyone give me some advice here please? What do other atheists think of this approach?

I look very much forward to hearing your thoughts.

-UBF

The issue is they will argue that they do not keep a membersip record, therefore there is nothing to be removed from.

The baptisimal record is a record of historical fact. Whilst you did not agree to it, and whilst you may not want to be associated with it, the fact is you were baptised and the register is merely record of that.

If the baptisimal record could be shown to be a membership list then there might be a chance for an action of this type to succeed, otherwise I don't think it is likely.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

The issue is they will argue that they do not keep a membersip record, therefore there is nothing to be removed from.

The baptisimal record is a record of historical fact. Whilst you did not agree to it, and whilst you may not want to be associated with it, the fact is you were baptised and the register is merely record of that.

If the baptisimal record could be shown to be a membership list then there might be a chance for an action of this type to succeed, otherwise I don't think it is likely.

MrP

By this logic, Ratzinger should still be a member of the Nazi Party.
After all, he was forced to join a society and was able to leave, why should people not be able to do same with the RCC.

Oh that's right, it's because it means they'll have to acknowledge the dwindling numbers they have in Europe and America, and the only places the cult is growing is in the places which are causing insane amounts of political issues world wide, eg Uganda.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Exactly. And just as Ratzinger isn’t a member of the Nazi party, so MrPudding isn’t a member of the Catholic church.

Mr Pudding’s case, should be bring it, will revolve around his being forced to be a member of the Catholic church. To make that case, he will have to show that he is a member of the Catholic church. How is he going to do that?

I never mentioned bringing a case. In fact, I specifically said it would be unlikely to succeed.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

I never mentioned bringing a case. In fact, I specifically said it would be unlikely to succeed.

My apologies, MrPudding. I have confused you with UglyBolloxFace.

(Please don't take that the wrong way!)

TheChizler wrote: »

. . . I imagine another reason the ability to formally defect was that the process was too costly to administrate, especially as countmeout got popular.

Um. According to the countmeoutwebsite a total of 531 e-mails were sent to church authorities asking for acknowledgement of a “declaration of defection” over a five-year period. That's a little over a hundred a year. Divide that between the 26 dioceses of Ireland. The administratative burden of recording and acknowledging the e-mails doesn’t look huge to me. And if we think that that led to a change in the universal canon law of the Catholic church, then we have a rather grand conception of the importance of Ireland to the worldwide church.

The straight dope on formal declarations of defection, as far as I can see, is as follows.

What’s a Catholic?

As far as the Catholic church is concerned, a Catholic is

(a) a Christian, who

(b) is in eucharistic communion with the bishop of Rome.

The “eucharistic communion” bit means that you are part of a community - a community constituted by shared eucharistic worship - which is gathered round a bishop, and the bishop is in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In other words, we’re talking about you being in a relationship - a real relationship - with a bunch of other people. And, as all facebook users know, the question of whether someone is, or is not, in a relationship is not always a simple binary. It’s often complicated.

I was baptised a Catholic in infancy. How does the Vatican know if I’m a Catholic now or not?

They mostly don’t. You know more about the state of your relationship with the Catholic community than they do. (The truth is, they’ve probably never heard of you, and they know nothing at all about your relationships.)

How does my bishop know if I’m a Catholic or not?

Again, he mostly doesn’t. He knows, or can find out, whether you participate in the Catholic community - go to mass, participate in the sacraments, etc. But, again, you have better information on that than he does.

So who can say if I’m a Catholic or not?

You can.

Is that the Catholic church’s view?

Yep.

Or, if we’re more accurate, yep, but with nuances. A relationship is a two-way thing, so they do have some perspective on the question. Church authorities will occasionally identify someone who claims they are Catholic as not being Catholic, on the basis that they have no relationship with or participation in the Catholic community. But note that (a) this is rare and (b) it usually involves a dispute which is precisely the opposite of the one that concerns most atheists; an individual insisting that he is a Catholic.

So what’s all this about formal acts of defection?

Good question. Well, while you’re generally the person who can most authoritatively say whether you are a Catholic or not, there are times when someone hasn’t said anything one way or the other and, from a church order point of view, some position has to be taken. The question most often arises in the context of marriage; from a canon law perspective, different rules apply to the validity of marriages by Catholics and marriages by non-Catholics. So if the question of the validity of your marriage arises, it becomes important from a canon law perspective to establish whether you were a Catholic at the time of your marriage.

They need to do this without reference to you, or what you say about it now, because (a) anything you say about it now might be influenced by self-interest - e.g. - you might be looking for an annulment now, and that gives you an interest in saying yes, I was a Catholic at the time of my first marriage - and (b) you might not be involved in the process at all - it might be that the question comes up because your former spouse is seeking an annulment. Or you could just be dead. Or whatever.

So they need some canonical rules to determine, for canonical purposes, whether you will be treated as Catholic or not. (Note that this isn’t a determination that you are or are not a Catholic; just about whether you will be treated as one where the question becomes relevant in a canon law procedure.)

Lawyers being a conservative bunch, the rule is basically a default one; if you were baptized a Catholic, or were received into the Catholic church, the assumption is that you remained a Catholic, unless there is evidence that you didn’t. Simply not coming to mass for a while - even a long while - is not enough evidence, because that could be simple laziness, and the phenomenon of people who don't go to mass but still regard themselves as Catholics is a well-known one.

So how can I show, for canonical purposes, that I have ceased to be a Catholic?

For a long time - like, for centuries - the rule was that the evidence required to show that you had ceased to be a Catholic was “notorious defection”. (“Notorious” here doesn’t mean evil or wicked or depraved; it just means “publicly known”.) If you had a public record of saying or doing things indicating that you were no longer a Catholic, then you were treated has not being a Catholic. So, e.g., if for many years past you attended public worship in the Presbyterian church, and not the Catholic church, then you weren’t a Catholic. Or if you had published and circulated a tract entitled “Why There Absolutely, Definitely, Positively Is No God, So I Can Lie In On Sunday Mornings”.

This worked reasonably well in a society where most people were religious, and the principal way of leaving a particular religion or denomination was to participate in another. But once you have a significant number of people leaving the church for atheism or agnosticism or indifferentism then it doesn’t work so well. Only a small number of such people will helpfully write a pamphlet to evidence their loss of faith.

The other point to note is that the requirement for “notorious defection” requires that whatever you have done is known, and is not private or secret or discreet. Most people who leave the church and do nothing to join another church do nothing public, so this rule resulted in most atheist/agnostic/indifferent ex-Catholics being treated as Catholics for canon law purposes.

So did they change the “notorious defection” rule?”

They added to it. In 1983, they introduced the “formal act of defection”. A new rule (Canon 1117, if we’re being precise) said that people were exempted from certain church laws relating to marriage (NB but only those laws) if they had “defected from the church by a formal act”. But there was no explicit definition of what a “formal act” might be. The significant change was that it had to be “formal” but not necessarily “notorious”, so something you had done privately rather than publicly would be enough, provided your intention was clear. But it was left up to local officials to decide what would be “formal”.

But the “notorious defection” rule still applies?

Yes. The “formal act of defection” is relevant only to the question of whether certain marriage rules apply to you. On the wider question of whether you are treated as a Catholic for other purposes, the “notorious” rule still applies.

Of course, making a formal act of defection, if it becomes known, is also “notorious” once you tell your bishop about it, so the same act might often satisfy both the “formal act” and “notorious defection” requirements.

What happened next?

Matters bumbled along for a couple of decades until an issue arose in Germany. For historical reasons, they have a church tax in Germany; it’s collected along with income tax, and distributed to the church to which the taxpayer belongs. A taxpayer can avoid the church tax by declaring to the tax office that he is no longer, e.g., a Catholic. The tax office (a) stops collecting the church tax, and (b) sends the bishop a copy of the taxpayer’s declaration. (I have no idea why they do the latter, but apparently they do.)

These declarations were treated by the German bishops as “formal acts”, and also as “notorious” (since both church and state knew about them) until it turned out that many people who had made such declarations were still coming to church to be married and have their children baptized, and to participate in other ways. They had made the declarations, it transpired, to save tax, and not because they wished to sever their relationship with the church.

This showed that some of the “formal acts” were formal in the pejorative sense, i.e. they had no substantive content. The fact that someone had made a “formal act” did not, in fact, necessarily mean that they wished to leave the church, or had left the church.

So did they change the rules again?

They did. In 2006, the Vatican introduced new directives, dealing with the interpretation and application of the “formal act” requirement. Under these directives, a “formal act” must reflect a positive decision to leave the church. That decision must be actually implemented. The decision must also be evidenced by a written statement submitted to your parish priest or bishop (NB 2006 was the first time a written statement was mentioned) and accepted by them (and they should accept it if they are satisfied that you have decided to leave the church, and have implemented that decision). If you did all that, then you had satisfied Canon 1117 and you were exempt from certain of the Catholic church’s marriage rules.

Where does countmeout.ie come in?

Here. At around this time they set up a web page to facilitate people taking advantage of these new, very clear, rules. People were told exactly what they had to do to get their formal acts accepted, and the webpage guided them through the process. Of course, the new rules only meant that your declaration was accepted as a “formal act”, which would get you out of some of the marriage rules, but most bishops also treated it as “notorious”, and took the view - explicitly - that you were no longer a Catholic. This suited people who wanted an explicit acknowledgement of the fact. And, so far as the canon lawyers were concerned, it made for clarity about who was, and who was not, subject to the canon law marriage rules.

That seems to satisfy everybody. So why did they stop in 2009? Too many people making formal declarations?

No, the exact opposite problem. Too few.

The great bulk of people who leave the church do not make a formal declaration, but they have - in the church’s view as well as their own - nevertheless left the church. Countmeout says that, while its service was operational (2006-2011) 531 people sent formal declarations using the service. Presumably some sent formal declaration independently of countmeout, but even if we assume that as many again did so, that still sums to less than 1,100 people sending declarations over the five-year period.

Does anybody seriously imagine that only 1,100 left the Catholic church in Ireland during that time? No. And experience in other countries was similar. Clearly, the new, tighter “formal act” rules were just not effective to capture most of the people who in fact leave the church. The great bulk of them never make a formal act, and yet they have undoubtedly left the church.

There was a good deal of comment and even protest about the new rules from canon lawyers and the like - you can google for evidence of it on the web - and a good deal of quieter comments from bishops back to the Vatican. The new rules were producing an unreal picture, and this was having various adverse consequences in the operation of canon law. People who were not Catholics were required to be treated as if they were Catholics in the application of the marriage rules, and some seriously weird results flowed from this.

That’s why they suspended the whole thing in 2009, not because make a formal declaration of defection was too easy, but because it was too difficult. Most people who leave the church are not motivated to make a formal act, and under the 2006-2009 rules they ended up still being treated as Catholics for canon law marriage rules purposes. It wasn’t working, so they suspended it.

So they’ve suspended it. Does this mean I can’t leave the church?

No. Of course you can leave the church.

Can I get an acknowledgement from them that I have left the church?

Generally not. They won’t make a judgment about this unless it becomes relevant to a real live canon law issue, in which case they’ll make a judgment for the purposes of that issue. Without a canonical issue to decide, they take the view that they don’t need to make a judgment, and you don’t need their acknowledgement to validate your decision.

If it does become relevant to a canonical issue, how will they make a judgment, if the “formal act” process is suspended?

The “notorious defection” rule still applies. They’ll look at whether you have publicly said or done things which are inconsistent with being a Catholic. Your posting record on the A&A forum might even become part of the evidence!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your posting record on the A&A forum might even become part of the evidence!

Yus!!!!

(I totally read your entire post too!)

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, would a court be interested in the fact that the church refused to add a note to your baptismal record? No, for a number of reasons:

- Your baptismal record is correct. You were baptized. The church is free to record this, and is under no obligation to record other events, such as your defection. You want a record of your defection? The state has a record. If that’s not enough for you, create your own record. How can you impose a record-keeping obligation on a church of which you are not even a member?

So this is pretty much what I said, if you read my posts. If the baptismal record is merely a record of a historic event then there is little that can be done. If, however, this record is also used as a membership list, then that changes matters somewhat. Now, I know you are saying that the list is not used in this way, but I am pretty sure that on another thread discussing this very matter someone was told by one of the diocese that they did use it in this way.

Peregrinus wrote: »

- As noted, from a civil point of view you are not adversely affected in any way by the record the church keeps. For civil purposes you are treated exactly like someone who was never baptized - you avoid the church tax. So the failure of the church to record your defection doesn’t impact you adversely in any way that a court would take notice of.

Again, this is what I pretty much said, and assuming the list is not a membership list then it holds true. Again, as soon as the list is used for anything other than the recording of a historical event then it has the capability of infringing a convention right.

Peregrinus wrote: »

- Separate of church and state cuts both ways. Courts in western democracies are extremely reluctant ever to order churches to do things, or not to do things, particular with respect to their own affairs and their own ordering.

This is something that is a bit of an embarrassment to society as far as I am concerned, and something which I sincerely wish would change.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religious practice benefit the church and the defector alike. If the church maintains that baptism has a continuing supernatural significance, then (a) the civil court is absolutely not going to rule on that one way or the other, and (b) the claimed supernatural justification, and the lack of any civil consequences for the maintenance of the record put this squarely in the field of religious practice, which in most countries is constitutionally guaranteed.

The court is not interested because it is not provable. If you look at some of the recent cases, like the counsellor that went to court to try to protect his god given right to discriminate against people, the judge said, and I am paraphrasing here, you have a legally protected right to be religious, but the contents of that religious belief are not protected.

So again, of course the courts aren't interested in makey uppy mumbo jumbo.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In Ireland, the case would be even clearer, since denominational affiliation, or having been baptized, doesn’t have even the civil consequence of being subject to the church tax. It would be difficult or impossible to show that the maintenance of your baptismal record, with no note of your defection, impacted you adversely in any way that would interest a court or give you any grounds for a legal remedy.

I don't think you would even have to show adverse impact. Again, as I have said repeatedly in this and other posts, this is all predicated on the baptismal record being used for something other than a historical record, and there is some evidence that this is the case. If that is true then it could be a violation of a convention right, and therefore actionable per se, with no requirement to prove an adverse effect.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You could, of course, argue that your freedom of religion is infringed by the Catholic church claiming you as a member. But you’d have two problems here.

First, you’d need to show that, by refusing to record your defection and simply maintaining a record of your baptism, the Catholic church was claiming you as a member. You’d have a problem here since, in Catholic theology, simply having been baptized in the past - which is all that the record shows - is not enough to establish that you are a Catholic today.

Secondly, you’d need to show that, by claiming you as a member, the Catholic church was somehow infringing your freedom of religion. Again, I think you’d have a problem. Which of your practices or beliefs are impeded by the Catholic church’s claim? And if your practice and belief is not impeded by the church’s claim, how is your freedom being infringed? You may be annoyed at the church’s claim, but “annoyed” is not the same as “not free”.

It would be infringing, again subject to the list be used for something other than a historical record, you right to be associated, or not, with a particular religion or organisation.

I understand that it does not impact a person desire to be or not be a particular religion. I understand that even if a catholic decides to change religion he is free to do so, the issue here would be with the catholic church maintaining a record of a persons membership and refusing to remove them from that list.

MrP

koth wrote: »

Thread I started on that subject. And which to date still has had only 1 diocese respond to my enquires.

From the linked post:

So that would indicate that the register is being used as more than a mere record of historical events and therefore a possible convention breach.

MrP

Does anyone actually read the posts? We know they can't stop us from. It believing, we know it is all makey uppy rubbish. The point is we don't want the church using the fact that we were baptised as justification for their standing in society. We don't want to be counted as a member of this despicable organisation when they are telling the government or the eu or the un how many members they have.

I could not give a flying fcuk at a rolling doughnut if they think I will metaphysically a member for eternity ecause some idiot in a frock carried out a retarded fantasy ritual when I was too you to object.

MrP

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

So this is pretty much what I said, if you read my posts . . .

Sure. I was agreeing with you here, not correcting you. I’m sorry if this came across wrongly.

MrPudding wrote: »

If the baptismal record is merely a record of a historic event then there is little that can be done. If, however, this record is also used as a membership list, then that changes matters somewhat. Now, I know you are saying that the list is not used in this way, but I am pretty sure that on another thread discussing this very matter someone was told by one of the diocese that they did use it in this way.

In the other thread (if we’re thinking of the same one) someone reported that a diocese (Cork, I think) had told him that they used the baptismal records in compiling their estimate of Catholics in the diocese. But that’s not the same as “assuming everyone on the register is still a Catholic”; they couldn’t possibly use it that way and get a meaningful result, for the reasons already pointed out. And yet the results they get do seem to be at least plausibly meaningful.

MrPudding wrote: »

This [separation of church and state] is something that is a bit of an embarrassment to society as far as I am concerned, and something which I sincerely wish would change.

Good luck with that! It’s a fairly fundamental feature of most western democratic constitutions and of liberal political thinking generally, and the atheist/sceptical community is generall quite supportive of the notion. They see it as protecting the state from church influence. So you have your work cut out.

MrPudding wrote: »

The court is not interested because it is not provable. If you look at some of the recent cases, like the counsellor that went to court to try to protect his god given right to discriminate against people, the judge said, and I am paraphrasing here, you have a legally protected right to be religious, but the contents of that religious belief are not protected.

No, it’s more than that. Courts are often interested in things that aren’t provable, at least in the sense that scientific propositions are provable. The state of someone’s mind, for example, is often an issue in a court case, or a question like whether a particular instance of discrimination is “invidious” or meets some other test that depends on the application of ethical values rather than on anything measurable and quantifiable.

And, in Germany, the courts are interested in whether you are a church member, because it has tax consequences. So it is provable, at least in that context.

The courts in Ireland aren’t interested in whether the Catholic church claims you as a member, or whether it is right to claim you as a member, because, even if it wrongly claims you as a member, that doesn’t injure you any way that gives rise to a legal remedy. If a finding that you were wrongly claimed as a member gave you no right to any legal remedy, then the court has no reason to make the finding, one way or the other – even if, in fact the finding might be quite easy to make.

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think you would even have to show adverse impact. Again, as I have said repeatedly in this and other posts, this is all predicated on the baptismal record being used for something other than a historical record, and there is some evidence that this is the case. If that is true then it could be a violation of a convention right, and therefore actionable per se, with no requirement to prove an adverse effect . . .

I disagree. “It could be a violation of a convention right” is not the same as “it is a violation of a convention right”. If they are using the record to claim anything other than that you were baptised on a certain date, that is not enough to show that your rights are being violated. Even you could show that the claim was untrue or unwarranted, hat still wouldn’t be enough. You need that the way in which they use the record amounts to an actual violation of your convention rights. “He says I’m a Catholic, and I’m not!” doesn’t seem to me to be quite enough. The right of free association is your right to enter into the associations that you want and not the one’s you don’t want, but I don’t think it extends to not having people claim an association with you that doesn’t exist.

(Besides, if the association that the Catholic church claims is “he was baptised by us X years ago, and that gets him in”, that association does exist. Whatever rights/advantages/participation you get in the Catholic church from having been baptised as a Catholic, you have, and it is not untrue of the Catholic church to say this. To show that they were wrongly claiming an association, you’d have to show more than that they claimed the connection of your having been baptised.)

This isn’t a uniquely Catholic problem. Jews consider you to be Jewish (and subject to the moral claims that that implies) if you are born of a Jewish mother, regardless of your beliefs, self-identification or practise (and regardless, equally, of the beliefs, etc, of your mother). And some will say that you are not a “good Jew” (because you do not observe the Law which, as a Jew, you should). Understandably, some people are annoyed by this, but I have never heard it seriously suggested that they have any legal remedy, either under the European Convention or under analogous instruments in other parts of the world.

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.

Robert ninja wrote: »

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.

Robert ninja wrote: »

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.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

Robert ninja wrote: »

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.