Ex-Catholics being counted as Catholics

[Sy_Noe]

• The Church teaches that not just Catholic Baptism, but any valid Baptism, leaves an indelible mark on the soul. We recognize your Lutheran Christian Baptism as indelible, regardless of what happens afterwards.
• Ex Catholics can, and often do, come in and seek some kind of ministry from the Church, for themselves or family members. Sometimes their background is relevant, without minimizing their current beliefs or disbeliefs. (Do you think the average cradle-Atheist spends as much time on CAF as those who say they converted to Atheisim?)
• There really is no way to accurately measure when someone ceases to be Catholic. When they miss Mass 14 times? If they go to a Humanist service 2 or more times? If they change their FB profile to “agnostic”? I know people who shop around to various non denominational churches many times, but drop in at their RC parish some times, too. There is no clear boundary line - (“ok, she is out, subtract one”) but some people pass various boundaries, in both directions, many times, towards greater, or lesser, participation as Catholics.
• Most Protestant movements define membership as belonging to a congregation. Catholicism is a different kind of thing. So it’s going to have different kinds of statistics.
  But we also have statistics that are more meaningful for you. Use them instead of the Yearbook.
• A better understanding would focus on “Practicing Catholics”. This would omit those who switch to other, or no religions, as well as those who claim to still be Catholic but don’t practice it. For some purposes, this figure would provide better numbers you are looking for. But parishes are still responsible for all those others in their boundaries. So that statistic is relevant too.

Under the teaching of OCAC how would one cease to be Catholic? And what do you mean by “claim to still be”. Isn’t it the Catholic Church that claims them to be?

 

[Sy_Noe]

You are right and I understand your point of view. You ask a question in this thread, and I tried to answer. Probably not very accurate in details, different parishes in different countries may do the recording differently, but in principle the record of Sacramental Baptism and Confirmation is right.

As for the accuracy of the census in each parish, no red blood Catholics would assume it perfectly accurate. There are death and parishioners leaving it may not be sufficiently updated.

In my parish, which is a very big one (an archdiocese) such census would be done once a while so I believe the record of the number of parishioners in the parish is quite reliable.

The number of parishioners and record of Baptism are two separate things though. I am not sure what statistic is being used, but nowadays, the size of parishioners in individual parish may reflect the number of Catholics in it. If the parish does not do a census, and rely on its Baptismal record, then the margin of inaccuracy is very big.

As for those leaving the Catholic Church, you have my sympathy, I understand it is your choice and I certainly never dismiss that choice. It is not an issue to me.

As for misrepresentation, I really have no idea what is its purpose. To me it is not important. If it is accuracy that is required, then government agency would certainly be the place for information.

As for practicing Catholics, I have often shared in this Forum about empty pews during masses. The rate we are going, we will be wiped out in years to come. But we cannot say they are not Catholics even if they do not come to church.

I am often in the ministry visiting lapsed Catholics in our parish, from my experience not once we were turned away. They still want us to pray in their home but you would not see much of this type in the church.

What is a red blood Catholic? I’ve seen a lot of descriptions but that’s a new one to me. I thought most everyone bled red.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Hi Lily, was the chaplain a Catholic priest since yours and your twin brother’s certificates were taken to the chaplain’s parish? Or do you mean the chaplain took the certificates to the hospital’s territorial Catholic parish and he was non Catholic? Am I correct to assume at least one of your parents are Catholic? I’m wondering if they requested the certificates be taken to the parish? I don’t know. Or could it be then someone is OCAC if their original baptismal certificate was put on file at a Catholic parish?

He was a Catholic priest, Sy. The hospital told my mother - both parents Catholic - that the priest took the records to his parish. I know where my confirmation certificate is, no problem there. I was confirmed by the bishop.

 

[Peter_J]

Apparently according to the Catholic Church, someone can be an “ex-Protestant” but it’s impossible to become an “ex-Catholic”. Once you’re Catholic, you’re one forever no matter what other denomination you attend or non-Christian religion you practice.

I don’t think that a policy for generating statistics that be taken as an ontological claim about someone being Catholic. (Of course, if you’re using “according to the Catholic Church” as code for “according to the Catholic Answers Forum”, then that’s a whole different can of worms – but one I’ve dealt with numerous times.)

 

[Sy_Noe]

He was a Catholic priest, Sy. The hospital told my mother - both parents Catholic - that the priest took the records to his parish. I know where my confirmation certificate is, no problem there. I was confirmed by the bishop.

Thank you Lily. Then you are proof enough for me that where the Baptism takes place is not the criteria. Maybe it is more of who baptizes and where the certificate is originally placed? I was baptized and confirmed in the same parish in a different state so my record is there in one place. I have a copy of my baptism but some yrs back I wrote for another copy and that one arrived with my First Communion and Confirmation recorded on the back as well. My mother never did have a copy of hers and the parish priest where her parents and she and her many siblings lived, said he could find no copy. Yet had for each of her siblings. She was the middle child so the priest in that parish yrs later said he couldn’t imagine my grandparents would have had baptized their 6 other siblings and not my mother. In her case, from my understanding, they hadn’t expected her to survive so perhaps a certificate wasn’t even filled out? I don’t know. It was many many yrs ago in a very rural area.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I don’t think that a policy for generating statistics that be taken as an ontological claim about someone being Catholic. (Of course, if you’re using “according to the Catholic Church” as code for “according to the Catholic Answers Forum”, then that’s a whole different can of worms – but one I’ve dealt with numerous times.)

I may be misunderstanding but is someone being Catholic/OCAC according to the Catholic Church or CAF?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Thank you Lily. Then you are proof enough for me that where the Baptism takes place is not the criteria. Maybe it is more of who baptizes and where the certificate is originally placed? I was baptized and confirmed in the same parish in a different state so my record is there in one place. I have a copy of my baptism but some yrs back I wrote for another copy and that one arrived with my First Communion and Confirmation recorded on the back as well. My mother never did have a copy of hers and the parish priest where her parents and she and her many siblings lived, said he could find no copy. But he said he couldn’t imagine my grandparents would have had baptized their 6 other siblings and not my mother. In her case, from my understanding, they hadn’t expected her to survive so perhaps a certificate wasn’t even filled out? I don’t know. It was many many yrs ago in a very rural area.

My mother was born in a very rural area, too, Sy, and the church where she was baptized burned down and all the records with it. She could not find a record at the diocese, but her mother and older brothers remember her baptism well.

 

[Reuben_J]

Thank you Lily. Then you are proof enough for me that where the Baptism takes place is not the criteria. Maybe it is more of who baptizes and where the certificate is originally placed? I was baptized and confirmed in the same parish in a different state so my record is there in one place. I have a copy of my baptism but some yrs back I wrote for another copy and that one arrived with my First Communion and Confirmation recorded on the back as well. My mother never did have a copy of hers and the parish priest where her parents and she and her many siblings lived, said he could find no copy. Yet had for each of her siblings. She was the middle child so the priest in that parish yrs later said he couldn’t imagine my grandparents would have had baptized their 6 other siblings and not my mother. In her case, from my understanding, they hadn’t expected her to survive so perhaps a certificate wasn’t even filled out? I don’t know. It was many many yrs ago in a very rural area.

I am not sure about copy of the Baptism/Confirmation certificates. In our place, if you ask for it, say, they took place some fifty years ago, an extract from the record/registration of the Baptism/Confirmation book would be written in a new blank certificate and signed by a priest/rector of the parish.

I did that, my new parish asked for my Confirmation certificate in order to be a sponsor for a new marriage couple, and I thought, my God, where would I get that. I rang my old church in my old home town, the priest was happy to answer my call. No problem, next day he faxed to me my confirmation certificate, newly written on a new form. I was pleasantly surprised because now I knew the date and the name of the Bishop who confirmed me. I was a school boy, did not care much about it then.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t think that a policy for generating statistics -]that/-] can be taken as an ontological claim about someone being Catholic. (Of course, if you’re using “according to the Catholic Church” as code for “according to the Catholic Answers Forum”, then that’s a whole different can of worms – but one I’ve dealt with numerous times.)

I may be misunderstanding but is someone being Catholic/OCAC according to the Catholic Church or CAF?

Well, since *you *said it I was hoping you would back it up. :tsktsk: (A paragraph from the CCC would certainly be satisfactory. ) But FWIW, I can confidently say that the Catholic Church does draw a distinction between an ex-Catholic and a “never-been-Catholic” (much as the Orthodox Church draws a distinction between an ex-Orthodox and a “never-been-Orthodox”), but that’s not the same as saying that there’s no such thing as an ex-Catholic.

As for “according to CAF”, well don’t ask me, I just come for the free coffee.

P.S. Sorry for the bad grammar in my last post.

 

[Peter_J]

What about the Catholics like me who were born prematurely and baptized in a hospital. My twin brother, too. I guess the hospital chaplain who baptized us took our baptismal certificates to his parish. I don’t really know, but my baptism is listed on my confirmation certificate, which did take place in a church, of course.

Sorry to butt in, but I think you’re taking the phrase “in a Catholic church” too literally.

 

[commenter]

Under the teaching of OCAC how would one cease to be Catholic? And what do you mean by “claim to still be”. Isn’t it the Catholic Church that claims them to be?

Not sure if any answer I can give would totally satisfy you. FWIW:

• I make a distinction between being “in” the Catholic Church, and “in” the Catholic Faith; many who have, more or less, left the one, have not left the other. And I suspect some, especially among LCMS Lutherans or Continuing Anglicans, have embraced the one, but not (yet) the other. Chesterton waited many years, in order to come in with his wife.
• Parish and diocesan statistics on how many are doing what, this year, are available.
• I am not sure what bothers you more, the Church using statistics to inflate its power, or the Evil Empire claiming a permanent, icy grip on souls, who thought they had fled.
• I am not saying you are Protestant, but I noticed an awful lot of Protestants are concerned/interested/very interested in Catholic definitions of dogma and practice of all kinds, apparently more than they are interested in Protestant definitions of any kind. Hmm…

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Maybe in a possessive ex-girlfriend sort of way

Those like me who don’t believe in a soul wouldn’t be interested in an un-baptism. It would be a ceremony we don’t subscribe to in order to counter an earlier ceremony we don’t subscribe to.

For those non-Catholics who believe in a soul, they would either find the earlier baptism invalid (as the Catholic Church does with baptisms done by a select portion of other Christians) or would accept the baptism but not feel that it renders a person’s soul forever Catholic.

No, to leave the Catholic Church is not a request to take back a baptism but a recognition that one is no longer an active member of the Church. If the Catholic Church wishes to tally its members solely by baptism it may do so, but it must also understand that if it doesn’t make quite clear this unique methodology will give people the wrong impression as to how many people are active members of the Church. Those article writers quoting from the Yearbook must also state accurately this methodology lest they too would give the wrong impression of the many who through struggle and introspection have made this leap.

The two are inextricably linked. You cannot say I am no longer an active member of the Church, remove me. Removing them from the body of Christ is not something the Church can consider as to do so MUST include rescinding baptism which no human has the authority to do so. Baptism is “vital” to being a Catholic.

It’s not a gym membership or a golf club membership.

If a baptised Catholic were to say “I am now an atheist, my baptism means nothing” then that’s okay, they have used their free will. Doesn’t change the fact that they are still a part of the body of Christ, albeit a malnourished branch on the tree but nonetheless still part of the family.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

You are right and I understand your point of view. You ask a question in this thread, and I tried to answer. Probably not very accurate in details, different parishes in different countries may do the recording differently, but in principle the record of Sacramental Baptism and Confirmation is right.

As for the accuracy of the census in each parish, no red blood Catholics would assume it perfectly accurate. There are death and parishioners leaving it may not be sufficiently updated.

In my parish, which is a very big one (an archdiocese) such census would be done once a while so I believe the record of the number of parishioners in the parish is quite reliable.

The number of parishioners and record of Baptism are two separate things though. I am not sure what statistic is being used, but nowadays, the size of parishioners in individual parish may reflect the number of Catholics in it. If the parish does not do a census, and rely on its Baptismal record, then the margin of inaccuracy is very big.

I agree that there are some parishes that probably have a good handle as to the number of active members they have. Obviously it’s by no means perfect. If a person doesn’t sign up for things like RCIA, baptisms, weddings, a Catholic funeral for that person to be counted. I would also say that the Church is interested in finding out many active members it has and it has made great efforts to maintain them and bring back those who have lapsed.

As for those leaving the Catholic Church, you have my sympathy, I understand it is your choice and I certainly never dismiss that choice. It is not an issue to me.

As for misrepresentation, I really have no idea what is its purpose. To me it is not important. If it is accuracy that is required, then government agency would certainly be the place for information.

The world will still go on if the Church overcounts its membership by 10 million or 100 million. It’s not something that needs government oversight. At the same time I think as a rule forthrightness is always asked for and hoped for. It’s not uncalled for to be represented accurately by the Church and those report on Church matters.

As for practicing Catholics, I have often shared in this Forum about empty pews during masses. The rate we are going, we will be wiped out in years to come. But we cannot say they are not Catholics even if they do not come to church.

All things ebb and flow. I come from a large Catholic family and I don’t see it being wiped out. It may not have the power or influence it once did, but it exists and it still has a future.

I am often in the ministry visiting lapsed Catholics in our parish, from my experience not once we were turned away. They still want us to pray in their home but you would not see much of this type in the church.

Without a doubt there are those each day who return after leaving. If they are content then I wish them all the happiness such a return provides. I just want those who will not return to be treated as fairly.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Church membership is not, under any circumstances, something that is nearly as neatly or easily defined as customership of a telephone company.

I agree.

A sensible person would realise this and would accordingky look at how a church defines membership when looking at its statistics. It is hardly some sort of state secret as to how the Church defines being Catholic or whence or how it derives its statistics. You cannot therefore claim any sort of misrepresentation. It is up to the reader, in these situations, to do their due diligence.

I’m reminded of the following quote:
Homer Simpson:

Marge, it takes two to lie: One to lie, and one to listen.

I can’t see how the onus is on the reader of such an article to assume that the Church is using a completely unique rubric to get the numbers that it gets. As I said, any article that can’t bother to put in a single additional sentence stating that the count includes all baptized by the Church including those who have declared they are now of a different faith is dealing in deception by omission.

I regularly come across statistics as to the number of Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists on the planet. I hope you don’t expect those statistics to also be as meticulous as those of a.telephone company!

No, but until someone can tell me otherwise I will assume they are trying their best to bring forth an accurate number. Until shows otherwise I will assume none of them try to conflate the idea of active members with those who living who at any point in their lives were members.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Renunciation of the faith - would seem to be too difficult to manage and/or the numbers would be negligible.

The Pew Forum, who come to their numbers via actions like polling would say that the numbers are far from neglibile.

Also, people can/do change their minds and reverse their decision and return to the CC.

So when they leave they are removed from the total of active members. When they return they are added. Since not all who leave return it’s best not to assume that they will.

Large numbers of non-practicing Catholics still strongly identify as being Catholic, and would wish to be buried as such. There are many that return, as practicing members, at some point in their lives - so the door is always open.

And it’s a good think that the door is open for them. For those who have no interest in going back through that door (a number which I noted is far from neglibile) it’s only fair that they are represented correctly.

Why would non-practicing Catholics bother baptising their children into the Catholic faith, if they were completely removed from it, had renounced it, or were against the faith. So baptism is a strong indicator of numbers of Catholics, at any point in time.

Take my friend Dave and his soon-to-be-ex-wife Christina. He is not a Catholic and if I understand correctly she is a nominal Catholic. They agreed to raise they’re two sons as Catholic because they felt it impart morals and structure. Then if they decide later to move away from Catholicism they were free to do so. My friends are not unique in employing such a setup.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I am not sure about copy of the Baptism/Confirmation certificates. In our place, if you ask for it, say, they took place some fifty years ago, an extract from the record/registration of the Baptism/Confirmation book would be written in a new blank certificate and signed by a priest/rector of the parish.

I did that, my new parish asked for my Confirmation certificate in order to be a sponsor for a new marriage couple, and I thought, my God, where would I get that. I rang my old church in my old home town, the priest was happy to answer my call. No problem, next day he faxed to me my confirmation certificate, newly written on a new form. I was pleasantly surprised because now I knew the date and the name of the Bishop who confirmed me. I was a school boy, did not care much about it then.

I have a certificate of Baptism from back when I received my First Communion without the First Communion noted. But more recently, decades later, yes, I wrote the parish in my hometown and received back a fresh white form. It looks nearly identical to the certificate from decades ago but whiter and with my First Communion and Confirmation details noted on the back. Both were signed. The first by the pastor. The 2nd by the Sister who is now the Parish Life Coordinator as the parish no longer has a priest running the day to day affairs of the church. But only has a visiting priest on the weekends. No bishop named though on mine.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

My experience is that a lot of Protestants are very interested - for and against - how the Catholic Church defines things or identifies people, sometimes with lots of emotion; but I have known or heard of very few Catholics or nonCatholics with any interest in how Protestant Churches define things.

I would disagree with the second statement. Catholic Answers Forum is a testament to that – and that’s a good thing. The more one studies not only things they agree with but things they don’t agree with the more surefooted any decisions they make in that regard.

In attending college or in the Media, I have encountered countless secularists who try to refute Catholic definitions of things or people. Has anyone met any secularist who focuses on trying to refute Methodist or Presbyterian categorization of people?

Let me break up those two sentences for a second:

1. “Secularists” try to refute Catholic teachings.
2. Do “secularists” try to refute non-Catholic Christian categorizations of people?

First, let me say that I’m guessing by “secularists” you mean non-believers. Secularism is the belief that religious and government affairs should be separate. Someone who believes in secularism can be a believer or a non-believer.

Second, I noted the difference between the two sentences. For the first one, it should be noted that non-believers are more than willing to try and refute teachings of non-Catholic Christians.

Third, are there other non-Catholic Christians that are miscategorizating people who have left their particular faith(s). If so I will admonish them as well.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Not sure if any answer I can give would totally satisfy you. FWIW:

• I make a distinction between being “in” the Catholic Church, and “in” the Catholic Faith; many who have, more or less, left the one, have not left the other. And I suspect some, especially among LCMS Lutherans or Continuing Anglicans, have embraced the one, but not (yet) the other. Chesterton waited many years, in order to come in with his wife.
• Parish and diocesan statistics on how many are doing what, this year, are available.
• I am not sure what bothers you more, the Church using statistics to inflate its power, or the Evil Empire claiming a permanent, icy grip on souls, who thought they had fled.
• I am not saying you are Protestant, but I noticed an awful lot of Protestants are concerned/interested/very interested in Catholic definitions of dogma and practice of all kinds, apparently more than they are interested in Protestant definitions of any kind. Hmm…

So you disagree with what was said here?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13584460&postcount=5

I’m not really bothered by “the Evil Empire claiming a permanent, icy grip on souls who thought they had fled” since I don’t consider the CC an “Evil Empire”. It does bother me some if the numbers overinflate when I see Catholics claiming their church is growing but others are in much more decline.

Likewise I see on CAF a lot of Catholics interested in TEC. I think between 2 subforums I’ve seen 3 threads just discussing what has gone on in the Anglican Communion this week alone. And there is a lot of interest it seems to me on the part of CAF Catholics in regard to social issue stances, female ordination, and the Real Presence in TEC and others.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The two are inextricably linked.

The whole point is that there is a very big distinction between the two. There is the Catholic tallying method (tallying by baptism) and then there is the every organization tallying method (tallying by active members). Like I said earlier if the Church wishes to announce a number of Catholics it should make sure to note it is using the tallying by baptism method, otherwise people are going to assume they are using the tallying by active members method. Not denoting the tallying method is deception by omission and should be avoided.

You cannot say I am no longer an active member of the Church, remove me. Removing them from the body of Christ is not something the Church can consider as to do so MUST include rescinding baptism which no human has the authority to do so. Baptism is “vital” to being a Catholic.

So long as they make that distinction clear in stating what their membership totals are and not make it seem that there are millions who have left the Church, then that is perfectly fine.

It’s not a gym membership or a golf club membership.

If a membership in a church is more important than any ordinary other type of membership shouldn’t any church make more effort to provide information that won’t be misconstrued? Shouldn’t they want to do more to get an accurate count? Shouldn’t there be a method by which one can say “I am no longer a practicing Catholic,” while also saying “I understand that you believe that my baptism has left a mark on my soul”?

If a baptised Catholic were to say “I am now an atheist, my baptism means nothing” then that’s okay, they have used their free will. Doesn’t change the fact that they are still a part of the body of Christ, albeit a malnourished branch on the tree but nonetheless still part of the family.

As long as the Church and any organization (like the National Catholic Register and other groups I linked to initially) doesn’t try to make it seem like there are more active members than there really are, then that’s fine. But those articles I linked to are more than willing to give a very wrong impression. You would think would be aware of this little rule:

Exodus 20:16 –
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

 

[Reuben_J]

I agree that there are some parishes that probably have a good handle as to the number of active members they have. Obviously it’s by no means perfect. If a person doesn’t sign up for things like RCIA, baptisms, weddings, a Catholic funeral for that person to be counted. I would also say that the Church is interested in finding out many active members it has and it has made great efforts to maintain them and bring back those who have lapsed.

The world will still go on if the Church overcounts its membership by 10 million or 100 million. It’s not something that needs government oversight. At the same time I think as a rule forthrightness is always asked for and hoped for. It’s not uncalled for to be represented accurately by the Church and those report on Church matters.

All things ebb and flow. I come from a large Catholic family and I don’t see it being wiped out. It may not have the power or influence it once did, but it exists and it still has a future.

Without a doubt there are those each day who return after leaving. If they are content then I wish them all the happiness such a return provides. I just want those who will not return to be treated as fairly.

Well said.

There are parishes that maintain relatively up to date record of their parishioners, there are those that do not. Relying on Baptism record is unreliable, a record where they cannot delete any Baptism. The example, my parish, that I gave, is maybe the exception. The census was born by a resolution to reach out to all Catholics in its jurisdiction. We found there were three categories of them:

(1) active participating Catholics (people like myself who would be involved in almost every parish activity and a master of none );

(2) the not active ones (Christmas and Easter, and perhaps occasional Sundays Catholics), and,

(3) the lapsed Catholics who do not go to church at all. Not sure that include the ex-Catholics. As far as I know, if the family members told us the person has converted to another religion, we would just let him/her be, the name not include among the parishioners.

So my parish can be said has an up to date number of parishioners in its record. Do all parishes do that? I don’t know. It depends on what their staff are doing.