Are you still considered Catholic if you leave?

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

I must be coming off all wrong here. I’m not angry at laylow or trying to browbeat him/her. I’m genuinely trying to understand where she/he is coming from.

 

[powerandglory]

I know. But obviously the OP is either going through something themselves, or they know someone who is. Either way, I don’t think telling them that it doesn’t matter what the Church thinks if they cant just get it together, is what they are looking for.

 

[CapitalistCatholic]

Sorry, your post just seemed aggressive.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Sorry, your post just seemed aggressive.

Wasn’t my intention. Was just trying to provoke thought/introspection.

 

[powerandglory]

I wanted to add, you do not need to be a “returning” Catholic to walk through the doors of Landings. They welcome all kinds, some really hard hearts that are only there to make a spouse happy and so on. They will not judge or condemn, and you can share any and every concern with them. No pressure! It’s a really positive, uplifting experience.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

That’s right. A friend of mine was Catholic and he lapsed for 50 years! When he wanted to return, a priest told him all the hoops he would have to jump through. So he went to a different priest, and this priest said, Welcome back, John! They did a Reconciliation, and John was back in church.

 

[powerandglory]

Sounds like our priest. He’s phenomenal! The parish is close to 5000 people and many many came because he’s so kind and welcoming. People say they feel like they came “home” here.

 

[Elf01]

If someone doesn’t believe the Church is what it says it is and thus has no authority, who cares what it says about whether you’re Catholic or not. It’s a moot point.

In general I think you’re right but one scenario I can think of is that if someone is getting married the Churches view of their marriage may matter to Catholic relatives.

 

[laylow]

I must be coming off all wrong here. I’m not angry at laylow or trying to browbeat him/her. I’m genuinely trying to understand where she/he is coming from.

Ok, I’ll give a one reason, even though I originally said I would refrain.

The Catholic church has admitted (correct me if I’m wrong) to the systematic cover-up of child abuse by priests in numerous parts of the world. This would classify them as a criminal organization. A person may wish to no longer have their name associated with such an organization.

 

[Vico]

The title says it all. If a baptized Catholic leaves the church and doesn’t attend anymore, does the Church still consider them Catholic? Specifically if the person becomes an unbeliever and declares as such.

The CDF issued a statement on this. An excerpt follows:

1. … it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.
2. … Consequently, only the convergence of the two elements – the theological content of the interior act and its manifestation in the manner defined above – constitutes the actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica , with the corresponding canonical penalties (cfr. can. 1364, § 1).
3. In such cases, the competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned above is to provide that this act be noted in the baptismal registry (cfr. can. 535, § 2) with explicit mention of the occurrence of a “ defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali ”.
4. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Ok, I’ll give a one reason, even though I originally said I would refrain.

The Catholic church has admitted (correct me if I’m wrong) to the systematic cover-up of child abuse by priests in numerous parts of the world. This would classify them as a criminal organization. A person may wish to no longer have their name associated with such an organization.

Faulty legal reasoning aside, it doesn’t follow from this that you’re bound by the Church’s own internal rules about who is and isn’t Catholic. If you simply publicly declare yourself to be something else/nothing at all, then the secular world is going to accept that you’re not a Catholic. Canon law might disagree, but if you no longer consider yourself bound by that, so what?

Put it this way: if the Mormon Church came out with a statement yesterday that declared that all brown haired people are considered Mormons whether they like it or not, I wouldn’t go looking for a way to formally resign or whatever, because I don’t accept the authority of the Mormon Church in the first place (nice people though they are, I’m sure.) I wouldn’t bother trying to fight some declaration from a group that I don’t believe has the power to make such declarations in the first place. They could declare me Grand High King of Neptune, and I’d just roll my eyes and move on.

 

[TheLittleLady]

When we are born, we have DNA that comes from our mother and father to create a new, unique DNA (in the average course). We can reject our natural parents, refuse to acknowledge them, they may fail us and desert us in a bus station. Still, nothing will change the fact that we carry their DNA.

When we are baptized into the Church, we receive an indelible mark on our soul. This is our spiritual DNA. No matter how we try to reject it or ignore it or distance ourselves from it, that DNA is still in place.

 

[laylow]

Faulty legal reasoning aside, it doesn’t follow from this that you’re bound by the Church’s own internal rules about who is and isn’t Catholic. If you simply publicly declare yourself to be something else/nothing at all, then the secular world is going to accept that you’re not a Catholic. Canon law might disagree, but if you no longer consider yourself bound by that, so what?

Put it this way: if the Mormon Church came out with a statement yesterday that declared that all brown haired people are considered Mormons whether they like it or not, I wouldn’t go looking for a way to formally resign or whatever, because I don’t accept the authority of the Mormon Church in the first place (nice people though they are, I’m sure.) I wouldn’t bother trying to fight some declaration from a group that I don’t believe has the power to make such declarations in the first place. They could declare me Grand High King of Neptune, and I’d just roll my eyes and move on.

I get what you are saying, but I think the nuance would be that the person did once accept and follow the teachings and now does not.

I do find it interesting…and maybe even a bit arrogant that the church would lay claim to a membership’s existence when one of its members is stating otherwise.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

I get what you are saying, but I think the nuance would be that the person did once accept and follow the teachings and now does not.

I do find it interesting…and maybe even a bit arrogant that the church would lay claim to a membership’s existence when one of its members is stating otherwise.

I think it would be arrogant for any other organization, other than the Church, assuming the Church is what it says it is and baptism indeed does what it says it does. I believe it is and it does, but I won’t try to talk you into it here.

But I do think your query only makes sense if you start from the assumption that the Church has legitimate authority to make these rules in the first place. If you don’t believe that, I don’t see why you feel the need to follow the Church’s reasoning on who is and isn’t a member.

And just to be clear since some people seemed to think I was being abrasive earlier, none of this is meant as anything other than friendly discussion. I hope you don’t think I’m just trying to needle you or anything.

 

[laylow]

But I do think your query only makes sense if you start from the assumption that the Church has legitimate authority to make these rules in the first place. If you don’t believe that, I don’t see why you feel the need to follow the Church’s reasoning on who is and isn’t a member.

I understand what you are saying, but as you said above, you believe that if any other organization made that claim, it would be arrogant. If the person now believes the church is “any other organization” would you agree, under those circumstances, they would be legit in thinking that it is an arrogant claim?

And just to be clear since some people seemed to think I was being abrasive earlier, none of this is meant as anything other than friendly discussion. I hope you don’t think I’m just trying to needle you or anything.

Not at all. These discussions should be pragmatic and sensible in nature. Emotion stemming from someone’s response, should be checked at the door.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

I understand what you are saying, but as you said above, you believe that if any other organization made that claim, it would be arrogant. If the person now believes the church is “any other organization” would you agree, under those circumstances, they would be legit in thinking that it is an arrogant claim?

If by legit you mean logical, sure. I think that person would be incorrect in their starting assumption that the Church is just an organization like the VFW, but if they believe that, it would least be internally consistent.

 

[laylow]

If by legit you mean logical, sure. I think that person would be incorrect in their starting assumption that the Church is just an organization like the VFW, but if they believe that, it would least be internally consistent.

So what I am getting at is that if they think the church is arrogant to make such a claim, they may prefer that they didn’t. This would be a reason to “care” without valuing the church’s teaching.

 

[Pattylt]

This discussion brought a question…when Catholic agencies provide statistics as to the number of Catholics in a parish or city, state country, are they including Catholics that have left like the OP?

Just curious as I know Mormons do unless someone specifically filed paperwork to be removed from the roles (which creates the problem of Mormon members descending on them to bring them back).

Thanks

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

So what I am getting at is that if they think the church is arrogant to make such a claim, they may prefer that they didn’t. This would be a reason to “care” without valuing the church’s teaching

Not really, no. I mean, there are a million organizations in the world that I think act arrogantly (or worse.) If I don’t think that organization has any particular claim on me…meh.

 

[Jbrady]

when Catholic agencies provide statistics as to the number of Catholics in a parish or city, state country, are they including Catholics that have left like the OP?

In the US, it’s an estimate by the diocesan chancellery, supposedly of the number of baptized persons living in the diocese, regardless of whether they consider themselves Catholics or not. It’s very far from a scientifically rigorous count and has little real-life non-ecclesiastical significance.

In some countries, like Germany, it is an official government figure based on the number of citizens who are obliged to pay the church tax.

The Mormons do keep very detailed records of membership in a centralized database that are updated regularly. The Catholic Church does not, hence the need for making an estimate.

Those estimates are to be taken with a grain of salt, since, as you have noted, they include non-practicing and former members, and do not directly the reflect the number of practicing Catholics. Measuring the number of practicing Catholics would be expensive and difficult, as well as complicated by lack of agreement on what constitutes a practicing Catholic.