How to "un-baptize"/ Withdraw affiliation with RCC?

Kiwi in IE · 20-03-2014 09:29PM

How much does this 'Hotel California' complex contribute to lapsed believers continuing to tick 'Catholic' in the census? I'm clearly not referring to you guys who are arguing it in here, but in Irish society in general.

Never mind what the RCC say or think about the significance of your baptism. They are a delusional institution and the fact that they consider Athiests and Agnostics 'Catholics' because they were baptised is simply another delision. An annoying one yes, but it has zero basis in reality the same as all the rest of the delusional ideation they spout.

People who don't believe in god being labelled Catholic makes about as much sense as virgins giving birth in the days before assisted fertility.

Fred Swanson · 20-03-2014 10:16PM

This post has been deleted.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-03-2014 11:05PM

If they are that paranoid, they better get up to mass and confession on a regular basis too just in case their absence is noticed.

Hotblack Desiato · 20-03-2014 11:16PM

topcatcbr wrote: »

If you want to leave church there is nothing stopping you.

Oh, I have, but my needy ex-church can't quite come to terms with it and secretly hopes to woo me back.

You were baptised. This is a FACT. If you break an egg you cannot un break it.

Several posts from me and others here which you don't appear to have seen saying yes, a historical event cannot be erased from history.

You could always try to get excommunicated.

Excommunication is far from what people think it is, it is not denial of all sacraments to the person and it is not permanent.

What I could do, though, would be to move to Germany and not pay any church tax

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/09/162570987/german-catholics-path-to-heaven-comes-with-taxes

NPR wrote:

Last month, German bishops warned that if members of the Catholic Church don't pay the country's church tax, they'll be denied the sacraments — including baptisms, weddings and funerals.

The fact you don't officially leave is their way of saying your welcome back. Prodigal son type thing. A large part of their ethos.

Well the point is that many people don't want to be welcomed back, ever, and find the thought quite abhorrent actually.

I think your over thinking this. Just leave and don't give it another thought.

Hah. It would be nice indeed to never have think about religion, but while they still control schools, interfere with hospitals, badger legislators, describe people like me as immoral or not fully human, describe my children as deprived, that ain't gonna happen.

catallus · 20-03-2014 11:25PM

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. John the Baptist (Matthew 3:11)

The failure to understand that it is your immortal soul, and not this mortal coil, that the Church's benevolent interest in your baptism is is a sad reflection on the posters here.

Kiwi in IE · 20-03-2014 11:36PM

catallus wrote: »

The failure to understand that it is your immortal soul, and not this mortal coil, that the Church's benevolent interest in your baptism is is a sad reflection on the posters here.

Actually your failure to understand that many posters here do not believe in the existence of 'immortal souls' is rather dismal reflection on you!

Hotblack Desiato · 21-03-2014 01:08AM

Oh, I think he/she understands it perfectly well.

Edit: just saw in another thread he/she/it has been banned.
Let us not speak ill of the departed

Peregrinus · 26-03-2014 02:38AM

Hi Mark

Peregrinus wrote: »

The act of baptism does not make you a Catholic. We’ve covered this ground before. In the Catholic view, a Catholic is a baptised Christian who is in communion with the Catholic church.

You asked for a link on this, and I promised to get back to you.

Code of Canon Law, Canon 96:

“By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.”

You’ll note that this doesn’t talk about Catholic baptism, or baptism by a Catholic priest or in a Catholic ceremony - just baptism. Any valid baptism, celebrated by anyone, in any church or none. (There is recognition in Canon 869 that baptism “in a non-Catholic ecclesial communion” is valid, and a person validly baptised in a non-Catholic ceremony is not to be baptised again.)

So, in the Catholic view, baptism incorporates a person into the church in so far as they’re in ecclesiastical communion. And it’s those latter words which mean that Ian Paisley, and up to a billion other baptised people, are not Catholics.

The signficance of being baptised in a Catholic ceremony is not that it’s fundamentally different from being baptised in, say, an Anglican ceremony; it isn’t. The significance is that it points towards the likelihood that, at least initially, you are (being raised in) communion with the Catholic church. Your parents have brought you along to the Catholic church to be baptised, which tells us something about the family that you are being raised in and its relationship with the church. Plus, Canon 868 requires that, before an infant can be baptised, “there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion”, so the fact that baptism in a Catholic ceremony took place indicates that there was such an expectation.

But there is no presumption or expectation that a person baptised in a Catholic ceremony will remain in communion forever. On the contrary, the Code of Canon Law repeatedly recognises that this is not so. There is explicit recognition that a person can defect from communion in Canon 171, Canon 316, Canon 694 and elsewhere in the Code.

There used to be a requirement that for certain purposes (to do with marriage ceremonies), a defection from communion was only effective if accomplished by a “formal act”. (The idea seems to have been to promote clarity and certainty regarding the validity of marriages.) There was further canon law about what exactly that “formal act” had to be, and the countmeout website used to guide people through making that formal act. That was never, in fact, the only way to leave the Catholic church; any defection would take you out of the Catholic church, but so far as marriage ceremonies were concerned you would be treated as still a Catholic unless you had defected by a “formal act”. That was obviously a nonsensical position which resulted in many non-Catholics being regarded as Catholics so far as rules regarding marriage ceremonies were concerned, but not otherwise. They wisely abandoned this in 2009 by amending the Code of Canon law to drop any requirement for a “formal act”.

The net position, therefore is that:

- Canon 96 explicitly recognises that participation in the church requires both baptism and a relationship of communion;

- numerous canons recognise that a relationship of communion can be ended by the “defection” of the individual; and

- while in the past canon law would only recognise defections (for certain purposes) if they were effected through a particular formal procedure, it no longer requires any particular procedure. You’re not required to use any particular method to defect, and whether you have defected is not a question of whether you have gone through any form or ritual, but of whether your beliefs and/or actions have terminated your relationship of communion with the church.

Does this cause a problem in estimating numbers of Catholics? Not really. In the days when there was a formal procedure you could go through, we know that very few people bothered to go through with it. (Why would they?) If they had relied on records of formal defections to calculate numbers of Catholics, that would certainly have resulted in a substantial over-calculation. (So far as I know, they never did rely on records of formal acts for this purpose.) And, if you think about it, there is no way of making people who leave the church formally register the fact, and even if you enable them to it’s forseeable that most of them won’t, so reintroducing such a thing would not improve the estimation of numbers of Catholics; to the extent that you treated formal registrations as an indication of the actual numbers of Catholics leaving, it would likely have the reverse effect.

Absolam · 26-03-2014 07:13AM

Worth pointing out that not 'being in communion' with the church doesn't exclude someone from being a part of the church (as a religious concept, not material affiliation). Ex-communicants can be 'reconciled' at any time by repenting, they remain part of the church, they're simply not currently 'in communion'. Not quite sure how far that goes in heaven and hell terms....

I think this discussion fails as a result of the total incompatibility of the two starting points.
From a material, real world, pen paper and computers point of view it's incomprehensible that one cannot formally withdraw from an organisation one doesn't want to be part of.
From a spiritual, loving but dogmatic religious point of view, it's incomprehensible that god could abandon a soul consecrated to him.

There's no compromise position when you talk about pure faith; you can walk away, burn the records, kill the priests, tear down the temple and salt the earth, but as far as God is concerned, you still belong to him.
The fact that you don't believe that should probably be enough to get you through life in fairness.

Peregrinus · 26-03-2014 07:26AM

Absolam wrote: »

Worth pointing out that not 'being in communion' with the church doesn't exclude someone from being a part of the church (as a religious concept, not material affiliation). Ex-communicants can be 'reconciled' at any time and still go to heaven.

You’re confusing two issues there. Excommunication is not the same thing as not being in communion. Excommunication is a canonical penalty imposed in certain stated conditions and circumstances which has defined consequences, but severing of communion and exclusion from the church is not one of those consequences. An excommunicated Catholic is (presumptively) still in communion and so is still a Catholic and is still bound by Canon law (and, FWIW, can still go to heaven).

Conversely, you can defect from the communion of the Catholic church without ever getting excommunicated. And if you're not in communion with the Catholic church you’re not a Catholic and, generally, not bound by canon law.

Absolam wrote: »

I think this discussion fails as a result of the total incompatibility of the two starting points.
From a material, real world, pen paper and computers point of view it's incomprehensible that one cannot formally withdraw from an organisation one doesn't want to be part of . . .

Well, I think there’s another error there, which is the assumption that the church sees itself as an “organisation”.

The church has an organisation, obviously - all those parishes and dioceses and religious orders and whatnot - and all Catholics have a place or role or status in the organisation, but it doesn’t see itself primarily as an organisation. It’s a community. There’s no formal mechanism for leaving the church for the same reason as there is no formal mechanism for leaving the feminist movement, of for ceasing to be Scottish.

Absolam · 26-03-2014 09:33AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You’re confusing two issues there. Excommunication is not the same thing as not being in communion. Excommunication is a canonical penalty imposed in certain stated conditions and circumstances which has defined consequences, but severing of communion and exclusion from the church is not one of those consequences. An excommunicated Catholic is (presumptively) still in communion and so is still a Catholic and is still bound by Canon law (and, FWIW, can still go to heaven).

Apologies; not confusing but perhaps not sufficiently differentiating! It is obviously possible to cease to be in communion, or to reduce communion, without being excommunicated, I wasn't being clear.
An ex-communicant is deliberately excluded from communion with the church (talking RCC here obviously), which is kind of the point of the phrase; in modern catholism it's considered that their communion is 'gravely impaired' (which I agree, doesn't entirely seem to add up to 'excluded'), and they are in fact excluded from certain functions and may not receive the Eucharist (or Holy Communion as we call it in Ireland so I suppose excluded from communion does kind of add up). I did not intend to imply exclusion from the church, the point being no-one is ever excluded from the church, all sinners may be forgiven and reconciled.
Someone who chooses to not receive sacraments reduces or excludes their own communion with the church, nevertheless they are not excluded from the church, and they may be reconciled.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Conversely, you can defect from the communion of the Catholic church without ever getting excommunicated. And if you're not in communion with the Catholic church you’re not a Catholic and, generally, not bound by canon law.

Per your point above, not being in communion with the church does not make you not a Catholic (according to the Church) and still being bound by Canon law.. anyone who repents can be reconciled.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I think there’s another error there, which is the assumption that the church sees itself as an “organisation”.The church has an organisation, obviously - all those parishes and dioceses and religious orders and whatnot - and all Catholics have a place or role or status in the organisation, but it doesn’t see itself primarily as an organisation. It’s a community. There’s no formal mechanism for leaving the church for the same reason as there is no formal mechanism for leaving the feminist movement, of for ceasing to be Scottish.

That's kind of my point; an individual with no investment in the arcane sees the church as just another organisation, but the church sees itself as something on a different plane of existence entirely. The church cannot agree that you will stop being a baptised christian, any more than it can agree that you will turn into an elephant. In fact, it would probably agree that you're more likely to turn into an elephant than be excluded from the grace of God.

Mark Hamill · 26-03-2014 02:23PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hi Mark

You asked for a link on this, and I promised to get back to you.

Code of Canon Law, Canon 96:

“By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.”

You’ll note that this doesn’t talk about Catholic baptism, or baptism by a Catholic priest or in a Catholic ceremony - just baptism. Any valid baptism, celebrated by anyone, in any church or none. (There is recognition in Canon 869 that baptism “in a non-Catholic ecclesial communion” is valid, and a person validly baptised in a non-Catholic ceremony is not to be baptised again.)

Would it not be redundant for it to say catholic baptism, given the source of the document? Does the Irish constitution talk about Irish marriage, or does it talk about marriage?
Even if that was talking about baptism in general, would that contradict what I previously said: "It's because saying that all baptisms are valid is not the same as saying that all baptisms bring you specifically into the catholic church. Ireland might recognise a marriage from a different country but that foreign marriage wouldn't be claimed as a Irish marriage."

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, in the Catholic view, baptism incorporates a person into the church in so far as they’re in ecclesiastical communion. And it’s those latter words which mean that Ian Paisley, and up to a billion other baptised people, are not Catholics.

What is the definition of "in ecclesiastical communion? And, to ask again: in threads on the irish census results you, and other posters, have argued that to be a catholic all you need do is consider yourself catholic. Here you are saying that some sort of ecclesiastical communion is required. Which is it?

Peregrinus wrote: »

- numerous canons recognise that a relationship of communion can be ended by the “defection” of the individual; and

But would that defection not be a form of excommunication? Excommunication which, while it prevents you from receiving sacraments, does not stop you being considered a catholic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Does this cause a problem in estimating numbers of Catholics? Not really. In the days when there was a formal procedure you could go through, we know that very few people bothered to go through with it. (Why would they?) If they had relied on records of formal defections to calculate numbers of Catholics, that would certainly have resulted in a substantial over-calculation. (So far as I know, they never did rely on records of formal acts for this purpose.) And, if you think about it, there is no way of making people who leave the church formally register the fact, and even if you enable them to it’s forseeable that most of them won’t, so reintroducing such a thing would not improve the estimation of numbers of Catholics; to the extent that you treated formal registrations as an indication of the actual numbers of Catholics leaving, it would likely have the reverse effect.

I'd imagine that few people went through with the formal act of defection because they didn't know about it, I only heard about it from countmeout.ie and that shut down less than a year after I first encountered it (because the RCC removed the formal way to defect).
Given that there is now no record at all of defection, this means that the current method of calculating catholic numbers contain a far, far greater over-calculation than when we had, albeit under-reported, records of defection.

Peregrinus · 27-03-2014 04:08AM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Would it not be redundant for it to say catholic baptism, given the source of the document?

No, it wouldn’t. In the first place, as already pointed out, in Catholic teaching about baptism there is no “Catholic baptism”; there’s just baptism. Some baptisms are performed by Catholic priests; some are not, but they are all the same baptism. So there’d be no reason to presume that a reference to “baptism” in the Code generally includes only baptisms celebrated in Catholic rituals. Secondly, and again as already pointed out, at a number of places the Code does refer specifically to baptisms in non-Catholic communities; at other places it refers specifically to baptism in the Catholic church. So when they mean one or other of these things, they say so. The corollary is that where they just talk about “baptism”, they mean what they say.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Does the Irish constitution talk about Irish marriage, or does it talk about marriage?

From your point of view, a bad example. The Irish constitution talks about “marriage”, and it means “marriage”. It does not mean “Irish marriage” or “marriages celebrated in Ireland” or any other subset of marriage.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Even if that was talking about baptism in general, would that contradict what I previously said: "It's because saying that all baptisms are valid is not the same as saying that all baptisms bring you specifically into the catholic church. Ireland might recognise a marriage from a different country but that foreign marriage wouldn't be claimed as a Irish marriage."

There’s no such thing, in Irish law, as an “Irish marriage”. You’re either married, or you’re not married. If you happen to have been married abroad, that doesn’t mean that you are now in a different kind of marriage, or that your marriage has different consequences or effects in Irish law.

Same goes for baptism, in the Catholic thinking. If you’re baptised, you’re baptised. This does not automatically make you a Catholic; for that you need to be in communion. The fact that you were baptised in a Catholic ceremony points towards your being in communion (although of course other factors might point against that) but it doesn’t alter the nature of your baptism.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What is the definition of "in ecclesiastical communion?

It’s not defined in the Code. (Just like “marriage” isn’t defined in the Irish constitution.) To explore what it means, you’d have to look at the treatises, the canonical legal opinions, the cases decided in the canonical courts, etc. And most of that material is not, SFAIK, available online.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And, to ask again: in threads on the irish census results you, and other posters, have argued that to be a catholic all you need do is consider yourself catholic. Here you are saying that some sort of ecclesiastical communion is required. Which is it?

Nitpick: I have never actually said that to be a Catholic, all you need to do is to consider yourself Catholic. I’ve said that somebody’s own statement about his religious identity carries more authority than the opinion of some anonymous participant in an internet discussion forum about the same person’s religious identity. If somebody says that “I’m a Catholic”, given that he knows more about his religious beliefs, values, motivations, practice and participation than either you or I do, I think his opinion on this question is more authoritative than either yours or mine.

Having said that, there’s no fundamental inconsistency between “asserting a Catholic identity” and “being in communion” as the markers of Catholicism. A central element of being in communion is that you should want to be a participant in the church. One corollary of this is that, if you have a firm intention of not being Catholic then, ipso facto, you’re not Catholic. If, on the other hand, you do want to be Catholic, well that’s a significant element of the necessary relationship of communion right there. I’m not saying it’s the whole of it, and that everyone who wants to be Catholic and considers himself Catholic is in reality Catholic. You have to be baptised, obviously, but also a relationship of communion requires more than an abstract unrealised desire to be in the church. But it doesn’t necessarily require weekly mass attendance, or acceptance or practice of official teaching on contraception.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But would that defection not be a form of excommunication?

No, excommunication is a specific penalty imposed under canon law in defined circumstances, and with defined consequences. For a civil law comparison, think of a court fine or a sentence of imprisonment. A long stay in hospital might be like a sentence of imprisonment in certain respects, but it’s not a form of a sentence of imprisonment.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'd imagine that few people went through with the formal act of defection because they didn't know about it, I only heard about it from countmeout.ie and that shut down less than a year after I first encountered it (because the RCC removed the formal way to defect).

But do you think that, if they had heard of it, they would have gone through it? Most people who leave the church leave because they have lost interest; it has become meaningless to them; they cannot see the point. In that situation, how many of them would be motivated to enter into correspondence with the bishop? The “formal defection” procedure was only ever relevant if someone was entering into a second marriage in the church; most of the people who took it up were divorced ex-Catholics who wished to enter into a second marriage in the church - a fairly specific group, you’ll agree. Some may have taken it up because having some kind of certificate gave them some atavistic satisfaction, but I wouldn’t assume that everyone who loses interest in the church feels that particular need.

I take your point that many people never knew of the procedure while it was available but, really, QED. If they didn’t know, it was because they never bothered to google “how to leave Catholic church” or any similar set of search terms. And doesn’t that in itself tell us that they felt no need for, or interest in, a formal leaving procedure? And, really, would you expect it to be otherwise?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Given that there is now no record at all of defection, this means that the current method of calculating catholic numbers contain a far, far greater over-calculation than when we had, albeit under-reported, records of defection.

It only means that if you assume that the only data points used in the current calculation are the church’s own records of events.

But that’s nonsense. The church has no records of the deaths of Catholics, and no records of the emigration or immigration of Catholics. Yet the church’s estimates of its membership are close enough to the census count to make it clear that the church’s estimate must include adjustments for deaths, migrations, etc. If they can adjust for those things, then obviously they can adjust for defections as well (and apparently do, given the reasonably close alignment between the church estimate and the census count). If your claim is that, in the absence of any records of individual defections, they make no adjustment for defections - evidence, please, in support of that claim.

Kiwi in IE · 27-03-2014 08:37AM

The best way to find out the exact number of Irish Catholics is to bring in 'Church Tax' like Germany. Then there would be an official and accurate government record of who is religious and who is not. Atheists would be unlikely to be able to have an unwanted religious funeral service courtesy of an indoctrinated family member if they hadn't paid the tax, and the disappearance of the cultural Catholic would happen overnight giving Ireland accurate religious statistics that would then more closely reflect other western countries rather than middle eastern countries. The RCC would only be able to count those who are prepared to pay them church tax, rather than all and sundry who were initiated into the church as babies by there parents. Once the cultural Catholics disappear there would be little argument against secular state schools. Bring in Church tax!

Peregrinus · 27-03-2014 08:47AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The best way to find out the exact number of Irish Catholics is to bring in 'Church Tax' like Germany. Then there would be an official and accurate government record of who is religious and who is not.

You must really, really want a clear answer on this if you’re prepared to see substantial taxpayer funds going to the church in order to get it! It seems like a very large tail wagging quite a small dog.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

atheists would be unlikely to be able to have an unwanted religious funeral service courtesy of an indoctrinated family member if they hadn't paid the tax, and the disappearance of the cultural Catholic would happen overnight giving Ireland accurate religious statistics that would then more closely reflect other western countries rather than middle eastern countries. Once the cultural Catholics disappear there would be little argument against secular state schools. Bring in Church tax!

Be careful what you wish for. Experience in countries which do have a church tax - Germany, several Scandinavian countries, a couple of others - is that large numbers of people who never darken the door of a church from one end of the year to the next nevertheless retain their registered affiliation and pay the church tax. Have you any reason to think that the Irish experience would differ?

Far from supporting your claim that people who don’t go to church are not real Catholics and should not describe themselves as such or be accepted as such, therefore, a church tax could well undermine it by showing that, despite not going to mass, people feel an identification with the church and are prepared to undergo significant material disadvantage to retain it.

Cabaal · 27-03-2014 09:44AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for. Experience in countries which do have a church tax - Germany, several Scandinavian countries, a couple of others - is that large numbers of people who never darken the door of a church from one end of the year to the next nevertheless retain their registered affiliation and pay the church tax. Have you any reason to think that the Irish experience would differ?

As a society we are different to the German's etc, this is evident through so many things from our views on tax, drink, smoking, road safety, cyclists, cleanliness of our country etc etc

Its like saying allowing drink to be freely available in Ireland the same way it is in Germany wouldn't lead to any problems, we've seen that clearly it does in Ireland because we have different views on things.

We complain about valid charges such as a tax on water, you can be damn sure the vast majority of people that are "catholic" on a census won't want a penny going to the church, especially with recent sex abuse scandals.

I know 80 year olds who used to give regularly to the church when they got the little envelope through the door, now they won't give them a penny.

You can be damn sure they won't want their pension going to them and you can even be more sure a 20 or 30 year old won't want to fund the catholic church either in the vast majority of cases.

Anyway, I'll take my chances and I fully support the church tax idea and I'd love to see it come in Ireland.

However, if it ever did for the first few decades at least the tax needs to be diverted to the Irish State so the Irish state can use the money to compensate abuse victims, since the catholic church isn't providing the cash like requested.

Peregrinus · 27-03-2014 11:43AM

Cabaal wrote: »

As a society we are different to the German's etc, this is evident through so many things from our views on tax, drink, smoking, road safety, cyclists, cleanliness of our country etc etc . . .

Well, of course, you’re right.

But doesn’t that make the whole discussion a bit unrealistic? The German church tax, like the British system of knighthoods or the American constitutional right to keep and bear arms, is accepted in its own country because it’s been around for a long time and everyone is used to it and it seems like part of who they are. But if you tried to introduce it as a novelty, in 2014, in a society not already accustomed to it, with the catastrophic abuse scandal fresh in our minds, you’d be met with a blend of incredulity, derision and outrage. Even if it were constitutionally permissible, which I doubt it is, there is no possible chance that any Irish government would propose it today.

If we suspend disbelief for a moment, and imagine that some government proposed it, I think lots of people who are in fact believing and practising Catholics would object strongly. (Me, for one.) Conversely, if we imagine an alternative universe in which people didn’t have a mistrust of the church and a visceral reaction against a church tax, we can imagine that people who aren’t Catholics, or aren’t strongly Catholic, might pay the tax because they value the social care work done by the church and they want to see themselves as supportive of that. (This is in fact the explanation offered by lots of unbelieving Germans/Scandinavians who pay church taxes.)

Either way, acceptance or rejection of a church tax is probably only loosely linked to the demographic health of churches, in terms of individual commitment. In fact, I’m tempted to think that the correlation may be negative; if strong rates of church commitment correlated with implementation of a church tax, then the US would have one and Iceland would not.

Cabaal wrote: »

Anyway, I'll take my chances and I fully support the church tax idea and I'd love to see it come in Ireland.

However, if it ever did for the first few decades at least the tax needs to be diverted to the Irish State so the Irish state can use the money to compensate abuse victims, since the catholic church isn't providing the cash like requested.

Why on earth would you want to defer paying compensation to abuse victims for “a few decades”? It hardly seems just. If you think it’s right to use tax money to compensate abuse victims, can’t that be done now? And shouldn’t it?

Cabaal · 27-03-2014 12:10PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why on earth would you want to defer paying compensation to abuse victims for “a few decades”? It hardly seems just. If you think it’s right to use tax money to compensate abuse victims, can’t that be done now? And shouldn’t it?

Sorry if i wasn't clear enough,

I mean that the state should compensate the victims for the entire amount (since the catholic church isn't providing the money)

Then the catholic tax should be used to compensate the state for the catholic church side of the compensation plus suitable interest rate applied. This ensures the state and as such all tax payers are not left out of pocket long term for the catholic church's failings.

Only after all of this has taken place should the catholic tax money be setup to go to the catholic church,

One way or another, regardless of where the money would go from the state the church tax would mean a mass exodus of the people that tick catholic, we'd likely end up with a census that more closely represents The Netherlands - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands when it comes to the catholic %.

On the subject of church tax on Germany, anyone I know of that lived/worked in Germany has not said they were catholic....even though the same people would state that they are catholic in Ireland. Amazing what people will do when it comes to money

Kiwi in IE · 27-03-2014 01:35PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You must really, really want a clear answer on this if you’re prepared to see substantial taxpayer funds going to the church in order to get it! It seems like a very large tail wagging quite a small dog.

Be careful what you wish for. Experience in countries which do have a church tax - Germany, several Scandinavian countries, a couple of others - is that large numbers of people who never darken the door of a church from one end of the year to the next nevertheless retain their registered affiliation and pay the church tax. Have you any reason to think that the Irish experience would differ?

Far from supporting your claim that people who don’t go to church are not real Catholics and should not describe themselves as such or be accepted as such, therefore, a church tax could well undermine it by showing that, despite not going to mass, people feel an identification with the church and are prepared to undergo significant material disadvantage to retain it.

I would like a clear answer as currently the rest of us who are not Catholic are told the reason we have to put up with the current education system, abortion being illegal etc is because 'Ireland is a Catholic country'. Many of these 'Catholics' are no more Catholic than I, but they go along with the hatch, match, dispatch rituals plus communions and confirmations. The latter two, along with christenings, often only because of the state of the school system.

You may be of the opinion that anyone who wishes to, can identify as Catholic, and yes of course it is a gray area when it comes to commitment, but do you really believe that a person who does not believe in god and thinks Jesus was an ordinary person, is a Catholic? Just because they physically participate in occasional Catholic rituals without having any belief in their supposed meaning? I have met by far more of this kind of Catholic than I have the devout, church every Sunday type. How many of these people would be prepared to put their money where their mouth is (or in this case where their census ticking hand is) if they had to cough up money in the form of Church tax? I think they would suddenly loose whatever ridiculous stigma is supposedly attached to being a non adherent to religion very smartly.

If people as you pointed out, wish to pay church tax while not practising then that is their choice. If the whole 84% who ticked Catholic in the last census decided to pay up, then the rest of us would have no argument that non Catholics continue to tick the census box giving false statistics. Not going to happen though is it? My guess is that it would be down to between 30-40% overnight and the school system would need a huge, immediate overhaul.

Kiwi in IE · 27-03-2014 01:57PM

Also, another positive about Church tax is that it would allow an official record of non adherence to religion for those who are not religious with Catholic parents. The RCC currently consider everyone baptised to be Catholic even when they are in fact atheist. They would look a bit silly continuing with that when a huge percentage of their 'Catholics' refuse to pay church tax. There would be no point in religious family members applying pressure, or even having a discussion about baptisms, church weddings, religious funerals etc, for someone not paying church tax. The more I think about it the better an idea church tax becomes.

Fred Swanson · 27-03-2014 02:08PM

This post has been deleted.

Kiwi in IE · 27-03-2014 02:11PM

http://www.thejournal.ie/germany-catholic-church-tax-608480-Sep2012/

This article is fantastic. True colours anyone? As you can see the German Catholic Church dosn't hold completion of Catholic rituals such as baptism, communion, confirmation as being the only criteria to remaining a Catholic! What Ireland needs to sort out the religious ridiculousness is church tax.

robindch · 27-03-2014 02:50PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Bring in Church tax!

But that would be terribly unfair as people would then have to pay the church tax to guarantee that their kids would get a place in the local church-controlled school!

Cabaal · 27-03-2014 03:06PM

robindch wrote: »

But that would be terribly unfair as people would then have to pay the church tax to guarantee that their kids would get a place in the local church-controlled school!

Maybe in the short term,
But long term more people with say they are not catholic and this would create a much greater demand for none catholic ethos schools

Either this or dept of education would force schools to level the playing field so the ethos can't dictate acceptance at all.

One way or another it would force change to happen

Pherekydes · 27-03-2014 03:20PM

It would, of course, be implemented completely arseways in this country, with everybody levied. The various churches would then simply claim their share based on their numbers.

Good luck going to court to have your good name restored name struck off church registers.

lazygal · 27-03-2014 03:32PM

robindch wrote: »

But that would be terribly unfair as people would then have to pay the church tax to guarantee that their kids would get a place in the local church-controlled school!

I've heard parents giving out about having to attend masses for communions, "All this fuss for one day, its a pain in the arse", Me: "So why are you doing it" Moaners: "…", mainly because it never occurs to them not to do it. See also people who complain about the palaver for church weddings.

lazygal · 27-03-2014 03:34PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/germany-catholic-church-tax-608480-Sep2012/

This article is fantastic. True colours anyone? As you can see the German Catholic Church dosn't hold completion of Catholic rituals such as baptism, communion, confirmation as being the only criteria to remaining a Catholic! What Ireland needs to sort out the religious ridiculousness is church tax.

I especially love that you can't be a godparent unless you pay. It'd put paid to the 'Ah I don't believe any of it, sure I'm atheist and I'll be putting the kid off religion, hurr hurr' arguments for why people act as godparents despite not believing any of the teachings.

Mark Hamill · 27-03-2014 03:59PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

There’s no such thing, in Irish law, as an “Irish marriage”. You’re either married, or you’re not married. If you happen to have been married abroad, that doesn’t mean that you are now in a different kind of marriage, or that your marriage has different consequences or effects in Irish law.

Same goes for baptism, in the Catholic thinking. If you’re baptised, you’re baptised. This does not automatically make you a Catholic; for that you need to be in communion. The fact that you were baptised in a Catholic ceremony points towards your being in communion (although of course other factors might point against that) but it doesn’t alter the nature of your baptism.

If you are married abroad and are still abroad, then even though Ireland may recognise the marriage should you come here, they wont count it in any type of census details unless you do. The only type of marriage they count by default are the marriages performed here.
Nothing you said here contradicts the idea that it is the same for baptism. The RCC recognises all baptisms, but only by default counts the ones performed in a catholic manner.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s not defined in the Code. (Just like “marriage” isn’t defined in the Irish constitution.) To explore what it means, you’d have to look at the treatises, the canonical legal opinions, the cases decided in the canonical courts, etc. And most of that material is not, SFAIK, available online.

So there is no definition?

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have to be baptised, obviously, but also a relationship of communion requires more than an abstract unrealised desire to be in the church. But it doesn’t necessarily require weekly mass attendance, or acceptance or practice of official teaching on contraception.

So what does it require? Becuase the examples given those threads where not just of supposed catholics who pick and choose a few rules, it was of people who want to be catholic in name only, and you argued for their right to be calledf catholic.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, excommunication is a specific penalty imposed under canon law in defined circumstances, and with defined consequences. For a civil law comparison, think of a court fine or a sentence of imprisonment. A long stay in hospital might be like a sentence of imprisonment in certain respects, but it’s not a form of a sentence of imprisonment.

How is defection defined in canon law then?

Peregrinus wrote: »

I take your point that many people never knew of the procedure while it was available but, really, QED. If they didn’t know, it was because they never bothered to google “how to leave Catholic church” or any similar set of search terms. And doesn’t that in itself tell us that they felt no need for, or interest in, a formal leaving procedure? And, really, would you expect it to be otherwise?

People didn't know because it wasn't advertised, they simply assumed that you couldn't.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It only means that if you assume that the only data points used in the current calculation are the church’s own records of events.

But that’s nonsense. The church has no records of the deaths of Catholics, and no records of the emigration or immigration of Catholics. Yet the church’s estimates of its membership are close enough to the census count to make it clear that the church’s estimate must include adjustments for deaths, migrations, etc. If they can adjust for those things, then obviously they can adjust for defections as well (and apparently do, given the reasonably close alignment between the church estimate and the census count). If your claim is that, in the absence of any records of individual defections, they make no adjustment for defections - evidence, please, in support of that claim.

My evidence is the lack of evidence they have of those defections. It's pretty simple really, if they have records of people who defect, then they have no records of people who defect, so how can they account for it?

Kiwi in IE · 27-03-2014 10:14PM

robindch wrote: »

But that would be terribly unfair as people would then have to pay the church tax to guarantee that their kids would get a place in the local church-controlled school!

The government would have to intervene and force schools to accept children regardless of religion ( this should already be in place in a country where 97% of state funded schools are affiliated with religion). Current government funding of schools would not change because of the introduction of a church tax so it would have nothing to do with schools.

Absolam · 28-03-2014 12:02AM

Fantastic thread. I'm amazed that atheists could be persuaded to advocate for the State to implement a tax which would be paid over to religious organisations. Remarkable!

How to "un-baptize"/ Withdraw affiliation with RCC?

Comments