Ex-Catholics being counted as Catholics

[Reuben_J]

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.

Noted. Thanks.

That meant the parish still has/maintain its master registration/record of its Sacramental recipients, which I thought they would always do. The very old parishes were rather riskier, if they got burned down, all the paper work would be gone too. Now such record would be computerized, so recording method undoubtedly is improving.

I am sure they has the name of the Bishop who confirmed you. Not sure how the form/certificate looks like in your case or maybe the nun you mentioned just didn’t write his name. Normally all the relevant information like the minister (priest/bishop), sponsors and date should be there.

God bless.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

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

Oh, you’re not butting in. Thank you!

 

[Peter_J]

**Open post to the people of this thread:
**
(Nothing wrong with being a touch dramatic right?)

So I think one of the things going on here is concern that the numbers of Catholics reported in the Annuario Pontificio might be inflated. And maybe that’s true, but if so is it really as shocking as it is made out be here?

Be honest: do any of us really believe that Greece is 98% Orthodox?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Greece (And please don’t think I’m trying to do a two-wrongs-make-a-right thing, or a if-you-criticize-Rome-then-I’ll-criticize somebody else thing, or whatever, just want to put things in perspective.)

 

[Sy_Noe]

Noted. Thanks.

That meant the parish still has/maintain its master registration/record of its Sacramental recipients, which I thought they would always do. The very old parishes were rather riskier, if they got burned down, all the paper work would be gone too. Now such record would be computerized, so recording method undoubtedly is improving.

I am sure they has the name of the Bishop who confirmed you. Not sure how the form/certificate looks like in your case or maybe the nun you mentioned just didn’t write his name. Normally all the relevant information like the minister (priest/bishop), sponsors and date should be there.

God bless.

My parents and godparents and the priest baptizing me and the date and place of Baptism are named on both. The First Communion and Confirmation areas on the back side only have spaces for the date and place. Thank you and God bless you as well.

 

[pepipop]

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

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.

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.

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.

His wife is still bound to the CC in some way, even as a nominal Catholic, as she baptised her children into the faith. Whose to know what will happen in 5-10 years, when she herself may revert strongly back to the faith.

The Pew survey is only based in the USA, and again some of these ‘former Catholics’ will revert back and return to the church, once they realise life’s not the bowl of cherries they were lead to believe.

There are many reverts on CAF, and if these were polled years previously they would also have ticked the ‘former Catholic’ box, but now would not.

It is too difficult to register reverts to the faith and/or former Catholics, on a continuous basis. Also reverts will not necessarily register with a particular parish, after they return to the faith, even though they regularly attend mass and the sacraments at that one parish. In the majority of cases it will not be the parish of their birth, due to people moving for work, etc.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

**Open post to the people of this thread:
**
(Nothing wrong with being a touch dramatic right?)

So I think one of the things going on here is concern that the numbers of Catholics reported in the Annuario Pontificio might be inflated. And maybe that’s true, but if so is it really as shocking as it is made out be here?

For me the problem is that if a reporting on the number of Catholics neglects to mention how it is tallied then it is misiniformation. Not only that it takes literally one sentence to clarify that it’s about baptisms and not the number of active members.

And there is no “might” about it. The Church and many Catholics are concerned about the number of people who leave the Church and don’t come back.

Not only is it a misrepresentation of these people. it also feels very dismissive. It’s more than a bit patronizing to say you think your whatever faith/non-faith you have chosen, but we know you’re really Catholic.

It doesn’t help that since the removal of the process to declare one’s leaving of the faith, it makes it seem the Church has no interest in understanding why people are leaving, and instead it gives the impression that this exodus is being swept under the rug.

Be honest: do any of us really believe that Greece is 98% Orthodox?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Greece (And please don’t think I’m trying to do a two-wrongs-make-a-right thing, or a if-you-criticize-Rome-then-I’ll-criticize somebody else thing, or whatever, just want to put things in perspective.)

The article you linked to gives several explanations as to why that number is so high and why it may include those who themselves are not truly Orthodox. It also gives what it believes is a more accurate percentage. If only the articles from Catholic media that reference the tallies in the Yearbook showed even half the level of insight that the Wikipedia article does.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

His wife is still bound to the CC in some way, even as a nominal Catholic, as she baptised her children into the faith. Whose to know what will happen in 5-10 years, when she herself may revert strongly back to the faith.

This part is moot since the Chruch in this case accurately defines her as a Catholic because she considers herself a Catholic.

What it does do is shoot down the notion you brought up earlier which suggests that because there are children being baptized that their parents must also be believers (which in this case is only 50% accurate).

The Pew survey is only based in the USA, and again some of these ‘former Catholics’ will revert back and return to the church, once they realise life’s not the bowl of cherries they were lead to believe.

Right, some of them may return. Some of them will leave and gladly not look back. As you said yourself who’s to know what will happen in 5-10 years, yet you seem to suggest that by default when counting active members (not just those baptized) that we should default on the idea that they will return.

There are many reverts on CAF, and if these were polled years previously they would also have ticked the ‘former Catholic’ box, but now would not.

From what I’ve read the ones who left and never returned exceed the ones who have returned, yet as I noted you want to continue treating them as active members because some of them might return. You would not do the same for those who left a Protestant faith for the Catholic one, and hold out the possibility of them returning to their Protestant fatih.

It is too difficult to register reverts to the faith and/or former Catholics, on a continuous basis. Also reverts will not necessarily register with a particular parish, after they return to the faith, even though they regularly attend mass and the sacraments at that one parish. In the majority of cases it will not be the parish of their birth, due to people moving for work, etc.

It is difficult, I agree. But the Church actually made it more difficult by enacting Omnium in mentem to prevent such useful information from making it into the Church’s records.

And just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t make a best effort to get accurate information, and more importantly not portray these many many many people falsely.

 

[pepipop]

This part is moot since the Chruch in this case accurately defines her as a Catholic because she considers herself a Catholic.

What it does do is shoot down the notion you brought up earlier which suggests that because there are children being baptized that their parents must also be believers (which in this case is only 50% accurate).

But they are believers, what else can they be if they baptise their children in the Catholic faith - why bother doing it at all? Do protestants or Muslims baptise their kids as Catholics?

It makes absolutely no sense. The morality aspect will not be applicable, if the kids are not sent to Catholic schools and/or brought up with the faith. The fact Catholicism instills moral values is then a moot point unless Catholic values are instilled into the children, in the first place, which can only be through the parents and/or through schooling.

Why baptise your children into a religion that you do not believe in at all.

Right, some of them may return. Some of them will leave and gladly not look back. As you said yourself who’s to know what will happen in 5-10 years, yet you seem to suggest that by default when counting active members (not just those baptized) that we should default on the idea that they will return.

What difference does it make - and it is impossible to register those that return especially in this day and age with people moving for marriage, college, work etc… very few people remain in the town they were born in. So if a later date ex-Catholics return they will be most likely at a completely new parish and will not register. By registering the number of baptisms it gives an actual, accurate number of Catholics - especially within the Church’s eyes, which is what the statistic is for.

From what I’ve read the ones who left and never returned exceed the ones who have returned, yet as I noted you want to continue treating them as active members because some of them might return. You would not do the same for those who left a Protestant faith for the Catholic one, and hold out the possibility of them returning to their Protestant fatih.

From what I’ve read it’s completely the opposite. The Pew surveys only state a point in time. IF they can follow the respondents until death, only then can a true statistic be garnered. I’ve known numerous cradle Catholics that have nothing to do with their faith through life, although they still would maintain they are Catholic - but return when they’re on their last legs - so it ain’t over until the fat lady sings.

It is difficult, I agree. But the Church actually made it more difficult by enacting Omnium in mentem to prevent such useful information from making it into the Church’s records.

And just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t make a best effort to get accurate information, and more importantly not portray these many many many people falsely.

I’d say it’s practically impossible. All my family, elderly parents included, live outwith their original parish(es). Both parents initially through their marriage and then another move after their family had left, with all their 5 children dotted throughout the world.

So it would mean all ‘lapsed’ Catholics needing to get in contact with their original parish to state they were no longer Catholic - in some cases from 1000’s of miles across the world - it ain’t ever going to happen.

Baptism figures are the only way to monitor numbers, and if these dramatically fall year on year then it can be inferred that adults are not baptising their children anymore, that the adults have left the church and the numbers have dwindled.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

 

[Peter_J]

For me the problem is that if a reporting on the number of Catholics neglects to mention how it is tallied then it is misiniformation. Not only that it takes literally one sentence to clarify that it’s about baptisms and not the number of active members.

And there is no “might” about it. The Church and many Catholics are concerned about the number of people who leave the Church and don’t come back.

Not only is it a misrepresentation of these people. it also feels very dismissive. It’s more than a bit patronizing to say you think your whatever faith/non-faith you have chosen, but we know you’re really Catholic.

It doesn’t help that since the removal of the process to declare one’s leaving of the faith, it makes it seem the Church has no interest in understanding why people are leaving, and instead it gives the impression that this exodus is being swept under the rug.

The article you linked to gives several explanations as to why that number is so high and why it may include those who themselves are not truly Orthodox. It also gives what it believes is a more accurate percentage. If only the articles from Catholic media that reference the tallies in the Yearbook showed even half the level of insight that the Wikipedia article does.

Thanks for that reply. It’s a little hard to know where to begin. Actually, though I’ve been on this thread since almost the beginning, I’ve felt half-in half-out.

At the start of this thread you spoke of how you had consulted a Catholic priest – generally a good idea, of course, w.r.t things Catholic. But I mention it b/c it’s a little weird for me to be on a thread that’s partially about said priest, especially since I’ve never met him and know almost nothing about him.

As far as people who “formally defect” from the Catholic Church (or from whatever other denomination) I guess that also always seemed a little weird to me. Now don’t get me wrong, certainly in any type of “leaving” it’s good manners to let people know you’re leaving rather than simply vanishing; but my impression is that in most cases it was not so much an act of politeness but a kind of spiteful “swan song” (a phrase I now tend to associate with people departing from web-forums, but that’s way off topic). (Side note: I realize that there used to be another reason for “formal defection” namely canons 1086, 1117 and 1124 (as they were at the time). That’s obviously a different matter.)

But that’s not even the biggest issue with “formal defection”. The biggest issue, I think, is that many people tended to view ex-Catholics who had **not **formally defected as some kind of phonies. (Not really sure if that point requires explanation or not.)

Anyhow, I’m sure I’ve only said a tiny fraction of what could be posted about this matter, but I think I should wrap this post up with just one more thing: you mention that the Wiki article “gives several explanations as to why that number is so high and why it may include those who themselves are not truly Orthodox. It also gives what it believes is a more accurate percentage.” I think this Pew page does much the same w.r.t. Catholicism in Latin America, including “… survey shows, 69% of adults across the region identify as Catholic” (contrast that with the more impressive stat of 83%). pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/

 

[Peter_J]

Even if this goes without saying, I really feel like saying it: someone who is baptized in the Catholic Church isn’t somehow more Catholic than someone who *converts *to Catholicism after being baptized e.g. Lutheran.

 

[Miriam1947]

Correct. People like you and I are counted by the Catholic Church as part of their overall numbers and membership as if we were still active adherent in their faith since no differentiation is made between current and former Catholics by the church. Despite it being at best inaccurate.

I’m late to the thread. So I’m still on page 1.

The church may say there are 1 billion baptized Catholics but it doesn’t say that there are 1 billion active Catholics

 

[Reuben_J]

peripop:

Baptism figures are the only way to monitor numbers, and if these dramatically fall year on year then it can be inferred that adults are not baptising their children anymore, that the adults have left the church and the numbers have dwindled.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

I think this explain it very well. I also said it has to go with the definition of what and who a Catholic is; that is by Baptism . Other method of counting the number of Catholics, though technically logical may not be practical from the Church aspect. I think Protestants parishes tend to be smaller and perhaps better administered, but Catholic ones are often very huge. Besides, any Catholic in the area regardless of their origins can go to the Catholic church or any Catholic church in the world. Generally there is no such thing as ‘registration’ for being involved in a parish. Context is always important -Catholic Church simply consider herself as one Church, one family.

Non-Catholics or Catholics who left the Church, the latter can be very bitter and passionately anti - Church , have to just understand how the Catholic Church gets her figure and see it that way.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But they are believers, what else can they be if they baptise their children in the Catholic faith - why bother doing it at all?

I literally explained it to you in my first response to you. The husband, while not a believer, felt raising his boys in the Catholic Church would provide them structure and morals. He himself is not a Catholic.

Do protestants or Muslims baptise their kids as Catholics?

In many mixed marraiges they most certainly do! One need only peruse CAF or listen to EWTN to find such arrangements.

It makes absolutely no sense. The morality aspect will not be applicable, if the kids are not sent to Catholic schools and/or brought up with the faith. The fact Catholicism instills moral values is then a moot point unless Catholic values are instilled into the children, in the first place, which can only be through the parents and/or through schooling.

The husband feels the Church will help teach his kids to be good, as a reinforcement of morals he taught and continues to teach. That’s why he and his wife did it, and you may not find it applicable but that’s how it is. Remember, you insisted that only Catholics would have their children baptized as Catholics, and I’ve shown that is simply not the case. You may not agree with their reasoning – but it is absolute fact that a non-Catholic had his boys baptized in a Catholic church. There is not a one-to-one correlation between things that make sense to you and things that are true.

Why baptise your children into a religion that you do not believe in at all.

Again, structure and morals. For a mixed marraige of a Protestant and a Catholic, the Catholic may insist on such a baptism whereas the Protestant does not. The baptism takes place but the Protestant does not convert. It could be two indifferent people who have strayed from the faith did so solely at the behest of one or more of the grandparents. Displeasure with these reasons doesn’t mean that they don’t occur with regularity.

What difference does it make - and it is impossible to register those that return especially in this day and age with people moving for marriage, college, work etc… very few people remain in the town they were born in.

Other religions make an effort to tally their membership. As I noted a few times in earlier posts it’s very difficult to get an accurate count, but that doesn’t mean one should not make a best effort to get something resembling an accurate count. What do these other faiths have that Catholicism does not?

So if a later date ex-Catholics return they will be most likely at a completely new parish and will not register.

Possibly and possibly not. Some of those that return may be doing so because they want to perform a sacrement for themselves or a family member (e.g. baptism, wedding, funeral), which means they would make their presence known at that parish.

By registering the number of baptisms it gives an actual, accurate number of Catholics - especially within the Church’s eyes, which is what the statistic is for.

Except it’s not accurate if it makes it seem like it’s counting active members and not just those baptized.

I’d say it’s practically impossible. All my family, elderly parents included, live outwith their original parish(es). Both parents initially through their marriage and then another move after their family had left, with all their 5 children dotted throughout the world.

So it would mean all ‘lapsed’ Catholics needing to get in contact with their original parish to state they were no longer Catholic - in some cases from 1000’s of miles across the world - it ain’t ever going to happen.

Welcome to the internet age. Heck, welcome to the age of post offices. A signed letter should be more than sufficient to ask not to be considered an active member.

Baptism figures are the only way to monitor numbers,

Again, that’s ignoring every single other non-Catholic Christian faith.

and if these dramatically fall year on year then it can be inferred that adults are not baptising their children anymore, that the adults have left the church and the numbers have dwindled.

As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, not all of the parents of children being baptized are Catholics themselves.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

You can’t stop an exodus by ignoring it. Once a Catholic, there’s a sizeable chance he no longer celebrates mass.

I do have a question regarding something I’ve stated multiple times here on this thread:

Is it right or honest for a media source to quote a number for Catholics that is based on baptisms without noting that method, making it seem like it’s counting active members?

I’ve said it a few times, I’m fine if that’s how they want their tallies to be done – as long as they are absolutely clear that’s the method they use. Anything like the articles I quoted intially which gives the wrong impression about the millions who have left the faith is nothing short of a lie.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Thanks for that reply. It’s a little hard to know where to begin. Actually, though I’ve been on this thread since almost the beginning, I’ve felt half-in half-out.

At the start of this thread you spoke of how you had consulted a Catholic priest – generally a good idea, of course, w.r.t things Catholic. But I mention it b/c it’s a little weird for me to be on a thread that’s partially about said priest, especially since I’ve never met him and know almost nothing about him.

True. At the same time no one has stepped up to disagree with Father Grondin to say he is incorrect as to how the Yearbook tallies the number of Catholics, so at the very least I’m going to assume he is correct until shown otherwise.

As far as people who “formally defect” from the Catholic Church (or from whatever other denomination) I guess that also always seemed a little weird to me. Now don’t get me wrong, certainly in any type of “leaving” it’s good manners to let people know you’re leaving rather than simply vanishing; but my impression is that in most cases it was not so much an act of politeness but a kind of spiteful “swan song” (a phrase I now tend to associate with people departing from web-forums, but that’s way off topic). (Side note: I realize that there used to be another reason for “formal defection” namely canons 1086, 1117 and 1124 (as they were at the time). That’s obviously a different matter.)

I’m sure for some it’s a spiteful swan song. For others it’s just a sense of closure, to make a choice to leave one’s faith (often a very difficult decision) to make it official.

But that’s not even the biggest issue with “formal defection”. The biggest issue, I think, is that many people tended to view ex-Catholics who had **not **formally defected as some kind of phonies. (Not really sure if that point requires explanation or not.)

I think it does require explanation, as I have never heard of any Catholic or ex-Catholic admonish another ex-Catholic for not going through the formal defection process.

Anyhow, I’m sure I’ve only said a tiny fraction of what could be posted about this matter, but I think I should wrap this post up with just one more thing: you mention that the Wiki article “gives several explanations as to why that number is so high and why it may include those who themselves are not truly Orthodox. It also gives what it believes is a more accurate percentage.” I think this Pew page does much the same w.r.t. Catholicism in Latin America, including “… survey shows, 69% of adults across the region identify as Catholic” (contrast that with the more impressive stat of 83%). pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/

I have absolutely no problem with the Wiki pages or the Pew pages since it explains the methodology behind the numbers. When the National Catholic Register says, “By the end of 2013, the worldwide Catholic population had surpassed 1.253 billion, an increase of about 25 million or 2 percent, modestly outpacing the global population growth rate, which was estimated at 1 percent in 2013,” but doesn’t mention that these numbers are based on baptisms and not active members then that is a full-on bearing of false witness.

 

[Padres1969]

I’m late to the thread. So I’m still on page 1.

The church may say there are 1 billion baptized Catholics but it doesn’t say that there are 1 billion active Catholics

Question is then, do they provide any active adherent numbers which would be far more reflective of how many Catholics there actually are than the baptismal numbers?

 

[Reuben_J]

But Catholics who are baptized as babies are not giving their consent.

,

Smart answer. Good girl. This is the type that I always dread to explain, like my daughter, they are so clever. So I give up.

I guess I need to ask my Catechism teacher, on why Catholics baptize their babies. I know it is somewhere tucked away in his notebook. He would have some very nicely placed words to explain it, but me, like most of you, would not bother to remember it and soon forget it anyway.

I understand, especially more so these days, that one cannot just force something onto someone’s throat without that person agreeing to it… It’s against human right, it’s not democracy. Communism! Catholics like to take advantage of their underlings under their responsibility who are unable to give consent. “You listen to me, young man.”

I have to agree with you. You are right on this one.

 

[LilyM]

Except…in this case, you do not believe she is your biological mother and she can’t prove to you or anyone else that she is…not even by DNA tests.

.

Of course she can prove it - it’s her name on your birth certificate and the midwife can vouch for her being your mother.

The question is what evidence do you have, beyond your gut dislike of her, that she isn’t your mother?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Question is then, do they provide any active adherent numbers which would be far more reflective of how many Catholics there actually are than the baptismal numbers?

In the UK there is supposed to be a Mass attendance count one Sunday of the year.

All the drop-outs get replaced by migrants, hence hey presto, the bishops can “keep” the figures they were “not discontented with”. God has got an astounding sense of humour!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I see it more as an issue of whether someone who is ex-Catholic could omit the “ex” when filling out their profile so that it just said “Catholic”. Personally, I would see that as misleading.

It is entirely personal choice how you fill it out. In seconding Peter J on this I see it as a marvellous opportunity to assert the individuality and truth of your position. It took some months and several tries before I homed in on “nominal Catholic” because God, working through the Church, deliberately chose over many decades not to load me with most of the baggage most Catholics take for granted. Hence I am “nominal” in relation to and as seen by most here. It also helps strengthen the message that readers are to delve further if they want to know what is Catholic (which they always should have anyway).

I think we have to live with lots of people just saying they are a generic “Catholic” because they can’t think what else to put. They are as different from each other as chalk and cheese. It’s not a pecking order or a popularity poll. It’s great to have Protestants, Baha’is, Sufis etc posting as they have as sharp a pair of eyes as any of us, if not more so.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think we have to live with lots of people just saying they are a generic “Catholic” because they can’t think what else to put. They are as different from each other as chalk and cheese. It’s not a pecking order or a popularity poll. It’s great to have Protestants, Baha’is, Sufis etc posting as they have as sharp a pair of eyes as any of us, if not more so.

Probably if they put themselves as Vulcans, it may be obvious that it is fictional, unless of course they have pointed ears and look like Vuclans. But how often do we meet a Vulcan? But other than that, I think it is acceptable to put what you think you really are. Well, not a Vulcan of course, unless your name spelt Spock.