Formally Defected from the Roman Catholic Church?

[Crocus]

Right. It is a small portion of deductions, not hefty as was stated.

More importantly, church goers approve of the way it is collected as well as how it is distributed, and the benefits to the community (link up thread).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Not if the number being asserted is true.

So in my analogy would you say Catholic-by-attendance (CBA) would be a true thing to announce instead of either CBB or CBC? The fact that there are different methods by which to call someone a Catholic (and the fact that most people don’t know that there are different methods) means that in each instance when the number of Catholics is given it should say what method is being used.

By the same token, then, when the Church says “here are the number of baptisms”, and that number is true, then who would “lambast” the Church for asserting an obvious truth?

Yes, if the Church specifically says that what it’s listing are the number of baptisms then there is no problem. If some group associated with the Church specifically lists the number of baptisms, that doesn’t forgive the Church if it uses the term “Catholics” to mean “someone who was baptized as a Catholic”.

I’m not seeing how saying “here are the number of baptisms” isn’t both ‘true’ and ‘clear’.

My problem – as I have mentioned umpteen times now that it should also be clear – is in any article that doesn’t make abundantly clear its counting method. So the link from the Vatican that I gave, which doesn’t say “here are the number of baptisms” or anything even close to that, is a faulty article.

What’s the verbiage you’re looking for? If the story just says “here are the number of baptisms”,

Where in the Vatican article does it use that verbiage? Don’t tell me about the Georgetown article. Point me to the part of the article from the Vatican that says “here are the number of baptisms”

the only ‘clarification’ that might be offered is “now, that’s ‘baptisms’; not ‘participation’, not ‘continued affiliation’: ‘baptism’ means ‘baptism’ only”… right?

“people who were baptized as Catholics” is a good way to put it. “Baptized Catholic” doesn’t work since the word “Catholic” is the noun (the thing being counted) and “baptized” just means initiated in that regard.

Yeah, but in this example, “organization A” has made an assertion about baptisms. Period, full stop. And, it’s a truthful assertion. It is, in fact, ‘correct information’!

I can’t simplify it any further. Even if a phrase has one reading, if it has multiple readings then the use of the phrase requires being crystal clear is an absolute necessity. This is even more of a fact when people would not have any idea that a second (or third) reading even exists.

 

[Gorgias]

So in my analogy would you say Catholic-by-attendance (CBA) would be a true thing to announce instead of either CBB or CBC?

If you want to announce CBA stats and proclaim them as such, have at it. On the other hand, if you want to announce CBB stats and proclaim them as such, then that’s reasonable, too. No harm, no foul.

in each instance when the number of Catholics is given it should say what method is being used.

My head’s starting to hurt. Ummm… in the citation you gave, didn’t they do precisely that thing??? Didn’t they explicitly say “this is the number of Catholics baptized”?!? Therefore, by your own standard, they did what you’re asking them to do.

My problem is in any article that doesn’t make abundantly clear its counting method.So the link from the Vatican that I gave, which doesn’t say “here are the number of baptisms” or anything even close to that, is a faulty article.

Seriously… did you even read the article you cited? Let’s look at it:

The following describes the evolving trends in the five year period just ended, both of baptized Catholics …

The number of baptized Catholics has continued to grow globally…

better information can be obtained from the relationship between the baptized Catholics and the number of inhabitants…

Brazil, of the ten countries in the world with the greatest consistency of baptized Catholics…

I mean literally, over and over again, the article identifies its standard of measurement as “the number of Catholics baptized.” Don’t know how it could be expressed any more “abundantly clear” than it already is.

“people who were baptized as Catholics” is a good way to put it. “Baptized Catholic” doesn’t work

They’re. The. Same. Thing.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Pardon me if this is a dumb question, but I was curious if there is a scriptural basis for the ‘indelible mark’ that Catholics have that non-Catholics don’t have, or do all baptized Christians who received their baptism in the Trinitarian formula have this indelible mark?

“The Indelible Mark” - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

 

[RebeccaJ]

FWIW, Mormons still count me as a member, and I don’t give a flip what they do with their numbers. Count me 10 times for all I care.

 

[RebeccaJ]

KnightErrant:

Tis_Bearself:

No, he just wanted to find a formal way of leaving that would make him feel better.

You are right in a sense. It sure would feel better to leave in such a way that is more final than just drifting and allowing the RCC use non active Catholics (including those baptized and confirmed but no longer practicing) to boost their statistics.

Unfortunately, the Church counts all who have converted to Catholicism or baptized as Catholics as part of their number even if they convert away. Worse, when announcing the number of Catholics most outlets will list the number without stating it includes those who definitely would not identify themselves as Catholic, thus making that number appear as though it’s the number of self-identified Catholics.

There’s no way for the Church to track those who have left or those who have died. There is no central database and why should there be? It takes an enormous amount of resources to track over a billion people. There is no need to do so.

There are multiple religious surveys available in the US, and I assume other countries, where statistics have been collected for self-identifying counting. Pew has done several.

ETA: Hypothetically, if such a tracking database did exist, removal at leaving or death would be self reported (by someone else on behalf of a deceased baptized). That alone would cause the tracking to not meet a standard of statistical measurement.

One could fantasize about methods. Perhaps a census every decade? Still the same issue, of baptized not interested in participating, no one to respond for a deceased to indicate a death has occurred, etc.

The only accurate measurement the Church has is number of baptisms and confirmations. In my parish alone, there might be ten people baptized at Easter, and what they do the rest of their lives is not tracked. I’m sure some are lapsed within months, some years, some never. But frankly it is none of my business (or yours).