Leaving the catholic church

Monty.

Realtine wrote: »

I have and they do. and it's in print.

Glad to here it, the last thing we would want is to bury you in the wrong place.

Delirium

Monty. wrote: »

It's not a Catholic teaching and never was.

never said it was, I was commenting on the attitudes that were common when people played Catholic and wanted to be seen as more pious than their neighbours.

Caulego

Monty. wrote: »

It's not a Catholic teaching and never was.

Allegedly, neither was women having to wear a hat or scarf in church so that God would not be troubled by the 'impure thoughts' of the lowly females of the species, which I saw being promoted and practiced until well into the mid 70's.
Many rote observances were promoted and not dissuaded by the RCC, so they became 'tradition', which basically means you do it because you feel you should or you might look like the odd one out.

Here's who St Paul, a murderer, thought about the subject in 1 Corinthians, 11:3

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5: but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

Looks like all the Christian women should head to the hairdressers right away and have their locks shorn, or nip down to Pennys and buy a headscarf, and then get back home and obey their husbands......the brazen hussies.
I don't know what women with alopecia are supposed to do, but it doesn't look too good for them...:rolleyes:

Monty.

koth wrote: »

never said it was, I was commenting on the attitudes that were common when people played Catholic and wanted to be seen as more pious than their neighbours.

Now the same people play something else to be seen more pious than their neighbours, so what ?

Monty.

Caulego wrote: »

Allegedly, neither was women having to wear a hat or scarf in church so that God would not be troubled by the 'impure thoughts' of the lowly females of the species, which I saw being promoted and practiced until well into the mid 70's.
Many rote observances were promoted and not dissuaded by the RCC, so they became 'tradition', which basically means you do it because you feel you should or you might look like the odd one out.

Here's who St Paul, a murderer, thought about the subject in 1 Corinthians, 11:3

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5: but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

Looks like all the Christian women should head to the hairdressers right away and have their locks shorn, or nip down to Pennys and buy a headscarf, and then get back home and obey their husbands......the brazen hussies.
I don't know what women with alopecia are supposed to do, but it doesn't look too good for them...:rolleyes:

Mods : Can I answer this here, is it on topic ?

Delirium

Monty. wrote: »

Now the same people play something else to be seen more pious than their neighbours, so what ?

My point is that when people were playing catholic it was worse than what you claim to be happening now. Mainly because you must do/say things to prove you're a good Catholic.

Being an atheist requires nothing of anyone in their day to day life. That being said I've yet to see atheism on a level comparable to the levels of Catholicism as they were when I was a kid.

Caulego

Monty. wrote: »

Now the same people play something else to be seen more pious than their neighbours, so what ?

It's not the particular act Monty, but the fact that is a trained response that is cult-ivated in the minds of the populace. Yesterday's headscarf is today's BMW...still based on notions of superority, which is an un-thinking, un-conscious reaction to feelings of inadequacy, which is what all religions teach, as all are beneath the feet of gods and their servant priests, who are already ready to 'put you on the right path', regardless of where it might blindly lead you.
Do you ever wonder why the Irish have been so easily sold ideas of grandeur without paying any cost, just like as in religion, when their previous developed sense of inferority, as indoctrinated by the Church over 1600 years, was going to predictably directed towards notions of 'Success at last - I am saved! I knew it would happen one day, if I believed hard enough!'. So dark the con of man indeed. Because we were trained to blindly believe, now all we can do is weep loudly and grieve.

Caulego

Monty. wrote: »

Mods : Can I answer this here, is it on topic ?

You can if you like Monty, but maybe you really don't wish to, for whatever reason, or lack thereof. The theme of the thread is about leaving the RCC, so the discussion on the various pressures that are exerted on members not to leave are completely relevant, due to the nature of how rote and traditional conditioning can inhibit the formation of reasoned and informed choices. However, that's just my opinion, for what it is worth.
The Mods can decide, and are free to communicate directly with me on the matter, as I am not afraid to weigh up my arguments in the light of fair judgement.

robindch

Monty. wrote: »

Can I answer this here, is it on topic?

Yep - as you wish, though it might fit well in another thread too.

magicbastarder

Caulego wrote: »

Yes, you are right:

you are jim corr and i claim my free alien visitation.

Caulego

magicbastarder wrote: »

you are jim corr and i claim my free alien visitation.

Don't know anything about Jim Corr or any visitation from aliens, but would the local parish priest do instead? He's supposed to be a very holey man and is sure to tell you about things up in the sky.

Monty.

As this is not the correct forum/thread and I am a guest over here, I will be brief :

Caulego wrote: »

Here's who St Paul, a murderer, thought about the subject in 1 Corinthians, 11:3

Paul confesses that beyond measure he persecuted the church of God prior to his conversion by Jesus. He took part in the murder of the martyr Stephen. Acts records how he as a young man stood by and guarded the coats while Stephen was stoned.

Caulego wrote: »

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5: but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6: For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.

Not really an issue for any Christian :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering

Monty.

Caulego wrote: »

The theme of the thread is about leaving the RCC, so the discussion on the various pressures that are exerted on members not to leave are completely relevant

What pressures not to leave ?

The more pseudo Catholics that leave the better.

Caulego

Monty. wrote: »

As this is not the correct forum/thread and I am a guest over here, I will be brief :


Paul confesses that beyond measure he persecuted the church of God prior to his conversion by Jesus. He took part in the murder of the martyr Stephen. Acts records how he as a young man stood by and guarded the coats while Stephen was stoned.


Not really an issue for any Christian :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering

Paul admitted to persecuting the followers of The Way, which is the philosophy that Jesus' followers adhered to before Paul later remodelled parts of his teachings to suit his 'vision'.
Paul, as you correctly say, was involved in minding the coats of the murderers of Stephen, a follower of The Way. The people in the region got so angry at Paul (who changed his name to Saul to cover up his past evils) that they tried to stone him to death, but when trouble arose he hid behind his Roman citizenship, just like the RCC priests do today, as Paul was a Jew and a Roman. That's why Paul-Saul's religion later took off in Rome, and why the original Way following 'mysteriously 'vanished' after Peter was killed in Antioch in or around the end of the 60s AD.
The fact that he instructed women to be subservient to their husbands shows that he was an entrenched misogynist.
The relevance of the head covering comes directly from Paul-Saul, and not Jesus, and that is what is relevant, but as the holy bible as formed by Paul-Saul instructs women to cover their head ot be dishonoured then it is a requirement by God. The fact that they don't obey, or mostly don't even know that such an explicit rule exists, is exactly the sort of pick and choose ideology that religions promote, as they act on 'I'll do it if I want to, so long as I fit in', thus living a dual existence of contradiction, which makes them also unaware of the fact that they are confusing themselves, as is the case with the eucharist i.e. knowing that they are in fact not eating the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood of Jesus, but then denying reality and accepting it as a fact.
Confusion causes fear, and fear makes people more controllable, so they latch on to the nearest crutch and think that it is secure, but it is only a make-believe and convenient delusion. When this kind of mentality pervades the national mindset, then you end up with a flock-like populace, easily directed into and escape from their confused state, but often into a deeper hole than the one they were in previously. Sound familiar?
This kind of dishonest trickery and mindgames makes it practically impossible for the confused believer to separate fact from fiction, so they are easily sold other products and services that renders them vulnerable to the bankers and who lend them money at interest, called usury, which is a declared heresy and an excommunicable offence for a Catholic to indulge in. Yet again, this is indicative of the double-take, double-think mentality that renders the laity confused, manageable, as you will see all so many bankers (userers) sitting in the front pews in churches. They just pretend that the exlicit rules don't apply to them, and as people follow example, any example, then it becomes normalised to act in a hypocritical way in all matters, if and when it proves expedient. Belief is necessary to avoid reality, and that's why it proves so popular, as it eases the conscience, or what is left of it, and allows the sinner to be automatically 'forgiven' if they feel it is justified. Like the 'head covering' rules, as you said above, it is 'not an issue' because they choose to ignore the facts, when and if it suits, thus compromising their very integrity, as they can no longer trust themselves to tell the difference between right and wrong. Is that moral behaviour, and if not why not make sure that people are not hindered or delayed from leaving any organisation that promotes such practices, when they realise exactly what they had previously been blindly and unwittingly following?

How does one get excommunicated? Back in the day priests and bishops ran their mouths about people can get excommunicated for x, y, or z...

I'm just wondering now if I can get excommunicated, and how would one go about it?

Does the vatican have an unsubscribe email or text service?

I've tried 1800-HELLBOUND but didn't get the notification text.

ISAW

Caulego wrote: »

P but when trouble arose he hid behind his Roman citizenship, just like the RCC priests do today,

REally which RCC Priests?
When has citizenship of the Holy See been invoked to prevent a prosecution by another State?

as Paul was a Jew and a Roman. That's why Paul-Saul's religion later took off in Rome, and why the original Way following 'mysteriously 'vanished' after Peter was killed in Antioch in or around the end of the 60s AD.

While Paul was a fundamental figure in early Christianity you are suggesting as 2boss in Rome" he changed the original message. Paul was not a bishop of Rome nor did he bring Christianity to Rome since there were already Christians in Rome when he arrived there (Acts 28:14-15). He was executed by the way. Paul's Roman citizenship possibly benefitted him by allowed him to be beheadded or crusified right way up instead of upside down. He spent years in prison there. Hardly hiding?

The fact that he instructed women to be subservient to their husbands shows that he was an entrenched misogynist.

Arguable. Another explaination is that that passage is about asking women not to be nagging their husbands to rebuke other women and talking up in Church.

The relevance of the head covering comes directly from Paul-Saul, and not Jesus, and that is what is relevant, but as the holy bible as formed by Paul-Saul instructs women to cover their head ot be dishonoured then it is a requirement by God.

so a pope or bishop is dishonouring himself by wearing a Mitre?

The fact that they don't obey, or mostly don't even know that such an explicit rule exists, is exactly the sort of pick and choose ideology that religions promote,

Roman Catholics are not required to wear headgear. Where is this rule required in any church today? I think you are making it up. It is not regarded essential for Mass. Mind you a Mass culd happen if people all turned up naked. While nudists might have a Mass I would think most people prefer to dress even though no rule says "wear clothes".

as they act on 'I'll do it if I want to, so long as I fit in', thus living a dual existence of contradiction, which makes them also unaware of the fact that they are confusing themselves, as is the case with the eucharist i.e. knowing that they are in fact not eating the actual flesh and drinking the actual blood of Jesus, but then denying reality and accepting it as a fact.

If you want to discuss the "Dcotrine of the Real Presence" then I suggest you try the christianity forum and not try to crowbar it midway into a paragraph.

Confusion causes fear, and fear makes people more controllable, so they latch on to the nearest crutch and think that it is secure, but it is only a make-believe and convenient delusion. When this kind of mentality pervades the national mindset, then you end up with a flock-like populace, easily directed into and escape from their confused state, but often into a deeper hole than the one they were in previously. Sound familiar?

I totally agree. It is a psychology prevalent in religious and non religious cults usually marked with authoritarianism whehter atheistic regimes or neoconservatives. It isnt a hallmark or requirement or endemic essential oe reserved for the Roman Catholic Church.

This kind of dishonest trickery and mindgames makes it practically impossible for the confused believer to separate fact from fiction, so they are easily sold other products and services that renders them vulnerable to the bankers and who lend them money at interest, called usury, which is a declared heresy and an excommunicable offence for a Catholic to indulge in. Yet again, this is indicative of the double-take, double-think mentality that renders the laity confused, manageable, as you will see all so many bankers (userers) sitting in the front pews in churches.

So you are saying all bankers are usuers or only just the one that attend Church?
By the way where did the RCC promote usury? Where did they promote people going to money lenders? I woudl ahve the the VdeP did the opposite. It was set up in Paris by the way to help the poor when the communist atheists were promoting revolution to bring more equality in coffee shops. They drank a lot of coffee but did little for the poor in comparison.

They just pretend that the exlicit rules don't apply to them, and as people follow example, any example, then it becomes normalised to act in a hypocritical way in all matters, if and when it proves expedient.

Indeed Jesus pointed out how Pharisees behave.

Belief is necessary to avoid reality, and that's why it proves so popular, as it eases the conscience, or what is left of it, and allows the sinner to be automatically 'forgiven' if they feel it is justified. Like the 'head covering' rules, as you said above, it is 'not an issue' because they choose to ignore the facts, when and if it suits, thus compromising their very integrity, as they can no longer trust themselves to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Which is why cult like "blind faith" without reason is discouraged by the RCC.

Is that moral behaviour, and if not why not make sure that people are not hindered or delayed from leaving any organisation that promotes such practices, when they realise exactly what they had previously been blindly and unwittingly following?

Correct. Which is why the RCC encourages critical thinking and people to leave cults. It is why Christians have had such an influence on the development of critical reasoning and science. Atheistic regimes however delivered hundred of millions of corpses.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

Correct. Which is why the RCC encourages critical thinking and people to leave cults.

no they don't. the RCC doesn't allow members to defect if the member has arrived at a point where they don't want to be a member anymore.

ISAW

koth wrote: »

no they don't.

Yes they do!

the RCC doesn't allow members to defect if the member has arrived at a point where they don't want to be a member anymore.

Yes they do. anyone is free to believe what that wish. they won't be a member of the RCC community if they reject reason however or are excommunicated.

Just as any loopy scientist is entitled to believe what they want. They can even advance scientific theories which have no supporting evidence at all and can't be falsified. When they start spouting pseudo science however the scientific community would not embrace them.

the scientific community don't baptise them at birth and hang on to them as a member come what may, so there's no real comparison
excommunication i thought was supposed to mean you are still a catholic and expected to attend mass but can't partake in communion etc?

ISAW

Edz87 wrote: »

How does one get excommunicated? Back in the day priests and bishops ran their mouths about people can get excommunicated for x, y, or z...

I'm just wondering now if I can get excommunicated, and how would one go about it?

Does the vatican have an unsubscribe email or text service?

I've tried 1800-HELLBOUND but didn't get the notification text.

They used to have this procedure but it is nowadays not used. It is a biut like leaving Fianna Fáil. People only constitutionally leave on death but in practice may leave anyway. In rare circumstances they are expelled. these are called ferendae sententiae

There are some automotic excommunication actions or latae sententiae such as procuring an abortion. Excommunication does not mean one is kicked out. Just that they are barred form sacraments or taking part in liturgy e.g. readings.

Excommunication procedures vary denominationally. But again that is probably better dealt with in Christianity than A&A.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

Yes they do!



Yes they do. anyone is free to believe what that wish. they won't be a member of the RCC community if they reject reason however or are excommunicated.

Just as any loopy scientist is entitled to believe what they want. They can even advance scientific theories which have no supporting evidence at all and can't be falsified. When they start spouting pseudo science however the scientific community would not embrace them.

But yet, because I was baptised and never formally left the church, they would still count me as being a member of the church.

Sure, I'm free to believe as I wish. But according to the RCC, I'm still a Catholic. So no ISAW, they do not allow you to leave, they just pretend you haven't.

ISAW

bluewolf wrote: »

the scientific community don't baptise them at birth and hang on to them as a member come what may, so there's no real comparison

There is!
Baptism can't be reversed. It is a totally different think to excommunication.
The academic community can and DO initiate people. Getting a degree is such a thing. How many people have gotten degrees and claimed to be alumni? How many have had their degrees taken off them? So they are held on to.
Actually ironically the last case of this I recall was when Newman's college tried to remove his degree. Someone in the audience ( a proctor I think) stood up and said "non placet" which prevented the university doing it. Ironically he was being attacked for leaving the church of England and becoming a Roman Catholic!

All Christians are not baptised at birth. It is not a requirement of the RCC and many christian denominations don't adopt it as a practice. also the idea of an adult "sponsoring" someone is not unique to Christianity. It happens with trust funds, inheritances, wards, guardianships etc. Are you going to claim

excommunication i thought was supposed to mean you are still a catholic and expected to attend mass but can't partake in communion etc?

Correct. And if you had your degree taken away you could still study at a university.
If it was a medical degree however you might be barred from medical practice.

ISAW

Barrington wrote: »

But yet, because I was baptised and never formally left the church, they would still count me as being a member of the church.

Where? Where and when would they count you?
Counting is usually done on a specific sunday. If you don't go to mass you can be sure they won't count you there.

Sure, I'm free to believe as I wish. But according to the RCC, I'm still a Catholic. So no ISAW, they do not allow you to leave, they just pretend you haven't.

The RCC do not pretend everyone in the world is a Catholic.
Do you accept that?
Now you are claiming that they regard people as Catholic who are lapsed they do in general. If you are saying that they regard anti catholic people who have left without saying but are clearly not Catholics then you would be wrong - they don't regard such people as Catholics. But their door is always open for those who have a change of heart.
AS for "allowing you to leave" while it would have an authority to teach instruct or the Church does not claim any authority to force their belief on others. The question of allowing someone to believe does not arise. People are free to believe as they wish. If they happen to have beliefs contrary to Christianity they are not christian and the Church accepts that is factually true i.e. does not ignore it and teach that it is not a fact.

fitz0

Getting water sprinkled on my head and - Poof! - a degree in magic and wishes.

Spending 5 years of my life working all hours of the day and night to earn my degree.

Please don't insult me by comparing the two.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

Where? Where and when would they count you?
Counting is usually done on a specific sunday. If you don't go to mass you can be sure they won't count you there.

When the Catholic Church claims to have XXX number of followers, do you think that's because they took a headcount at all the Masses that week? No. I was baptised, got my communion and confirmation. In their eyes, I am still a Catholic. The priest isn't at Mass thinking "Gee, Barrington hasn't been here in a while"

ISAW wrote: »

The RCC do not pretend everyone in the world is a Catholic.
Do you accept that?

Yes. Do you accept that I said they count me as a Catholic because I was baptised a Catholic, went to a Catholic school, had my first confession and communion and confirmation?

ISAW wrote: »

Now you are claiming that they regard people as Catholic who are lapsed they do in general. If you are saying that they regard anti catholic people who have left without saying but are clearly not Catholics then you would be wrong - they don't regard such people as Catholics. But their door is always open for those who have a change of heart.

Then may I ask, why do you think they stopped allowing people to formally leave the church using countmeout.ie? For what reason did they do that? There was a way that people who were anti-Catholic could formally leave under their own free will, and they put a stop to it. Why?

ISAW wrote: »

AS for "allowing you to leave" while it would have an authority to teach instruct or the Church does not claim any authority to force their belief on others. The question of allowing someone to believe does not arise. People are free to believe as they wish. If they happen to have beliefs contrary to Christianity they are not christian and the Church accepts that is factually true i.e. does not ignore it and teach that it is not a fact.

Yes, but tell me, how can I make the Church aware that I no longer believe? If they have stopped people from formally leaving the Church, how can I make them go from saying "We have XXXX number of members" to saying "We have (XXXX-1) number of members?"

The Census is the only real way this is now possible, and only because the Census is not controlled by the Church.

Dades

Barrington wrote: »

Yes, but tell me, how can I make the Church aware that I no longer believe? If they have stopped people from formally leaving the Church, how can I make them go from saying "We have XXXX number of members" to saying "We have (XXXX-1) number of members?"

^^ This

ISAW the catholic church specifically made it impossible for most people to leave.

If you take the Vatican's estimates of catholics in the world you can be sure they include Barrington and I (and any number of posters here) in their numbers.

This is the irrefutable reality.

MrPudding

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Yes but it's not a legal document. It's not like my birth cert or passport papers.

Also, the Tesco Transactions records are at least something we do as consenting grown ups. A document I had no say in as a baby is not something I want kept on file.

I think you are getting this a little wrong. The baptisimal record is a record of an event that happened. You can't make it unhappen. This is slightly different to your Tesco clubcard. Your entry int he Tesco clubcard database is an indication of your on ongoing membership of that scheme. Should you no longer wish to be a member they can and will remove you, because it is an indication of your willingness to be a member.

The baptisimal record is the recording of an event that happened. it is not a record of who want to be in the church. Therefore, you can't be removed form it. it is not a membership list, it is a record of stuff what happened.

My understsanding is the church argues that it does not keep a membership record, therefore there is nothing to be removed from. This does beg the quesiton, where do they get their figures from...?

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're missing one salient point; and i think it's in fact the elephant in your particular room of argument, even though you claim it is not; the catholic church claiming me as a member does not mean i am a member.

the church claiming me as a member does not in any way inhibit me to practice my religious beliefs.
the church in claiming me as a member does not inhibit my liberty.
it's no comment on whether the state endows a particular religion in any way; nor should it be. it is me the state asks to fill in my religion on the census, not the church.

Thiis is quite true, but many of us want to show out disapproval by formally telling them we want nothing to do with them and also want to prevent them from using us to bolster their numbers.

MrP

ISAW

Barrington wrote: »

When the Catholic Church claims to have XXX number of followers, do you think that's because they took a headcount at all the Masses that week?

Yes ~that is why it ius called "census sunday"
It measures the numbers at Mass.

No. I was baptised, got my communion and confirmation. In their eyes, I am still a Catholic. The priest isn't at Mass thinking "Gee, Barrington hasn't been here in a while"

He might well be. But you will certainly not appear in census sunday figures.
As you are ignorant of it I should tell you there are still quite a few people going to Christian churches on Sundays.

Yes. Do you accept that I said they count me as a Catholic because I was baptised a Catholic, went to a Catholic school, had my first confession and communion and confirmation?

Yes . and they may have stopped counting you a cathoic since but they probably haven't unless you as them not to include you in their stats. If you want to help them out that is probably what you should do.

Please don't argue this will have a huge effect on the figures for the few percent of atheists.

Then may I ask, why do you think they stopped allowing people to formally leave the church using countmeout.ie?

Oh they stopped the practice long before the internet was available in Ireland as for as I know. If you have any evidence they only changed the practice because of countmeout.ie then I would like to see it. You do know what anachronism and causality is don't you? So if the practice proceeded the claim you can't say countmeout caused anything can you?

For what reason did they do that?

that I can't answer because it is based on a false premise.

If you mean what prompted changes in the 1983 code of canon Law well again I suggest you try the christianity forum.

There was a way that people who were anti-Catholic could formally leave under their own free will, and they put a stop to it. Why?

Again in the other forum
But I don't think it was because atheism was growing. It was in the 1980s and still is a tiny per centage i.e. lower single digit

Yes, but tell me, how can I make the Church aware that I no longer believe? If they have stopped people from formally leaving the Church, how can I make them go from saying "We have XXXX number of members" to saying "We have (XXXX-1) number of members?"

As i told you the church do a census themselves.
But if you really want to you can write to your local parish and ask them to remove you from parish stats.
Likewise if you don't want to be an Irish citizen and do someting to revoke it e.g. take citizenship of another country and renounce your Irish citizenship without telling the Irish authorities they will still include your passport etc. on their list. Even if you renounce it the Irish constitution may still perserve your citizenship. It is what is called an "inalienable right". I home you don't hate Ireland or becom anti-Irish because of that.
Ther are loads of Irish citizens up north who claim to be British and don't ask for their Irish citizenship to be revoked but they could ask for the CSO to have a special case for such people. I don't think the dozen or so who opt in will make much difference.

The Census is the only real way this is now possible, and only because the Census is not controlled by the Church.

the church has it own census. But you could lie on your census form and claim Indian citizenship. It won't make you any less Irish however. Please don't let your mistrust for the church cloud the issue of collecting statistics. They are not conspiring to hide millions of atheists as you seem to think.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

^^ This

ISAW the catholic church specifically made it impossible for most people to leave.

Dades the constitution of countries make it impossible for most people to become slaves or to declare they are not citizens of that country. However many people don't opt to demand that either. I don't see any point in the census wasting resources on "people who want to declae that they are not Irish". Do you?

If you take the Vatican's estimates of catholics in the world you can be sure they include Barrington and I (and any number of posters here) in their numbers.

can I? how do you know? do you have any evidence assert that Catholics refuse to delete people from their statistical calculations that have stated they are not Catholic?

Here is a website with official and non official sources.
If you note any errors feel free to correct them.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/sources.html

This is the irrefutable reality.

It is not irrefutable because you didn't show a source for Catholic populations and show how you are included in it in spite of asking not to be and having that request ignored.

Monty.

Barrington wrote: »

Yes. Do you accept that I said they count me as a Catholic because I was baptised a Catholic, went to a Catholic school, had my first confession and communion and confirmation?

Newsflash : I know your keen to scream "oppression" at every opportunity, but unless you keep the five precepts of the Church you're not a Catholic. So please stop trying to claim your a Catholic.

ISAW

fitz0 wrote: »

Getting water sprinkled on my head and - Poof! - a degree in magic and wishes.

Spending 5 years of my life working all hours of the day and night to earn my degree.

Please don't insult me by comparing the two.

Christians can claim to work night and day at being a christian. If you think all the academic Christians were worthless to society then you have a problem with reality.

And please don't suggest academic knowledge is the only knowledge. the Dali Lama also spent years in study for his exams ~which were in Bhuddism by Priests. And I also explained the water on the head and baptism of babies isn't universal ( t christians) . what is universal is the baptism in the Spirit.

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

I think you are getting this a little wrong. The baptisimal record is a record of an event that happened. You can't make it unhappen. This is slightly different to your Tesco clubcard. Your entry int he Tesco clubcard database is an indication of your on ongoing membership of that scheme. Should you no longer wish to be a member they can and will remove you, because it is an indication of your willingness to be a member.

The baptisimal record is the recording of an event that happened. it is not a record of who want to be in the church. Therefore, you can't be removed form it. it is not a membership list, it is a record of stuff what happened.

My understsanding is the church argues that it does not keep a membership record, therefore there is nothing to be removed from. This does beg the quesiton, where do they get their figures from...?

All very good points.
1. They count people who go to mass.
2. every parish has about 50 plus groups who deal with the area who can tell if someone is christian muslim etc. and have different roles such as faith support and helping the poor aged etc.. They won't deny you help just because you claim not to be Christian.
How many groups do atheists have? Other than discussion groups on how the church is evil and should count them out?
3. they know how many people are in the parish

Thiis is quite true, but many of us want to show out disapproval by formally telling them we want nothing to do with them and also want to prevent them from using us to bolster their numbers.

Good for you. I can see the headlines now. Organised Atheist Outcry Causes 0.1 per cent drop in church membership figures and also a consequent rise in church attendance percentage.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

Dades the constitution of countries make it impossible for most people to become slaves or to declare they are not citizens of that country. However many people don't opt to demand that either. I don't see any point in the census wasting resources on "people who want to declae that they are not Irish". Do you?

Citizenship is generally a result of where you were born. Religious membership should be a choice that everyone can excercise. The RCC doesn't allow that to happen for the majority of their members.

They're made members before they can speak and refuse the ability to defect if they should decide they don't want to be members.

can I? how do you know? do you have any evidence assert that Catholics refuse to delete people from their statistical calculations that have stated they are not Catholic?

Yes, the removed the ability to defect, which was a process where people could get their name removed as a member of the RCC.

It is not irrefutable because you didn't show a source for Catholic populations and show how you are included in it in spite of asking not to be and having that request ignored.

The RCC use baptisms as their basis for determining membership. They don't take a census in every mass and recalculate the membership numbers on a weekly basis.

I don't see why they would use anything other than baptisms to count the members, seeing as you can't leave once they baptised you as a child.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

Yes ~that is why it ius called "census sunday"
It measures the numbers at Mass.

For that week.

ISAW wrote: »

He might well be. But you will certainly not appear in census sunday figures.
As you are ignorant of it I should tell you there are still quite a few people going to Christian churches on Sundays.

Oh I know a lot of people go to Mass. Going to the gym on Sunday mornings is now a real struggle because they're holding weekend masses in the community centre beside the gym. Parking is a nightmare.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes . and they may have stopped counting you a cathoic since but they probably haven't unless you as them not to include you in their stats. If you want to help them out that is probably what you should do.

But how? They've stopped that.

ISAW wrote: »

Please don't argue this will have a huge effect on the figures for the few percent of atheists.

That doesn't matter to me. What I care about is the little percentage taken up by me.

ISAW wrote: »

Oh they stopped the practice long before the internet was available in Ireland as for as I know. If you have any evidence they only changed the practice because of countmeout.ie then I would like to see it. You do know what anachronism and causality is don't you? So if the practice proceeded the claim you can't say countmeout caused anything can you?

that I can't answer because it is based on a false premise.

If you mean what prompted changes in the 1983 code of canon Law well again I suggest you try the christianity forum.

Again in the other forum
But I don't think it was because atheism was growing. It was in the 1980s and still is a tiny per centage i.e. lower single digit

No, I'd like to discuss it here, seeing as how the thread is called "Leaving the Catholic Church" and we are discussing leaving the catholic church.

http://www.countmeout.ie/suspension/
http://countmeout.ie/update200711.php

As for you not thinking atheism was growing, from the first link I gave - "Last year 229 people formally defected from the Church through the Archdiocese of Dublin. 312 have done so, so far this year." While all of those may not have been because of atheism but maybe people wishing to join another religion, the number of people leaving the catholic church was growing.

ISAW wrote: »

As i told you the church do a census themselves.
But if you really want to you can write to your local parish and ask them to remove you from parish stats.

From the second link I gave - "The Act of Apostasy allows someone to declare themselves an apostate to the faith, i.e. one who rejects Christian teachings. Canon Law stipulates that an apostate to the faith automatically incurs a latae senteniae excommunication. In response to the 16 Acts of Apostasy which were sent to the Archdiocese of Dublin in June 2011, a spokesperson stated that they would not be accepted. Furthermore, it was stated that excommunication does not mean that somebody is no longer a member of the church."

ISAW wrote: »

Likewise if you don't want to be an Irish citizen and do someting to revoke it e.g. take citizenship of another country and renounce your Irish citizenship without telling the Irish authorities they will still include your passport etc. on their list. Even if you renounce it the Irish constitution may still perserve your citizenship. It is what is called an "inalienable right". I home you don't hate Ireland or becom anti-Irish because of that.
Ther are loads of Irish citizens up north who claim to be British and don't ask for their Irish citizenship to be revoked but they could ask for the CSO to have a special case for such people. I don't think the dozen or so who opt in will make much difference.

Different system entirely. Lets not focus on what other people do, lets stick to the catholic church.

ISAW wrote: »

the church has it own census. But you could lie on your census form and claim Indian citizenship. It won't make you any less Irish however.

Again, that's different. I was born Irish. I was not born Catholic. Religion is a choice. A choice which was made for me by my parents, and at 12 years old, I confirmed that choice of my own free will... because I wanted confirmation money. At 12 years old, you are not old enough to fully understand something like that. I didn't even know what confirmation was really about, just knew my sister the year before got loads of money for hers, and I wanted the same thing. I do not believe in God. I do not believe there is a God to believe in. So how the **** do the RCC count me as a member?

ISAW wrote: »

Please don't let your mistrust for the church cloud the issue of collecting statistics. They are not conspiring to hide millions of atheists as you seem to think.

Then I ask you again, in April 2010, why did the catholic church stop people from formally defecting from the church, and even refuse to allow people to declare themselves an apostate to the faith?

Penn

Monty. wrote: »

Newsflash : I know your keen to scream "oppression" at every opportunity, but unless you keep the five precepts of the Church you're not a Catholic. So please stop trying to claim your a Catholic.

I'm not. I'm asking why would the church count me as a catholic.

Trust me, I "No Religion"ed the **** out of my census form

Monty.

Barrington wrote: »

I'm not. I'm asking why would the church count me as a catholic.

And we keep telling you they don't, but you don't want to hear that.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

can I? how do you know? do you have any evidence assert that Catholics refuse to delete people from their statistical calculations that have stated they are not Catholic?

Barrington has already posted several references as to the churches new stance on refusing to delete people from their books.

ISAW wrote: »

Here is a website with official and non official sources.
If you note any errors feel free to correct them.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/sources.html

How about you point out these sources - I'm not seeing them.

ISAW wrote: »

It is not irrefutable because you didn't show a source for Catholic populations and show how you are included in it in spite of asking not to be and having that request ignored.

Again, the references have already been posted. Why do you and Monty. keep ignoring them?

From http://countmeout.ie/update200711.php

Church Continues to Block Formal Cessation of Membership

Is there something ambiguous about this?

Penn

Monty. wrote: »

And we keep telling you they don't, but you don't want to hear that.

Okay. A cousin of mine hadn't gone to Mass since he was 15. Hadn't been to confession since he was probably 14. He'd show up at weddings and such, but does not practice Catholicism in any way shape or form.

Got married earlier this year in a Catholic church. How? Because they still counted him as a Catholic, and didn't even really question it.

My sister has been godparent to 4 children over the past 3 years, including my two nephews. She doesn't go to mass. They still counted her as a Catholic though.

Could you explain?

Monty.

Barrington wrote: »

Okay. A cousin of mine hadn't gone to Mass since he was 15. Hadn't been to confession since he was probably 14. He'd show up at weddings and such, but does not practice Catholicism in any way shape or form.

Got married earlier this year in a Catholic church. How? Because they still counted him as a Catholic, and didn't even really question it.

My sister has been godparent to 4 children over the past 3 years, including my two nephews. She doesn't go to mass. They still counted her as a Catholic though.

Could you explain?

Not content that you're not a Catholic, now your asking why your family are not Catholics ?

Why would your cousin choose to get married as a Catholic and pretend to be one ?

Also your sister does not have to be a Catholic to be a God Parent, so why would she pretend to be one ?

Seems very dishonest/odd to me.

They don't interview everyone at the doors of census Sunday, or at every Catholic ceremony, to see who's a pretend Catholic or not. Presumably 99% of the people in attendance would not be non Catholics. I would have thought that non Catholics would not feel like attending.

If your not a Catholic, don't participate in Catholic ceremonies as a Catholic, and you won't be counted as one. It's fairly simple.

Penn

Monty. wrote: »

Why would you cousin choose to get married as a Catholic and pretend to be one ?

Because it's "the done thing"

Monty. wrote: »

Also your sister does not have to be a Catholic to be a God Parent, so why would she pretend to be one ?

Because it's "the done thing"

Monty. wrote: »

Seems very dishonest to me.

They don't interview everyone at the doors of census Sunday to see who's a pretend Catholic or not. Presumbably 99% of the people in attendence would not be non Catholics.

But, obviously the priest and whoever else "knows who is Catholic in the area" would have known that neither had been in church for years. Still took them as being a member of the Catholic church though. I'm not saying they weren't dishonest, and in a few months when I will most likely be godparent to my new nephew, if I'm not asked my religion, I'm not going to tell. My sister knows my stance on religion, and if she still wants me to be godfather, I will to respect her wishes, and its also an honour to be asked.

But again, if neither my cousin nor my sister went to church for about 10 years, why would the church still consider them to be catholic? It's because they never formally defected.

You may think they are dishonest, but the church are also facilitating people who no longer wish to be counted as catholics, to pretend to be catholics, presumably just to boost up their membership numbers.

Penn

Monty. wrote: »

If your not a Catholic, don't participate in Catholic ceremonies as a Catholic, and you won't be counted as one. It's fairly simple.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So to be counted as a Catholic, you just have to participate in Catholic ceremonies. So, my cousin who is an atheist, is being counted as a catholic.

If only there were some way for him to formally defect.....

Monty.

Barrington wrote: »

Because it's "the done thing"

Since when was it the done thing for an atheist to pretend they are Catholic ? Is that what you do ? Oh wait, it is. It's hardly the Churches fault if you want to continue pretending to be Catholic, personally I'd rather you all left and stopped pretending.

Monty.

Barrington wrote: »

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. So to be counted as a Catholic, you just have to participate in Catholic ceremonies. So, my cousin who is an atheist, is being counted as a catholic.

So your cousin who dishonestly pretends he is Catholic, by having a Catholic wedding is counted as a Catholic ? On that day yes, on census Sunday unless he is there, no.

Barrington wrote: »

If only there were some way for him to formally defect.....

There is, stop pretending to be Catholic.

MagicMarker

Hi Monty, can you link us to world wide figures taken on the last census Sunday, or any census Sunday ever? Please and thanks.

Penn

Monty. wrote: »

Since when was it the done thing for an atheist to pretend they are Catholic ? Is that what you do ? Oh wait, it is. It's hardly the Churches fault if you want to continue pretending to be Catholic, personally I'd rather you all left and stopped pretending.

It's "the done thing" to get married in a church, and seeing as how it's what the bride wanted, he complied. My point is, about 10 years he spent having no association with religion at all, yet this was never questioned, because according to the record books, he was still counted as being a catholic. Now, if I am not currently being counted as being a catholic, what do you think the odds are of me being allowed to get married in a church, become a godparent or have my own child christened? Surely, if I am not being counted as a catholic, I would not be allowed to do these things.

Monty. wrote: »

So your cousin who dishonestly pretends he is Catholic, by having a Catholic wedding is counted as a Catholic ? On that day yes, on census Sunday unless he is there, no.

There is, stop pretending to be Catholic.

But again, he was still on their records as being a catholic, so he was still being counted as a member of the RCC.

Now, if I refused to be godparent to my new nephew (which I'm thinking about doing anyway) and never even stepped foot inside a church again, I may not be counted as being at Mass on Census Sunday, but I would still be counted as being a Catholic because there is no FORMAL way to leave the church.

I ask again, why have the RCC put a stop to formal defections? Surely, if they allowed formal defections, it would decrease the number of 'pretend' catholics. If my cousin had done it, he wouldn't have been allowed to get married in the Church, would he? So why have they stopped it?

Monty.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Hi Monty, can you link us to world wide figures taken on the last census Sunday, or any census Sunday ever? Please and thanks.

I don't have them, perhaps ISAW can assist.

Monty.

Barrington wrote: »

It's "the done thing" to get married in a church, and seeing as how it's what the bride wanted, he complied. My point is, about 10 years he spent having no association with religion at all, yet this was never questioned, because according to the record books, he was still counted as being a catholic.

Now, if I am not currently being counted as being a catholic, what do you think the odds are of me being allowed to get married in a church, become a godparent or have my own child christened? Surely, if I am not being counted as a catholic, I would not be allowed to do these things.

But again, he was still on their records as being a catholic, so he was still being counted as a member of the RCC.

Now, if I refused to be godparent to my new nephew (which I'm thinking about doing anyway) and never even stepped foot inside a church again, I may not be counted as being at Mass on Census Sunday, but I would still be counted as being a Catholic because there is no FORMAL way to leave the church.

I ask again, why have the RCC put a stop to formal defections? Surely, if they allowed formal defections, it would decrease the number of 'pretend' catholics. If my cousin had done it, he wouldn't have been allowed to get married in the Church, would he? So why have they stopped it?

You mean if you dishonestly pretend to be a Catholic and take part in a Catholic ceremony as a Catholic, why should you assumed to be a Catholic. Hmmm.

I could also walk into a Protestant Church and pretend to be a Protestant.
It doesn't mean if I show up that particular day I will forever be counted in the Protestant congregations numbers, but if I faked it all year then I probably would that year.

I suspect is what you're really asking is how can your baptism record be unrecorded ? Answer is, if it happened, it can't, no more than any other event in your life that was recorded can be unrecorded. It does not mean in any way shape or form you are still a Catholic and counted in the numbers as a Catholic, so stop pretending you are one.

Penn

Monty. wrote: »

You mean if you dishonestly pretend to be a Catholic and take part in a Catholic ceremony as a Catholic, why should you assumed to be a Catholic. Hmmm.

I could also walk into a Protestant Church and pretend to be a Protestant.
It doesn't mean if I show up that particular day I will forever be counted in the Protestant congregations numbers, but if I faked it all year then I probably would that year.

I suspect is what you're really asking is how can your baptism record be unrecorded ? Answer is, if it happened, it can't, no more than any other event in your life that was recorded can be unrecorded. It does not mean in any way shape or form you are still a Catholic and counted in the numbers as a Catholic, so stop pretending you are one.

No, I'm asking why you should be assumed to be a Catholic BEFORE you take part in a catholic ceremony. If I never participated in another Catholic ceremony, if I never even stepped foot inside a church for the rest of my life, I would still be counted as being a catholic.

I have no problem with my baptism record. I was baptised, there should be a record of that. What I want is a record saying I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church, but the church has put an end to that.

So I ask again, one more time even though I probably won't get an answer, why? Why did they stop allowing people to formally defect? Your best guess will suffice, obviously you weren't there when the decision was made. So for what possible reason would they do this?

My theory? So they could continue to claim to have more members than they have, and because the number of people leaving was increasing. If you have a better explanation, go for it.

Delirium

If you must attend Mass weekly to be considered Catholic, there were 1.3 million people Ireland that were incorrectly labelled Catholic in data collected by the Catholic Bishops Conference circa 2003.

That's 30% of the population of Catholics on the island of Ireland at that time.

Of the 3.46 million Roman Catholics in Ireland, 63 percent attend church once a week, according to the Catholic Bishops Conference.

Link

Bannasidhe

Edz87 wrote: »

How does one get excommunicated? Back in the day priests and bishops ran their mouths about people can get excommunicated for x, y, or z...

I'm just wondering now if I can get excommunicated, and how would one go about it?

Does the vatican have an unsubscribe email or text service?

I've tried 1800-HELLBOUND but didn't get the notification text.

See here: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/easy-steps-excommunication