Problem With Defection From Catholic Chruch

eoin5

Glenster wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something, does everyone esle here not ask "and what would this be regarding" when someone calls the house for someone who isn't there.

So you can say,

"Mark, such-and-such called while you were out"

"what did they want"

"they wanted blah-blah"


Is that not normal? It's what everyone I've ever lived with does.

Oh, I like this game!

"Mark, the doctor called while you were out"

"what did he want"

"he wanted to tell you that your erectile dysfunction is permanent"


"Mark, your girlfriend called while you were out"

"what did she want"

"they wanted to tell you that shes not going to dress up as a sheep for you anymore on saturday nights"

Glenster

toiletduck wrote: »

Maybe you'll learn someday that different people have different circumstances.

So what then? Would you do it? I certainly wouldn't.

If I had a sick mother or a mother who I thought would be hurt in any way by it I wouldn't risk them finding out about it, I wouldn't do it. Whether it be converting to a church, mosque or my chapter of atheist ireland.


I certainly wouldn't go around to the priest/official that told her and say

"why did you tell my mother that I did something that would hurt her"

It's called personal responsibility.

People on this board seem averse to accepting the consequences, unfair or not, of their actions.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

People on this board seem averse to accepting the consequences, unfair or not, of their actions.

Actually, they seem to be more adverse to one priest breaking confidentiality and sharing the details of personal correspondence from an adult with members of said adults family, it's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Say your internet service provider rang up, looked for you, someone answered and said you weren't in (in this scenario you live in the house), they said they were ringing about the fact that you changed your internet provider. Is that wrong?

Yes!

When I worked for AIB we would some times be co-opted by the sales team to do phone surveys.

If you rang and didn't get the person you were looking for but someone else answered the phone you weren't even allowed say you were ringing from AIB. You had to say a leading financial services provider. Didn't matter if it was their wife, parents, kids. Didn't matter at all.

People's privacy is not something to **** around with.

Glenster

eoin5 wrote: »

Oh, I like this game!

"Mark, the doctor called while you were out"

"what did he want"

"he wanted to tell you that your erectile dysfunction is permanent"


"Mark, your girlfriend called while you were out"

"what did she want"

"they wanted to tell you that shes not going to dress up as a sheep for you anymore on saturday nights"

Doctors aren't allowed to give out information. As for the girlfriend, more power to her.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Doctors aren't allowed to give out information.

Er, yes but do you know why ....

Hint, starts with "p", ands with "y"

Glenster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Actually, they seem to be more adverse to one priest breaking confidentiality and sharing the details of personal correspondence from an adult with members of said adults family, it's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

confidentiality? He's not your lawyer. You weren't confessing to him. He isn't sharing your financial information or giving medical test results.

Sending someone a stock letter printed off from the internet doesn't guarantee confidentiality.

If you sent me a letter I could show it to as many people as I want. And the only reason you wouldn't want me to is if you were somehow ashamed of the contents.

My point is that it seems as though the OP is ashamed of his status.

It's just snivelry to say "but I didn't want my mommy and daddy to find out".

toiletduck

Glenster wrote: »

So what then? Would you do it? I certainly wouldn't.

If I had a sick mother or a mother who I thought would be hurt in any way by it I wouldn't risk them finding out about it, I wouldn't do it. Whether it be converting to a church, mosque or my chapter of atheist ireland.


I certainly wouldn't go around to the priest/official that told her and say

"why did you tell my mother that I did something that would hurt her"

It's called personal responsibility.

People on this board seem averse to accepting the consequences, unfair or not, of their actions.

Balls. Yeah it'd be all my fault :rolleyes: I wouldn't have imagined that the RCC would lack the cop-on or common sense not to go around discussing a private matter with all and sundry. Due to reactions here I gather most people would have been of the same opinion. I suppose expecting a bit of decency and common courtesy from that organisation is pretty foolish.

Interestingly they received a phone call a few weeks back asking for me. The woman couldn't tell them why she was calling or even on behalf of whom. A letter a few days later revealed that it was the IBTS asking for a call-up. I suppose in the weird strange world of the religious, stuff like electricity bills and blood transfusion data is more worthy of data protection than the status of ones 'immortal soul'....

mehfesto

Few more maybe?:

"John, your boss called to the door. Said to tell you that you're sacked."

"John, the Bank Manager called, said to say they're repossessing the house"

"John, some chap called.. didn't see to understand the basic premise of manners, but also seemed a bit perplexed about the notion confidentiality."

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, yes but do you know why ....

Hint, starts with "p", ands with "y"

Doctor-patient confidentiality?

You dont mean privacy do you? 'Cos that's not it.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

confidentiality? He's not your lawyer. You weren't confessing to him. He isn't sharing your financial information or giving medical test results.

Sending someone a stock letter printed off from the internet doesn't guarantee confidentiality.

If you sent me a letter I could show it to as many people as I want. And the only reason you wouldn't want me to is if you were somehow ashamed of the contents.

My point is that it seems as though the OP is ashamed of his status.

It's just snivelry to say "but I didn't want my mommy and daddy to find out".

I'm assuming he was writing to the priest in a professional capacity and not as a chum, this is just getting more and more ridiculous.

You think an organisation who can hide behind the veil of secrecy and confidentiality to hide child rapists can't take a letter of private correspondence and treat it as such? The hypocrisy is staggering but sadly, unsurprising. No wonder the chap wants out.

Glenster

toiletduck wrote: »

Balls. Yeah it'd be all my fault :rolleyes: I wouldn't have imagined that the RCC would lack the cop-on or common sense not to go around discussing a private matter with all and sundry. Due to reactions here I gather most people would have been of the same opinion. I suppose expecting a bit of decency and common courtesy from that organisation is pretty foolish.

Interestingly they received a phone call a few weeks back asking for me. The woman couldn't tell them why she was calling or even on behalf of whom. A letter a few days later revealed that it was the IBTS asking for a call-up. I suppose in the weird strange world of the religious, stuff like electricity bills and blood transfusion data is more worthy of data protection than the status of ones 'immortal soul'....

All that stuff is under the data protection act. Sending in a letter to the church isn't.

The real question is why did he do it in the first place? Cry for help?

I wouldn't send in a letter to the cubscouts withdrawing from their organisation. Not much point.

Glenster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm assuming he was writing to the priest in a professional capacity and not as a chum, this is just getting more and more ridiculous.

??? What does that have to do with anything? If I wrote a letter to the irish rugby team informing them that I will no longer be eligible for selection, I wouldn't expect privacy there, would you?

A priest has no obligation to keep your secrets (unless it's in a confession). The same way your butcher has no obligation to keep your secrets.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You think an organisation who can hide behind the veil of secrecy and confidentiality to hide child rapists can't take a letter of private correspondence and treat it as such? The hypocrisy is staggering but sadly, unsurprising. No wonder the chap wants out.

All priests are paedophiles, therefore they cant tell my mum that I've left the organisation. Rational.

They're being too secretive - they're not being secretive enough. Make up your mind.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

All that stuff is under the data protection act. Sending in a letter to the church isn't.

You were the one that used the internet provider analogy...

Glenster wrote: »

The real question is why did he do it in the first place? Cry for help?

Yes, having to follow the church's own protocol for leaving the church is a cry for help, no doubt. :rolleyes:

Malari

Glenster wrote: »

I wouldn't send in a letter to the cubscouts withdrawing from their organisation. Not much point.

Oh finally! Here we have the nub of it then. I wouldn't do it, therefore anyone who would is wrong. :rolleyes:

robindch

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You really do sound like a teenager with an opinion like this.

As comments go, this is about as non-controversial as it gets, but all the same, do please keep it non-personal -- thanks.

toiletduck

Glenster wrote: »

All that stuff is under the data protection act. Sending in a letter to the church isn't.

Didn't say it was in there. Nobody did. Again the point is missed.

The real question is why did he do it in the first place? Cry for help?

Nah, the real question is what was going through the mind of the clergy involved in attempting to track him down and why common decency went out the window.

I wouldn't send in a letter to the cubscouts withdrawing from their organisation. Not much point.

Perhaps if you were still down on the membership books and you wished to distance yourself, in the only way they acknowledge, from the biggest paedophile ring the country has ever known then you might withdraw. Or not.

ott

hi guys you lot are passionate about this issue. just to clear things up, i said in my post i didnt mind the priest calling to my parents house as that was the address id given. (i often use this address as my permanent address as ive been renting for the last few years and have moved a few times) Anyway the thing im most annoyed about is the priest reading out the letter to my parents, as others have said the bank manager or my solicitor wouldnt do anything similiar.

As it happens my parents respect my choice and there is no danger of them refusing to speak to me ever again.

Ickle Magoo

Glenster wrote: »

??? What does that have to do with anything? If I wrote a letter to the irish rugby team informing them that I will no longer be eligible for selection, I wouldn't expect privacy there, would you?

Yes, of course. Any official private correspondence should be treated as such.

Glenster wrote: »

A priest has no obligation to keep your secrets (unless it's in a confession). The same way your butcher has no obligation to keep your secrets.

Who said anything about secrets? It's an official private correspondence. It's unprofessional and a breech of confidence with the author of the letter.

Glenster wrote: »

All priests are paedophiles, therefore they cant tell my mum that I've left the organisation. Rational.

What's it got to do with his mum, is the point. The letter was from the OP concerning the OP to a priest in a professional capacity - the priest is being completely unprofessional to share that information with people whom it does not concern as well as breeching the trust of its author.

Glenster wrote: »

They're being too secretive - they're not being secretive enough. Make up your mind.

Exactly, that's my point - duh! Seems to be all cloak and daggers & cannon law when it suits and "no obligations" when it doesn't...hypocritical much.

Malari wrote:

Oh finally! Here we have the nub of it then. I wouldn't do it, therefore anyone who would is wrong.

I know, christian wouldn't write count me letter out and can't see why anyone else would - shockeroonies! :pac:

Glenster

toiletduck wrote: »

Perhaps if you were still down on the membership books and you wished to distance yourself, in the only way they acknowledge, from the biggest paedophile ring the country has ever known then you might withdraw. Or not.

The cubscouts aren't that bad.

uncleoswald

Glenster wrote: »

A priest has no obligation to keep your secrets (unless it's in a confession). The same way your butcher has no obligation to keep your secrets.

There is a big difference in keeping secrets and making the contents of a letter that was obviously written in confidence public.

In fact I find it hard to believe you actually believe what you're saying. If you went to a priest to talk about some problems you were having would it be okay for the Priest to make his sermon about it, naming you and everything?

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, yes but do you know why ....

Hint, starts with "p", ands with "y"

Penis Envy! :eek:

Glenster

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes, of course. Any official private correspondence should be treated as such.

So what you're saying is that all private correspondence should be treated as private? Edgy.

What about just correspondence? Like this letter. IT WASNT PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL. It wasn't even a personal letter, it was printed off the internet and he just filled his name in.

What's sticking in everyone's craw here is that the priest dared to come round and ask why this guy left his organisation. And in the process the parents found out.

Now a normal person without some sort of a grudge against an institution would think 'the priest came around to discuss my withdrawal, I had given the details of my parent's house so my parents found out'.

They certainly wouldn't concoct some sort of a conspiracy theory.

Then they wouldn't retreat into the realms of 'it's no-ones business but my own'. If you leave any group people are going to find out, get over it.

Dades

Glenster you sound like teenager yourself just being contradictory for the sake of it.

I don't believe an adult would be so flippant about privacy issues.

If someone calls to your house to discuss something personal with you - they don't normally discuss it with your housemate in your absence.

Galvasean

Glenster wrote: »

So what you're saying is that all private correspondence should be treated as private?

Glenster wrote:

Edgy.

No, just proper order.

Although we are starting to go around in circles now. There is not much point in me explaining to you why the priest was wrong to read out the letter to people it was not addressed to since it has been done already and you clearly don't want to listen. You'd rather make it out that those darned atheists are makinga hulaballoo about nothing.

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

As comments go, this is about as non-controversial as it gets, but all the same, do please keep it non-personal -- thanks.

Ah... sorry, you are correct. I didn't use the moderater proof method for insulting people

*ahem* Some posters, maybe posting in this thread, maybe not, seem to have opinions that might appear incredibly infantile and moronic to someone who is old enough to understand why personal privacy is important.

davef1000

Glenster, I defected recently and all the letters I received from the bishop were marked Strictly Personal And Confidential. See where the problem is here?

Glenster

Listen, it's not a letter, it's a standard form. If the priest was reading it out, he wasn't reading the words of the OP.

Do you all think he was reading out the heartfelt words of the OP?

HE WAS NOT READING OUT THE WORDS OF THE OP. IT WAS A PRO-FORMA........FORM.

There was nothing personal about it.

I think you're all just being offended because you can, ignoring the spirit of what was done.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Doctor-patient confidentiality?

You dont mean privacy do you? 'Cos that's not it.

Of course it is, what do you think the point of doctor patient confidentiality is

It is to protect the privacy of the patient, so the patient can tell the doctor private things without risk that the doctor will tell other people the patients private details

For crying out loud :rolleyes:

davef1000

I'm not offended. I'm annoyed At the behaviour of that priest if he did, indeed, read the contents of four letters from a bishop to people who were not the addressees. Disregarding the contents of the letter the OP initially sent (which it is possible to customise, you know, it's not simply a pro-forma form) there were FOUR letters that would have been marked Strictly Private/Personal And Confidential, that were read out to someone other than the addressee.

I'm also annoyed because you're an idiot, but that's another day's work.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Listen, it's not a letter, it's a standard form. If the priest was reading it out, he wasn't reading the words of the OP.

Do you all think he was reading out the heartfelt words of the OP?

HE WAS NOT READING OUT THE WORDS OF THE OP. IT WAS A PRO-FORMA........FORM.

There was nothing personal about it.

I think you're all just being offended because you can, ignoring the spirit of what was done.

Since when is a form not personal?

Some of the most personal private details about myself that I've ever recorded on paper were on forms

Have you never filled out a medical report or financial statement? Would you be happy with the doctor or the bank manager reading out that to some one else because it was a form rather than a letter?

"Ah yes, lets see, oh yes says here on your sons life insurance form that he was treated for anal herpes in 1998. Any idea what that was about?"

I've no idea if you are or not a teenager (doesn't matter) but by the sound of it you have very little experience with stuff like this, so perhaps it would be an idea to listen to what people are saying in terms of this stuff.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it is, what do you think the point of doctor patient confidentiality is

It is to protect the privacy of the patient, so the patient can tell the doctor private things without risk that the doctor will tell other people the patients private details

For crying out loud :rolleyes:

Privacy is just a word. An idea. An abstract. Something we're all entitiled to, in general.

The doctor doesnt tell others about you because of Doctor-Patient Confidentiality, a specific rule that doctors have.

To say that doctors dont share your medical records with randomers is because of privacy is ridiculous.

It's like saying Doctors make you better because of healing. I suppose it makes sense but.........

Malari

Glenster wrote: »

Listen, it's not a letter, it's a standard form. If the priest was reading it out, he wasn't reading the words of the OP.

Do you all think he was reading out the heartfelt words of the OP?

HE WAS NOT READING OUT THE WORDS OF THE OP. IT WAS A PRO-FORMA........FORM.

There was nothing personal about it.

I think you're all just being offended because you can, ignoring the spirit of what was done.

So what if it was a standardised letter? He wouldn't have sent it if it didn't echo his feelings on it. That doesn't mean it isn't personal. If the letter contained solely the words "count me out" it was at the very least incredibly rude of the priest to show it to the parents. Or anyone else at the house.

And by the way, do you see the difference between showing the letter to, say another priest, or even a lay friend of his and showing the letter to the author's parents with the express purpose of dissuading him of continuing the defection process?

Glenster

ott wrote: »

and read to them at least 4 letters the bishop had sent him regarding my correspondence.

I'll just get my coat.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

Privacy is just a word. An idea. An abstract. Something we're all entitiled to, in general.

The doctor doesnt tell others about you because of Doctor-Patient Confidentiality, a specific rule that doctors have.

To say that doctors dont share your medical records with randomers is because of privacy is ridiculous.

No offence but that is just sillly. Privacy is why the doctor patient confidentiality clause exists in the first place.

Your argument is like saying people don't wear hard hats on a building site because of worker safety, oh no!, they do it because the big sign over there says "Wear a hard hat", nothing to do with worker safety

Missing the wood for the trees so to speak.

If you are saying the priest doesn't care about privacy I agree, but then that was the whole point.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

I've no idea if you are or not a teenager (doesn't matter) but by the sound of it you have very little experience with stuff like this, so perhaps it would be an idea to listen to what people are saying in terms of this stuff.

I've experience of getting letters, not with opting out of a religion.

I have experience of making a decision and standing by it and not blaming someone else when the truth finally comes out (which it inevitably always does).

davef1000

and read to them at least 4 letters the bishop had sent him regarding my correspondence

Glenster wrote: »

I'll just get my coat.

Well, colour me embarrassed. I stand by my last statement, though.

Glenster

Wicknight wrote: »

If you are saying the priest doesn't care about privacy I agree, but then that was the whole point.

I was saying that there's no reason to expect confidentiality when you send in a form asking to be removed from an organisation's books.

But come on, if an alien/child asked you why doctors dont share patients records would you say 'there is a rule called doctor patient confidentiality' or would you just say 'privacy'. One is a reasonable explanation.

Glenster

davef1000 wrote: »

Well, colour me embarrassed. I stand by my last statement, though.

Are you being me? There should be a font called sarcasmo.

davef1000

Glenster wrote:

I have experience of making a decision and standing by it and not blaming someone else when the truth finally comes out (which it inevitably always does).

What the hell, man? He is standing by his decision. He is annoyed at the way that priest handled the issue. You are twisting the facts to support some point that I can't understand anymore and you must be doing it for shíts and giggles at this point because, call me naïve, but I don't think you can really be that stupid.

goat2

ott wrote: »

I sent a letter and declaration of defection to the bishop of my diosece on 3rd March 2010 using the standard letter on the count me out website. Approximately two weeks later i got a letter from the bishop stating that he had received my request but that defecting was a more complicated procedure and i would have to speak to my local parish priest and the bishop would send a copy of my request to the local parish priest, that was last week.

On my letter to the bishop i used my parents address as im moving house soon and didnt want any correspondnce to be mislaid. The parish priest today called in to my parents house asking to speak with me (which is fine as that is the address i used on my correspondence to the bishop). My parents told him that i did not live at their address but simply used the address for correspondence. The parish priest then proceeded to tell them why he was calling to see me ie i had writtin to the bishop wanting to defect from the Catholic Church. He then said the bishop had also requested that he speak with my parents to ask them why they thought i had made such a decision. He then proceeded to read to them the letter i had sent to the bishop and read to them at least 4 letters the bishop had sent him regarding my correspondence.

My partner witnessed my signature on the declaration of defection, the parish priest then pointed this out to my parents and said that the bishop may ask the parish priest of my partners mothers parish to speak with her about it.

anyway the priest is apparently going to ring me to arrange to meet at the weekend. Im pretty sure that he shouldnt have read my letter out to my parents etc and i want to know what i can say to him to stop him from telling everyone.

you did say you are defecting from the church

but hopefully not god

as the two are very different, you can pray to god anywhere, anytime yoou wish

davef1000

Right, now I'm getting my coat.

*sigh*

Christians, eh?

uncleoswald

Glenster wrote: »

I have experience of making a decision and standing by it and not blaming someone else when the truth finally comes out (which it inevitably always does).

How are they not standing by their decision? And what exactly are they blaming someone else on? All your choices of words seem to suggest that you think what the OP did was wrong.

But come on, if an alien/child asked you why doctors dont share patients records would you say 'there is a rule called doctor patient confidentiality' or would you just say 'privacy'. One is a reasonable explanation.

I'd tell them there is rule about doctor patient confidentiality for privacy reasons, which would be the full explanation.

mewso

I think the wording on the standard letter on count me out should perhaps be altered to read:-

"I wish to leave the Catholic Church as I was regularly abused as a child by my Parish Priest"

No danger of him reading it out to the parents then. Probably wouldn't even call around.

Glenster

davef1000 wrote: »

What the hell, man? He is standing by his decision. He is annoyed at the way that priest handled the issue. You are twisting the facts to support some point that I can't understand anymore and you must be doing it for shíts and giggles at this point because, call me naïve, but I don't think you can really be that stupid.

I must be.

Having just realised that the priest read out private correspondence between the man and the bishop (4 letters in about two weeks?) I cant support that.

But the idea that we deserve privacy in all things is silly, best that the parents find out now.

If you're really serious about it, you'll do it regardless of who finds out about it. Maybe the way the church acts is a little test to see if you're serious or not.

And just to clear it up, I dont mind what anyone does, it just doesnt seem that important to me, it's a tick on some church document, it's not like describing yourself as an atheist or 'no religion' on a census form which can affect the way society is run.

Malari

Glenster wrote: »

If you're really serious about it, you'll do it regardless of who finds out about it.

I'm not sure why you put in this little caveat. Most people do plenty of things with all seriousness without ever considering who will find out because it is none of their business.

Zombrex

Glenster wrote: »

I was saying that there's no reason to expect confidentiality when you send in a form asking to be removed from an organisation's books.

Why?

Are you saying your dealings between yourself and your local priest as to your religion should be public?

What right does the priest have to tell anyone else about his interactions with you over your religious feelings? That is just gossip.

There is implied notion of privacy in any dealings between the public and a public figure such as a priest where the member of the public is submitting private information to them (see my example about when I was in AIB)

It is no one else's business what the OP's religious feelings are, and as such the priest has no right to share this information with people when the person has informed the priest.

This is basic privacy 101.

Glenster wrote: »

But come on, if an alien/child asked you why doctors dont share patients records would you say 'there is a rule called doctor patient confidentiality' or would you just say 'privacy'. One is a reasonable explanation.

I would say patient privacy.

The details of how doctors have organised this between themselves and their patient is beside the point.

Other groups have different terms for it (law client privilage for example) but privacy is the point.

Erren Music

Glenster wrote: »

I'll just get my coat.

And you are still here,

Would a poll result help you out. Every single poster disagrees with you on this issue.

Erren Music

What rights do I have under the Data Communication Act?

A 2007 case study by the Data Protection Commissioner reached the conclusion that, with regard to the RCC's baptismal record, you do not have the right to demand that your name be deleted since it is a record of an historical event and the information is essential to the running of the Church.

However, if an organisation holds information about you that is out of date or that you believe to be incorrect, you have the right to request for it to be amended.

Moreover, the Church is required to keep your defection private. Under the same act, they are classed as a "data controller", since they hold personal information on you. A data controller must

• get and use your information fairly;
• keep it for only one or more clearly stated and lawful purposes;
• use and make known this information only in ways that are in keeping with these purposes;
• keep the information safe;
• make sure that the information is factually correct, complete and up-to-date;
• make sure that there is enough information – but not too much - and that it is relevant;
• keep the information for no longer than is needed for the reason stated; and
• give you a copy of your personal information when you ask for it.

ItisintheSTARS

Erren Music wrote: »

They are not allowed to discuss with anyone else. It is a private matter.

I only wish the priest called to my house when I left.

I do not want to 'bash' the church ,because in my opinion,there has never been an organisation which has contributed to a 'higher' society than the C.C.
But while the fundamental laws continue,we have learned,and do not need or want to REPEAT the same lessons over and over.
The priests need to be able to listen to intellectual debate, while keeping the basics.
A good parent [metaphor the church] needs to catch up with it's brightest children ,and not talk down to them,then they will not want to leave permanently.
Better for the priests too.