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

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.

partyatmygaff

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.

No they don't. If I renounced my Irish citizenship tomorrow i'd still be on the register of births in Ireland. I would no longer be an Irish citizen but a record would forever remain that I was born in Ireland. My presence on the record of births does not affect my status as a "Member of Ireland".

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.

We all understand your point. We just don't see it as being valid.

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

starbelgrade wrote: »

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

Which they could very easily place a simple annotation on, indicating that the person is no longer a member. This is all people really want and they go out of their way to refuse it.

I can't understand why they don't accomodate people nor do I understand people (on here) who agree with the church refusing to accomodate people. What do they think they are trying to protect?

starbelgrade

MagicSean wrote: »

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

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.

The failure of the Church to formally recognise that you are apostate essentially means that you are still Catholic.

As you entered the Church under Canon Law, the only way to formally leave the Church is by the same means - a means which is no longer afforded to you.

starbelgrade

dvpower wrote: »

nor do I understand people (on here) who agree with the church refusing to accomodate people.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, nor have I seen anyone try to explain why they feel this way.

cursai

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

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

Looking back on it, they are the three biggest mistakes of my life. I no longer want to be a part of this disgusting organisation, and as such I want to leave.

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

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

Would I have a case in the EU Court? - i.e. the catholic church forcing me to remain a member of their sect and therefore infringing on my human right of freedom of religion? If so, how would I go about it?

I know I probably won't get the serious answers here in AH, but I think there will be some people out there in the same position as me, and I'd like to hear from them suggestions etc.

I joined a youth club years ago. Never signed a form too leave do I have a case..........yawn

sasser

I managed to leave the RC church before they changed the rules. I got my baptismal cert back, and "defected" is written on it. Not important to many people, but was important to me.

Edited to correct birth cert to baptismal cert, brain fart

MagicSean

starbelgrade wrote: »

The failure of the Church to formally recognise that you are apostate essentially means that you are still Catholic.

As you entered the Church under Canon Law, the only way to formally leave the Church is by the same means - a means which is no longer afforded to you.

How are you in any way bound by laws that you don't recognise and have no power over you?

partyatmygaff

starbelgrade wrote: »

The failure of the Church to formally recognise that you are apostate essentially means that you are still Catholic.

Says who?

The only person who can say whether or not they're Catholic is the person themselves. The church not "formally recognising" your apostasy does not mean you are a Catholic. Neither to yourself, other people nor the law.

dvpower

sasser wrote: »

I managed to leave the RC church before they changed the rules. I got my birth cert back, and "defected" is written on it. Not important to many people, but was important to me.

Your baptisimal cert, I presume?;)

It's crazy that they discontinued this practice. If they were to facilitate people, at least the parting might be a bit more amicable.

Can anyone justify the church's action in discontinuing this?

partyatmygaff

sasser wrote: »

I managed to leave the RC church before they changed the rules. I got my birth cert back, and "defected" is written on it. Not important to many people, but was important to me.

You got defected written on your birth cert? What, did you betray Ireland for the British or something? :pac:

Seachmall

cursai wrote: »

I joined a youth club years ago. Never signed a form too leave do I have a case..........yawn

Do they lobby various governments with your name on their membership list even though you are fundamentally opposed to their doctrine, teachings and practices?

No? Then you see how irrelevant your example is.

starbelgrade

MagicSean wrote: »

How are you in any way bound by laws that you don't recognise and have no power over you?

Did you not the post you quoted or did you just not understand it?

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

Do they lobby various governments with your name on their membership list even though you are fundamentally opposed to their doctrine, teachings and practices?

No? Then you see how irrelevant your example is.

This again? The government has the Census. They don't need the non-existant "membership list" of the RCC.

MagicSean

dvpower wrote: »

Your baptisimal cert, I presume?;)

It's crazy that they discontinued this practice. If they were to facilitate people, at least the parting might be a bit more amicable.

Can anyone justify the church's action in discontinuing this?

The defection process was introduced for a specific group of people in relation to marriage issues. I believe it was something to do with mixed faith couples. It had unintended consequences for people who had wished to return to the church or get remarried as well as being open to abuse in relation to people who were forced to defect so it was removed. It was never intended for people such as the op who wish to defect because of a lack of faith.

I would say it is likely that a formal defection process will be introduced in the future for people like the op once the proper legislation is drawn up but keep in mind that canon law is extremely complicated so it's not something they will just throw together.

starbelgrade

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Says who?

The only person who can say whether or not they're Catholic is the person themselves. The church not "formally recognising" your apostasy does not mean you are a Catholic. Neither to yourself, other people nor the law.

You cannot defect from the Catholic Church simply by saying that you are no longer a Catholic in the same way that you cannot become a Catholic simply by declaring yourself as one.

If you enter the Church under Canon Law, the only way to leave is by the same method.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

This again? The government has the Census. They don't need the non-existant "membership list" of the RCC.

The RCC still have weight and throw it around, I shouldn't have to be treated as a factor of that weight because of a choice my parents made many years ago.

While most of the world acknowledges that baptism records are not a valid way to record "membership" the Church don't and gladly use their inflated numbers to influence government (particularly in developing countries where they've gained a foothold).

They should be forced to accept the fact that their baptism records are nothing than pieces of paper and in no way reflect the numbers of practicing Catholics, and a valid way of doing this is allowing people to declare their baptism null and void.

Jesus Shaves

I left years ago when it was still possible
ahahahahahahahha
Leaving when it was still possible FTW

dvpower

MagicSean wrote: »

The defection process was introduced for a specific group of people in relation to marriage issues. I believe it was something to do with mixed faith couples. It had unintended consequences for people who had wished to return to the church or get remarried as well as being open to abuse in relation to people who were forced to defect so it was removed. It was never intended for people such as the op who wish to defect because of a lack of faith.

I would say it is likely that a formal defection process will be introduced in the future for people like the op once the proper legislation is drawn up but keep in mind that canon law is extremely complicated so it's not something they will just throw together.

Let me get this straight.


There was some canon law that was allowing some people to defect by following a simple process, but then they changed it overnight, but they couldn't change it back again overnight, because of the extreme complexity of canon law.


I'm going away now to bang my head against a wall.:pac:

admiralofthefleet

send constant letters to the scum pox leader of the cult in the 'palace' in drumcondra demanding to be excommunicated
maybe that will work

partyatmygaff

starbelgrade wrote: »

You cannot defect from the Catholic Church simply by saying that you are no longer a Catholic in the same way that you cannot become a Catholic simply by declaring yourself as one.

If you enter the Church under Canon Law, the only way to leave is by the same method.

The Canon lawonly applies to Catholics. Not just any Catholics but faithful Catholics who believe in Catholic teachings. If you do not believe in Catholic teachings Canon law does not mean anything to you.

Seachmall wrote: »

The RCC still have weight and throw it around, I shouldn't have to be treated as a factor of that weight because of a choice my parents made many years ago.

While most of the world acknowledges that baptism records are not a valid way to record "membership" the Church don't and gladly use their inflated numbers to influence government (particularly in developing countries where they've gained a foothold).

Actually, as far as i'm aware the Church don't use baptismal records to record membership. They use national censuses. Using a presumably non-digitised list of names to count over a billion people doesn't sound like a very good or efficient method.

They should be forced to accept the fact that their baptism records are nothing than pieces of paper and in no way reflect the numbers of practicing Catholics, and a valid way of doing this is allowing people to declare their baptism null and void.

Your birth cert is also a "piece of paper". A piece of paper that recorded an event at some fixed point in the past. A baptismal cert is no different (From a legal point of view at least...).

As for allowing people to declare their baptism to be "null and void" that will never ever happen. The thought of a Church "nullifying" a baptism simply doesn't make sense when you consider the meaning of baptism.

Overheal

partyatmygaff wrote: »

the meaning of baptism.

To whom? If you are no longer Catholic it no longer holds meaning.

starbelgrade

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

send constant letters to the scum pox leader of the cult in the 'palace' in drumcondra demanding to be excommunicated
maybe that will work

If you are excommunicated, you are still a member of the Church.

In footballing terms, ex-communication is like a red card - it results in a sending off, but it's only a temporary suspension, much like a 3 match ban.

In that time, you're expected to repent, then come back and apologise.

There is no longer any official way to leave the Catholic Church - not even by kicking Bishop Brennan up the arse.

partyatmygaff

Overheal wrote: »

To whom? If you are no longer Catholic it no longer holds meaning.

That's the point, isn't it?

The whole point of this thread is that certain people want to be formally recognised as no longer being Catholic. Seachmall also wanted to extend that to nullifying his baptism. To him, that may be possible as it holds no meaning for him. To the Church and to all Christians, "debaptising" and removing someone from a baptismal register is unthinkable and makes little to no sense.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Actually, as far as i'm aware the Church don't use baptismal records to record membership. They use national censuses.

Do you have a source for this?

As far as I'm aware the baptism cert is the Church's official record of you entering the Church, to use a different completely unrelated and unofficial (from the Church's view) method to then keep count seems counter-intuitive.

Your birth cert is also a "piece of paper". A piece of paper that recorded an event at some fixed point in the past. A baptismal cert is no different (From a legal point of view at least...).

I'm not suggesting the record be burned, simply have it so the church can not use it when doing their stats.

As for allowing people to declare their baptism to be "null and void" that will never ever happen. The thought of a Church "nullifying" a baptism simply doesn't make sense when you consider the meaning of baptism.

See above. Regardless if they recognise it as null and void they would have to accept that I, and many others, are not practicing Catholics.

starbelgrade

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The Canon lawonly applies to Catholics. Not just any Catholics but faithful Catholics who believe in Catholic teachings. If you do not believe in Catholic teachings Canon law does not mean anything to you.

Whether it has meaning to people, Canon Law still applies to all Catholics, practicing or not.

cursai

Seachmall wrote: »

Do they lobby various governments with your name on their membership list even though you are fundamentally opposed to their doctrine, teachings and practices?

No? Then you see how irrelevant your example is.

......yawn. Could be listed as a member of worse things.

Seachmall

cursai wrote: »

......yawn. Could be listed as a member of worse things.

Yes, but we're not talking about worse things. The title makes that quite clear.

dvpower

cursai wrote: »

I joined a youth club years ago. Never signed a form too leave do I have a case..........yawn

cursai wrote: »

......yawn. Could be listed as a member of worse things.

What's with the yawns? If the topic bores you so much, why don't you fúck off and contribute to a different thread?