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

starbelgrade

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Baptism is not reversible according to their own doctrine. For them to actually take away your baptism they'd have to break their own teachings. There's also the fact that it's a historical record. Proof that you were baptised at a certain date at a certain time in a certain Parish. There's nothing that can be invalidated within it by you deciding to no longer be a Catholic.

*bangs head repeatedly off keyboard*

KeithAFC

purplepanda wrote: »

What about other powerful paedophile groupings in positions of power within society, often very organised? Or is the catholic church the only organisation that has paedophiles amongst it's membership? I personally only know of local Church of England Vicars who have been jailed for such crimes but don't assume that all protestant clerics are guilty.

I'm totally convinced these evil people have serious power & influence in Britain & Ireland at the highest levels of the establishment. :mad:

Yes. But this thread is about the Catholic Church and this guy just wants his freedom back and doesn't want to have his name linked to the Catholic Church. I think we should all support him on this case.

partyatmygaff

starbelgrade wrote: »

Canon Law hasn't any authority in how people live their lives. You are right there. But Canon Law does have a standing in this issue because if the Church refuses to officially recognise that you are no longer a Catholic, they are not affording you a basic human right - the right of apostasy.

Get a bloody grip. Not being afforded the right of apostasy would be being threatened to be killed if you so much as hint at apostasy like what happens today in Iran. Having your name on a baptismal record does not infringe on your right of apostasy in any way or form and to say that it does is just ridiculous.

Defiler Of The Coffin

starbelgrade wrote: »

Canon Law hasn't any authority in how people live their lives. You are right there. But Canon Law does have a standing in this issue because if the Church refuses to officially recognise that you are no longer a Catholic, they are not affording you a basic human right - the right of apostasy.

Not affording me my basic right to apotasy?! How will I ever sleep tonight, knowing I will be shunned in the streets for not following Catholicism.

starbelgrade wrote: »

The Church cannot stop you from saying that you are a Catholic, but they can refuse to recognise it, which is essentially the same as them preventing you from leaving the Church.

They can refuse to recognise what they want. It has no effect on the OP, it doesn't prevent him from leaving the church.

starbelgrade wrote: »

Do you understand that?

I can break it down a bit simpler if you still have difficulty understanding.

Go then. Break it down a bit simpler please.

partyatmygaff

starbelgrade wrote: »

*bangs head repeatedly off keyboard*

Have fun with that. Don't kill too many brain cells now. They take a while to regenerate :P

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yes. But this thread is about the Catholic Church and this guy just wants his freedom back and doesn't want to have his name linked to the Catholic Church. I think we should all support him on this case.

But what if this thread was about the Church of England? Or the British Monarchy? Would your righteous self be so supportive? Somehow I think not.

starbelgrade

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Get a bloody grip. Not being afforded the right of apostasy would be being threatened to be killed if you so much as hint at apostasy like what happens today in Iran. Having your name on a baptismal record does not infringe on your right of apostasy in any way or form and to say that it does is just ridiculous.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of apostasy. It has nothing to do with the threat of being killed - this may come about as a result of it in some countries, but it is not intrinsic to the concept of apostasy.

You also fail to understand that this has nothing to do with having your name on a baptismal cert - I've tried to explain it to you several times already in this thread.

timesnap

Amazingly the Catholic Church in which i was raised has no problem with disowning priests who disagree with vatican two and the latin mass.

it will not defrock child molesters though?

it has no moral authority over anybody at this stage imo.

they do not understand human rights because they do not recognise such a concept, it would cause them to be ashamed of themselves and actually behave as they preach.
now that would just upset far too many of them who have a very comfortable lifestyle.
they just put anyone who they feel threatens their comfort on ignore and carry on as if they are holier than thou rather than admitting most of them do not even attempt to follow Christs teachings.

they will never take me off my now agnostic fence until they have a major Mea Culpa but that is not going to happen imo.

to think these people judge others...... / pukes

starbelgrade

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

They can refuse to recognise what they want. It has no effect on the OP, it doesn't prevent him from leaving the church.

Not affording me my basic right to apotasy?! How will I ever sleep tonight, knowing I will be shunned in the streets for not following Catholicism.

Go then. Break it down a bit simpler please.

Ok - here goes...

Without the Church recognising your wish to leave the organisation, you are still technically recognised by them as a Catholic. This may have no bearing whatsoever on your day to day life, but to many it is an important thing.

What you fail to see is that this is not about you & what you want - it is about the rights we all have and that some wish to exercise.

Why you would not wish them to allow them to persue this as a right, makes little or no sense to me.

KeithAFC

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Have fun with that. Don't kill too many brain cells now. They take a while to regenerate :P


But what if this thread was about the Church of England? Or the British Monarchy? Would your righteous self be so supportive? Somehow I think not.

I don't think hypothetical statements is really important on this thread. I think he has a very good point about this and I wish him all the best.

partyatmygaff

starbelgrade wrote: »

You obviously don't understand the meaning of apostasy. It has nothing to do with the threat of being killed - this may come about as a result of it in some countries, but it is not intrinsic to the concept of apostasy.

You patently misunderstood me. All that apostasy is is the abandomnet or "leaving" if you will of your former religious belief and if you so desire your public announcement of such. In Ireland, someone who was baptised as a Catholic can very freely stand on the highest podium and say "I am no longer a Catholic". No one will prevent them from doing so or punish them for it. There is literally nothing stopping them.

On the other hand, in Iran if you are so much as critical of your eligion you are convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death. Over there, freedom of apostasy does not exist.

I hope you see the distinction and see why I find you saying that you don't have the right of apostasy in the RCC as being ridiculous.

You also fail to understand that this has nothing to do with having your name on a baptismal cert - I've tried to explain it to you several times already in this thread.

What is it then? What other record do the Catholic church have on a lapsed Catholic whose last encounter with the Catholic church was their confirmation?

Benny_Cake

starbelgrade wrote: »

Canon Law hasn't any authority in how people live their lives. You are right there. But Canon Law does have a standing in this issue because if the Church refuses to officially recognise that you are no longer a Catholic, they are not affording you a basic human right - the right of apostasy.

The Church cannot stop you from saying that you are a Catholic, but they can refuse to recognise it, which is essentially the same as them preventing you from leaving the Church.

I'm not sure how it would be possible for the church to officially recognise that you had left the church, they would have to keep some sort of database that indicates that. But they don't have any database that you are a member in the church anyway, all they have is that yellow piece of paper showing that you were baptised once. To put it another way, they have no proof you are a member either! If you wanted to get married in a Catholic Church outside your own parish, the burden of proof would be on you to prove you are a Catholic. You'd have to go to the parish you were baptised in and request that they dig out the baptismal cert. And the priest performing the marriage ceremony would want proof that you are still a Catholic, you'd have to go to Mass, confession and all the rest.

Although it would change nothing, if someone wants to have a post-it declaring their defection stuck to their baptismal cert, then I think they should be allowed to do that. I think it would be a bad idea to destroy the cert though.

partyatmygaff

KeithAFC wrote: »

I don't think hypothetical statements is really important on this thread. I think he has a very good point about this and I wish him all the best.

Translated:
Stfu about the British Monarchy and the Church of England. I don't want to look like a hypocrite. Anyone who criticises Catholicism makes a "very good point" and I wish them all the best regardless of their objective.

MagicSean

starbelgrade wrote: »

You obviously don't understand the meaning of apostasy. It has nothing to do with the threat of being killed - this may come about as a result of it in some countries, but it is not intrinsic to the concept of apostasy.

You also fail to understand that this has nothing to do with having your name on a baptismal cert - I've tried to explain it to you several times already in this thread.

Apostasy - The renunciation of a belief or set of beliefs

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apostasy

Apostasy - a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostasy

Both of these definitions relate to a persons ability to renounce their beliefs. They make no mention of a need for anyone to recognise this renunciation. Why? Because it is a personal choice and requires no permission or authority.

starbelgrade wrote: »

Ok - here goes...

Without the Church recognising your wish to leave the organisation, you are still technically recognised by them as a Catholic. This may have no bearing whatsoever on your day to day life, but to many it is an important thing.

What you fail to see is that this is not about you & what you want - it is about the rights we all have and that some wish to exercise.

Why you would not wish them to allow them to persue this as a right, makes little or no sense to me.

Saying

to many it is an important thing.

does not explain anything. We want to know why it is important that the church recognise it and how their failure to do so infringes in any way your fundamental rights.

UglyBolloxFace

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Get a bloody grip. Not being afforded the right of apostasy would be being threatened to be killed if you so much as hint at apostasy like what happens today in Iran. Having your name on a baptismal record does not infringe on your right of apostasy in any way or form and to say that it does is just ridiculous.

You need to stop blabbering on about Iran. We are not in Iran nor do we share the same rituals and customs as them, therefore your point is invalid.

partyatmygaff

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

You need to stop blabbering on about Iran. We are not in Iran nor do we share the same rituals and customs as them, therefore your point is invalid.

I really hope you're not serious. You know perfectly well what my point is.

MagicSean

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

You need to stop blabbering on about Iran. We are not in Iran nor do we share the same rituals and customs as them, therefore your point is invalid.

We aren't in the vatican either yet you are obsessed with obtaining their acknowledgement of your personal choice.

UglyBolloxFace

As we all know, a person under the age of 18 cannot enter into a contract. But what I find amazing is the fact that we are coerced and forced into a contract with an organisation as a child, and nobody seems bothered by it. Am I the only one who is outraged by this?

MagicSean

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

As we all know, a person under the age of 18 cannot enter into a contract. But what I find amazing is the fact that we are coerced and forced into a contract with an organisation as a child, and nobody seems bothered by it. Am I the only one who is outraged by this?

What contract?

Benny_Cake

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

As we all know, a person under the age of 18 cannot enter into a contract. But what I find amazing is the fact that we are coerced and forced into a contract with an organisation as a child, and nobody seems bothered by it. Am I the only one who is outraged by this?

In fairness, your parents will decide what you eat, what clothes you wear and what school you go to when you are a kid too - you could consider that coercion too but I wouldn't. And baptism is not a contract, so don't worry, you won't be sued!

partyatmygaff

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

As we all know, a person under the age of 18 cannot enter into a contract. But what I find amazing is the fact that we are coerced and forced into a contract with an organisation as a child, and nobody seems bothered by it. Am I the only one who is outraged by this?

Seeing as the RCC would view baptism as being a "contract" (Not the word they'd use probably) between the person being baptised and God I am quite surprised that you'd even bring up contract law. Have you started believing in God? You are an atheist right? (Or are you still a Catholic? Tricky question, isn't it? )

starbelgrade

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You patently misunderstood me. All that apostasy is is the abandomnet or "leaving" if you will of your former religious belief and if you so desire your public announcement of such. In Ireland, someone who was baptised as a Catholic can very freely stand on the highest podium and say "I am no longer a Catholic". No one will prevent them from doing so or punish them for it. There is literally nothing stopping them.

I didn't misunderstand you - I am saying that you are wrong.

While anybody can declare themselves apostate, this is a public defection from the Church and it is not the same as having it recognised officially by the Church. The changes in Canon Law means that it is no longer possible to defect formally from the Catholic Church.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

On the other hand, in Iran if you are so much as critical of your eligion you are convicted of apostasy and sentenced to death. Over there, freedom of apostasy does not exist.

I hope you see the distinction and see why I find you saying that you don't have the right of apostasy in the RCC as being ridiculous.

I do see the distinction - in some countries apostasy is punished. But with regards to the concept of apostasy, that is the only distinction.

You are making a distinction between the two which simply doesn't exist.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What is it then? What other record do the Catholic church have on a lapsed Catholic whose last encounter with the Catholic church was their confirmation?

Prior to 2009, if you asked the Church to formally recognise you defection from the faith, they would make a note of it beside their record of your baptism, the same way they would make a note there of your communion, confirmation or marriage.

It should be noted that it was not a "debaptism", but a formal noted record of your declaration of defection or apostasy.

UglyBolloxFace

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Seeing as the RCC would view baptism as being a "contract" (Not the word they'd use probably) between the person being baptised and God I am quite surprised that you'd even bring up contract law. Have you started believing in God? You are an atheist right? (Or are you still a Catholic? Tricky question, isn't it? )

The Catholic Church identifies me as a catholic, because they have me down as a catholic by virtue of my baptism. I myself identify myself as an atheist, but this organisation forces me to remain, against my will, a member of their organisation.

If it were any other organisation refusing to annul my membership they would be open to a whole host of legal repercussions, but because it's the high and mighty catholic church, nobody will do anything about it and let them get away with it. This has to change.

I am sick of repeating the same thing over and over for the same few posters - why can't you understand my point.

starbelgrade

MagicSean wrote: »

Apostasy - The renunciation of a belief or set of beliefs

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apostasy

Apostasy - a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostasy

Both of these definitions relate to a persons ability to renounce their beliefs. They make no mention of a need for anyone to recognise this renunciation. Why? Because it is a personal choice and requires no permission or authority.

To renounce your beliefs is one thing - to have them formally recognised by the Church is another. They no longer recognise your right to apostasy.

MagicSean wrote: »

We want to know why it is important that the church recognise it and how their failure to do so infringes in any way your fundamental rights.

By not recognising your right to apostasy, the Church are contravening all human rights laws that have been in existence since the 1940s. I've already listed them in this thread. They are basic fundamental human rights, one of which is the right to choose to defect from a religion if you so choose.

starbelgrade

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm not sure how it would be possible for the church to officially recognise that you had left the church, they would have to keep some sort of database that indicates that. But they don't have any database that you are a member in the church anyway, all they have is that yellow piece of paper showing that you were baptised once. To put it another way, they have no proof you are a member either!

The Church keep records of all persons who were baptised in each parish.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Although it would change nothing, if someone wants to have a post-it declaring their defection stuck to their baptismal cert, then I think they should be allowed to do that.

Essentially, that is what happened previous to the changes in Canon Law. Baptism records were never destroyed.

Benny_Cake

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Seeing as the RCC would view baptism as being a "contract" (Not the word they'd use probably) between the person being baptised and God I am quite surprised that you'd even bring up contract law. Have you started believing in God? You are an atheist right? (Or are you still a Catholic? Tricky question, isn't it? )

The Catholic Church identifies me as a catholic, because they have me down as a catholic by virtue of my baptism. I myself identify myself as an atheist, but this organisation forces me to remain, against my will, a member of their organisation.

If it were any other organisation refusing to annul my membership they would be open to a whole host of legal repercussions, but because it's the high and mighty catholic church, nobody will do anything about it and let them get away with it. This has to change.

I am sick of repeating the same thing over and over for the same few posters - why can't you understand my point.

They have no record that you are a member or not, the only record that exists states that you were baptised. You can't be unbaptised, in much the same way that you can't unattended the school you went to.

dvpower

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I have to say that as someone with an interest in history, research would be very difficult if people went around destroying historical documents.

Similarly, if they refuse to update their records with details of people who want to leave the organisation, this also makes accurate research difficult.

MagicSean

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

The Catholic Church identifies me as a catholic, because they have me down as a catholic by virtue of my baptism. I myself identify myself as an atheist, but this organisation forces me to remain, against my will, a member of their organisation.

How do they force you? Do they make you pay? Do they force practices on you? Do they prevent you from doing any action at all?

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

If it were any other organisation refusing to annul my membership they would be open to a whole host of legal repercussions, but because it's the high and mighty catholic church, nobody will do anything about it and let them get away with it. This has to change.

What legal repurcussions would they face? Data protection breached are all they would be guilty of.

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I am sick of repeating the same thing over and over for the same few posters - why can't you understand my point.

Because you aren't making it very well. You just threw in the word contract in your previous post which has absolutley no relevance to anything.

starbelgrade wrote: »

To renounce your beliefs is one thing - to have them formally recognised by the Church is another. They no longer recognise your right to apostasy.

But they don't prevent you from being an apostate. They just don't acknowledge it.

starbelgrade wrote: »

By not recognising your right to apostasy, the Church are contravening all human rights laws that have been in existence since the 1940s. I've already listed them in this thread. They are basic fundamental human rights, one of which is the right to choose to defect from a religion if you so choose.

No. If they were to prevent you from being an apostate they would be breaching your rights. Failing to acknowledge it is not preventing you from being an apostate.

partyatmygaff

starbelgrade wrote: »

I didn't misunderstand you - I am saying that you are wrong.

We will agree to differ on that.

While anybody can declare themselves apostate, this is a public defection from the Church and it is not the same as having it recognised officially by the Church. The changes in Canon Law means that it is no longer possible to defect formally from the Catholic Church.

That begs the question of why you so desperately seek acknowledgement of your personal decision to become an apostate by a religious organisation that has no authority over you that you presumably neither trust nor respect.

Prior to 2009, if you asked the Church to formally recognise you defection from the faith, they would make a note of it beside their record of your baptism, the same way they would make a note there of your communion, confirmation or marriage.

It should be noted that it was not a "debaptism", but a formal noted record of your declaration of defection or apostasy.

Why don't you try writing to the local Parish Priest politely expressing your views and see what they have to say?

Even if they do agree to add a mark beside your name it won't make a bit of difference to anyone or anything but if it helps you all sleep at night, have at it.

Benny_Cake

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Seeing as the RCC would view baptism as being a "contract" (Not the word they'd use probably) between the person being baptised and God I am quite surprised that you'd even bring up contract law. Have you started believing in God? You are an atheist right? (Or are you still a Catholic? Tricky question, isn't it? )

The Catholic Church identifies me as a catholic, because they have me down as a catholic by virtue of my baptism. I myself identify myself as an atheist, but this organisation forces me to remain, against my will, a member of their organisation.

If it were any other organisation refusing to annul my membership they would be open to a whole host of legal repercussions, but because it's the high and mighty catholic church, nobody will do anything about it and let them get away with it. This has to change.

I am sick of repeating the same thing over and over for the same few posters - why can't you understand my point.

They have no record that you are a member or not, the only record that exists states that you were baptised. You can't be unbaptised, in much the same way that you can't unattended the school you went to.

MagicSean

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Even if they do agree to add a mark beside your name it won't make a bit of difference to anyone or anything but if it helps you all sleep at night, have at it.

Exactly. If you write to the local priest informing him you no longer wish to be a Catholic and ask him to acknowledge your letter, you will then have a written record of your apostacy and do not need a formal defection process.