Ex-Catholics being counted as Catholics

[Nixbits]

Peter J:

Those are atheist ex-Catholics … though I have a hunch that you’re determined to think what you think no matter what.

I agree that they are atheist ex-Catholics. But you seem determined not to understand my point that the Church itself considers them still Catholics, and therefore they are atheist Catholics, by the Church’s own definition. I’m not determined to think this ‘no matter what’. But I’ll continue to think this until someone points out the flaw in my reasoning, or until the RCC takes a different approach.

 

[Peter_J]

It’s not about an individual priest

Alright, I welcome that actually. From here on I’ll pretend I haven’t seen anything you’ve said, or will say, about a particular priest.

But that aside, my interest in what you have to say is waning … I’m sorry, but things like you saying “I have never, ever heard that” to my question “have you never heard it said (or seen it written) that an ex-Catholic who has not formally defected isn’t really an ex-Catholic?” (which has actually been asserted repeatedly by Catholic posters on the very thread we’re posting on) just make you a bit ridiculous to me.

I do actually have an article, however, to I’ll quote from (in the dim hope that many people are still reading this thread ):

According to the 2002 census, the Romanian Orthodox Church had 18,817,975 members (86.8 percent of the population). The Roman Catholic Church had 1,026,429 members. The Catholic Church of Byzantine Rite (Greek Catholics or Uniates) had 191,556 members. This figure is disputed by the Greek Catholic Church, which claims that there were many irregularities such as census takers refusing to note Greek Catholic affiliation and automatically assuming Orthodox affiliation, which led to an inaccurate result. The Greek Catholic Church estimated in 2003 that its adherents numbered more than 790,000.
state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2005/51575.htm

(If you were expecting the Catholic side to say “Oh it doesn’t matter what they told the census taker. We’ve decided that they cannot leave Catholicism” then you’ll be disappointed.)

There’s a lot that could be said about that paragraph, but I’ll try to keep this short (and even what I do say may not be of interest to very many people). One point is that more recent editions of Annuario Pontificio have revised that 790,000 down to 512,726. What the actual number is, whether it’s 400,000 or 300,000 or whatever, I won’t try to say … but I can definitely believe that the 191,556 is low and that some Greek Catholics were counted as Orthodox (or as Latin Catholics, although that’s not explicitly mentioned as a possibility).

 

[Peter_J]

Is there an article along with those charts? I can’t answer your questions about what I think the Church might be stating otherwise.

In retrospect, maybe I should have made a comment rather than asking you a question. As already noted, The Romanian Greek Catholic Church had total membership reported as 1,390,610 in the 2000 Pontifical Yearbook, and 781,704 in 2002. I do not believe that the Vatican was telling people into thinking that 45% of that Church died in a two year period. Rather, I believe the number was badly reported in 2000, but there was a genuine attempt to fix it.

It’s not about an individual priest

Alright, I welcome that actually. From here on I’ll pretend I haven’t seen anything you’ve said, or will say, about a particular priest.

But that aside, my interest in what you have to say is waning … I’m sorry, but things like you saying “I have never, ever heard that” to my question “have you never heard it said (or seen it written) that an ex-Catholic who has not formally defected isn’t really an ex-Catholic?” (which has actually been asserted repeatedly by Catholic posters on the very thread we’re posting on) just make you a bit ridiculous to me.

I do actually have an article, however, to quote from (in the dim hope that many people are still reading this thread ):

According to the 2002 census, the Romanian Orthodox Church had 18,817,975 members (86.8 percent of the population). The Roman Catholic Church had 1,026,429 members. The Catholic Church of Byzantine Rite (Greek Catholics or Uniates) had 191,556 members. This figure is disputed by the Greek Catholic Church, which claims that there were many irregularities such as census takers refusing to note Greek Catholic affiliation and automatically assuming Orthodox affiliation, which led to an inaccurate result. The Greek Catholic Church estimated in 2003 that its adherents numbered more than 790,000.
state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2005/51575.htm

(If you were expecting the Catholic side to say “Oh it doesn’t matter what they told the census taker. We’ve decided that they cannot leave Catholicism” then you’ll be disappointed.)

There’s a lot that could be said about that paragraph, but I’ll try to keep this short (and even what I do say may not be of interest to very many people). One point is that more recent editions of Annuario Pontificio have revised that 790,000 down to 512,726. What the actual number is, whether it’s 400,000 or 300,000 or whatever, I won’t try to say … but I can definitely believe that the 191,556 is low and that some Greek Catholics were counted as Orthodox (or as Latin Catholics, although that’s not explicitly mentioned as a possibility).

 

[Peter_J]

I agree that they are atheist ex-Catholics. But you seem determined not to understand my point that the Church itself considers them still Catholics, and therefore they are atheist Catholics, by the Church’s own definition. I’m not determined to think this ‘no matter what’. But I’ll continue to think this until someone points out the flaw in my reasoning, or until the RCC takes a different approach.

The fact that I didn’t say what you wanted me to say does not mean that I don’t understand what you’re saying.

I certainly agree (and have never denied) that the numbers reported in the Pope’s Yearbook are sometimes inflated – due to (among other things) the fact that some of the numbers are based on and increase/decrease method, where baptisms and conversions from Protestantism and Orthodoxy are (appropriately, I think) counted as increases, but only deaths (and not departures from Catholicism) are counted as decreases.

What I object to is unwarranted conclusions being drawn from that, particularly the so-called “Once Catholic Always Catholic”.

There’s more that could be said, but frankly having recently expended a good deal of my own time and energy on what turned out to be a disagreeable conversation, I’d rather not start down the same path with you. Instead, please read my posts to Mike from NJ.

Thanks for the good advice, Reuben. I’m not bitter at all. But I agree with Mike from NJ. I find it inappropriate and misleading if the RCC uses the baptism figures as the basis of the number of ‘Catholics’ without further detail. It would be better if there was a way to identify the number of people that actually hold Catholic beliefs. Of course, the RCC is not alone in not providing such figures for their religion.

See the article I cited above. Plus, I imagine you could find many censuses on the Pew website. But you’ll have to research the matter for yourself, I don’t think I’m going to do any more “good deeds” of that sort w.r.t. this thread.

 

[pepipop]

Makes it all seem pretty scary…once Catholic always Catholic…when I was a Pentecostal we were told that anyone who was confirmed into the Catholic faith would forever be “sealed” with the sign of the anti Christ and your soul would be lost…then I became Catholic and realized nothing could be farther from the truth

Even the Protestant churches agree - once a Catholic always a Catholic!

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In retrospect, maybe I should have made a comment rather than asking you a question. As already noted, The Romanian Greek Catholic Church had total membership reported as 1,390,610 in the 2000 Pontifical Yearbook, and 781,704 in 2002. I do not believe that the Vatican was telling people into thinking that 45% of that Church died in a two year period. Rather, I believe the number was badly reported in 2000, but there was a genuine attempt to fix it.

You know what they say about assumptions

Alright, I welcome that actually. From here on I’ll pretend I haven’t seen anything you’ve said, or will say, about a particular priest.

But that aside, my interest in what you have to say is waning … I’m sorry, but things like you saying “I have never, ever heard that” to my question “have you never heard it said (or seen it written) that an ex-Catholic who has not formally defected isn’t really an ex-Catholic?” (which has actually been asserted repeatedly by Catholic posters on the very thread we’re posting on) just make you a bit ridiculous to me.

Wait! Stop right there.

In post 89 your exact words were

The biggest issue, I think, is that many people tended to view ex-Catholics who had not formally defected as some kind of phonies.

In post 94 I wrote:

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.

In post 135 you responded:

Well … the specific word “phonies” was my choice, but have you never heard it said (or seen it written) that an ex-Catholic who has not formally defected isn’t really an ex-Catholic?

And here’s the problem: We were discussing people who had not formally defected as being looked down upon. Phonies is a word of derision, of negative opinion. It naturally follows that your response in 135 was still about those negative opinions about those who leave the Church and formally defect as opposed to those that did.

So when you were shown that your statement had no basis in reality, you brought up the fact (to which I agreed) that the Church follows a “once Catholic, always Catholic” mantra. The problem is that OCAC has nothing to do with defection or negative opinions.

Bringing it back to your assertion which you have not in any way shown to be true, where have people who have left the Church but not formally defected from it been considered “phonies”, been viewed negatively as opposed to those who have formally defected, or been viewed negatively on the basis of their not going through said defection process (which no longer exists)?

I eagerly await your change of topic.

I do actually have an article, however, to quote from (in the dim hope that many people are still reading this thread ):

(If you were expecting the Catholic side to say “Oh it doesn’t matter what they told the census taker. We’ve decided that they cannot leave Catholicism” then you’ll be disappointed.)

There’s a lot that could be said about that paragraph, but I’ll try to keep this short (and even what I do say may not be of interest to very many people). One point is that more recent editions of Annuario Pontificio have revised that 790,000 down to 512,726. What the actual number is, whether it’s 400,000 or 300,000 or whatever, I won’t try to say … but I can definitely believe that the 191,556 is low and that some Greek Catholics were counted as Orthodox (or as Latin Catholics, although that’s not explicitly mentioned as a possibility).

Again, you’re missing the point. If later editions of the Statistical Yearbook correct clerical errors, that’s fine and all, but we don’t know if it provides those statistics with an explanation as to whether it includes those baptized or those who consider themselves active members. We know from the articles that I provided at the start (and many more I could provide from a quick internet search) shows that those media members who quote from the Yearbook have no qualms about bearing false witness by making it seem like the number baptized is equal to the number of active and willing members.

 

[Peter_J]

Oh brother. You say that I ‘brought up the fact … that the Church follows a “once Catholic, always Catholic” mantra’ when I never once said that was a fact. (Heck, I specifically went against some Catholic posters on this thread by saying that it is a falsehood.) Give me a break.

I also think it’s rather pitiful the way you endlessly try to rake me over the coals for my choice of words earlier, “The biggest issue, I think, is that many people tended to view ex-Catholics who had not formally defected as some kind of phonies.” I have already explained the meaning of that statement – that some have suggested that “ex-Catholics who had not formally defected” are not really ex-Catholics. I know what I said and I’m not interested in having you commentate on it.

 

[Peter_J]

… those media members who quote from the Yearbook have no qualms about bearing false witness by making it seem like the number baptized is equal to the number of active and willing members.

That could be a good subject for debate. I leave it to each of my fellow Catholics to individually decide whether they want to take you as a dialogue partner. I’m only deciding for myself that I do not.

 

[phil19034]

In my parish we have a yearly physical count of people in the pews. That way even if you are not registered you are still counted.

It will be done two weeks in a row, usually in October. They will ask 18 and under to raise their hands and count them. And then count the other adults.

They use clickers, it seems to be pretty accurate. It is like a poll, a window in time.

Some parishes count every week

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I also think it’s rather pitiful the way you endlessly try to rake me over the coals for my choice of words earlier, “The biggest issue, I think, is that many people tended to view ex-Catholics who had not formally defected as some kind of phonies.” I have already explained the meaning of that statement – that some have suggested that “ex-Catholics who had not formally defected” are not really ex-Catholics.

It’s not raking you over the coals, instead it’s correcting you. “Phonies” has a very distinct connotation, one that doesn’t match up with OCAC (whether that’s something you endorse or not).

I know what I said and I’m not interested in having you commentate on it.

This is an open forum, so comments on things written will occur.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That could be a good subject for debate. I leave it to each of my fellow Catholics to individually decide whether they want to take you as a dialogue partner. I’m only deciding for myself that I do not.

Not only is it a good subject for debate ,but it’s literally the main thrust of the original post and why I created this thread.

 

[pepipop]

Some parishes count every week

Our parish takes an annual count and we were 200 in the ‘black’ this year, , i.e. 200 additional parishioners. So were these new members made up from some who had fallen away from the faith and returned; people who had recently moved to the area; or converts to the Catholic faith - who knows?

Hence parish polls mean very little, except being helpful to that specific parish and possibly the diocese, but the figures are not an accurate analysis of anything, as there are too many variables. Aside from the above factors, is the fact that so many people nowadays move away from their original parishes, their towns/cities and their countries, etc…

Only baptism and death can be registered and counted with accuracy.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Our parish takes an annual count and we were 200 in the ‘black’ this year, , i.e. 200 additional parishioners. So were these new members made up from some who had fallen away from the faith and returned; people who had recently moved to the area; or converts to the Catholic faith - who knows?

Hence parish polls mean very little, except being helpful to that specific parish and possibly the diocese, but the figures are not an accurate analysis of anything, as there are too many variables. Aside from the above factors, is the fact that so many people nowadays move away from their original parishes, their towns/cities and their countries, etc…

Only baptism and death can be registered and counted with accuracy.

Yes we have had a huge umbers coming back to register also. In the last 4 years we have had an addition of 450 active members. Our parish is booming. Of course those numbers go ten fold at Christmas and Easter.

 

[ffg]

We know the ‘why’ regarding count of Catholics - essentially a paperwork trail of baptism registrations accompanied by the inability to turn back time.

after reading this thread, I’m a little curious about how accurate the numbers are considering death. Especially in cases of those that have died that have not been active members.

If the purpose of an annual report is to number baptized warm bodies, it seems numbers being inflated due to the Church not knowing folks have died and including them in a headcount seems likely.

What a job that would be - monitor deaths around the world and rub them up against the baptized roll. Would be some serious job security.

If the trends show an increase in general population, there probably isn’t much of an inflation considering converts who enter traditionally would not be counted until Easter (baptized), but would be ‘active’ since advent or earlier.

Essentially a push (wash) between converts and the dead for a reduction in overstatement risk for a given year.

That’s probably all I have for this thread, but thanks for starting it, interesting read.

Take care,

Mike

 

[pepipop]

Yes we have had a huge umbers coming back to register also. In the last 4 years we have had an addition of 450 active members. Our parish is booming. Of course those numbers go ten fold at Christmas and Easter.

At Christmas, I believe every ‘Catholic’ in Ireland goes to mass, it’s absolute mayhem every year. Our parish had 10 masses (incl the parish centre) to accommodate Xmas day mass, and all were standing room only.

You had to arrive at least an hour before any off the masses, to be assured of a seat.

 

[Reuben_J]

At Christmas, I believe every ‘Catholic’ in Ireland goes to mass, it’s absolute mayhem every year. Our parish had 10 masses (incl the parish centre) to accommodate Xmas day mass, and all were standing room only.

You had to arrive at least an hour before any off the masses, to be assured of a seat.

Important observation and relevant to this thread. Even though they may be ‘Christmas Catholics’, at heart they still consider themselves Catholics, not ex-Catholics and definitely not atheists, despite not regular church going. These should still be counted as Catholics despite not filling the pews in the daily life of the church. They still care that they have to attend mass and receive the Sacrament at least once a year, according to Church teaching. The mentality, very Catholic, I should say.

 

[Reuben_J]

If the trends show an increase in general population, there probably isn’t much of an inflation considering converts who enter traditionally would not be counted until Easter (baptized), but would be ‘active’ since advent or earlier.

True. Another reason that heads count in a parish may not accurately reflect the number of baptized Catholics. It would roughly take a year before they will be baptized and included in the baptismal record.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

We know the ‘why’ regarding count of Catholics - essentially a paperwork trail of baptism registrations accompanied by the inability to turn back time.

after reading this thread, I’m a little curious about how accurate the numbers are considering death. Especially in cases of those that have died that have not been active members.

If the purpose of an annual report is to number baptized warm bodies, it seems numbers being inflated due to the Church not knowing folks have died and including them in a headcount seems likely.

What a job that would be - monitor deaths around the world and rub them up against the baptized roll. Would be some serious job security.

Excellent points. I think it would be safe to say that barring the occasional emergency baptism that the numbers the Church has for baptisms is very close to accurate, while (as you explained) there must be a great deal of inaccuracy in counting deaths. If I die tomorrow St. Barnabas Church isn’t going to tell the Diocese of Trenton that a Catholic died.

I think of it like an amusement park ride where to get in everyone has to go through a turnstile and when they leave there is a headcount done by a teen who wanted a part time job to save for a car. By the end of the day the turnstile might say 10,000 riders and the kid might say 7,000 left the ride – meaning somewhere 3,000 people must be hiding to get free rides after the park closes

If the trends show an increase in general population, there probably isn’t much of an inflation considering converts who enter traditionally would not be counted until Easter (baptized), but would be ‘active’ since advent or earlier.

Essentially a push (wash) between converts and the dead for a reduction in overstatement risk for a given year.

I’m not sure if it’s necessarily a wash although I would agree there are some converts to Catholicism that are likely under-reported. The Pew Forum a few months ago came up with this article saying that 28% of American adults who were raised by the Church consider themselves ex-Catholics (that’s not counting the 11% who left and returned and the 13% who are culturally Catholic). I’m not sure that converts to Catholicism are underrepresented in the Church’s OCAC tallies nearly as much, considering that they have methods by which to report their desire to be members (including baptism or things like RCIA if they already have a valid baptism).

Even taking into account what the Pew Forum notes, there are still a LOT of Catholics both in the U.S. and around the world, and I think there always will be. I just want a more accurate count and representation in that regard.

That’s probably all I have for this thread, but thanks for starting it, interesting read.

Take care,

Thanks! You too

Mike

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I’m not sure if it’s necessarily a wash although I would agree there are some converts to Catholicism that are likely under-reported. The Pew Forum a few months ago came up with this article saying that 28% of American adults who were raised by the Church consider themselves ex-Catholics (that’s not counting the 11% who left and returned and the 13% who are culturally Catholic). I’m not sure that converts to Catholicism are underrepresented in the Church’s OCAC tallies nearly as much, considering that they have methods by which to report their desire to be members (including baptism or things like RCIA if they already have a valid baptism).

Hey ya Mike I’m still laughing! LOL! Now, I was on a topic back in early November that pertained to another Pew Research article. The problem I have with Pew Research articles is they aren’t reliable! They basically use a tiny (itsy bitsy) small sample of people to justify a large group of individuals. Ho Hum! So for the large amount of surveys they did was to me bogus. From all their surveys found in a pdf on their website, Pew Research states: “These are among the key findings of Pew Research Center’s 2015 Survey of U.S. Catholics and Family Life, conducted May 5-June 7, 2015, on landlines and cellphones among a national probability sample of 5,122 adults, including 1,016 self-identified Catholics, with a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.5 percentage points for Catholics and +/- 1.6 percentage points for the full sample.”

Obviously, I don’t like Pew Studies since they don’t reflect the truth. I go to the Government when I want to know stuff not to Pew.

So hunt for the pdf on Pew!!!

 

[Thorolfr]

The problem I have with Pew Research articles is they aren’t reliable! They basically use a tiny (itsy bitsy) small sample of people to justify a large group of individuals.

Isn’t that what polling is about, taking a small, random but statistically representative sample to represent a large group of people? All reputable polling firms do this.