Formally Defected from the Roman Catholic Church?

[Gorgias]

What survey? The numbers given by these articles (including ones written by the Church) don’t involve surveys but an assessment of the number of living people who have been baptized Catholic.

Whoops! Got this thread and the thread on the Pew Survey on Transubstantiation conflated!

In any case, when the Church talks about numbers of Catholics, they talk about baptisms, funerals, and Mass attendance. That doesn’t count everyone who the Church considers Catholic, but it does cover those who are active.

So this question about one number made to look like another number somehow isn;'t about numbers.

Nah… “Pew Survey” confusion, again.

The number of people who currently drink milk will be less than the number of people who currently or formerly drank milk. So what the Church reports is vastly over-reported specifically in terms of self-identified Catholics.

Except that what the Church reports is “number of folks who bought milk” and “number of folks who drank milk this year”. No “over-reporting” there…

I’m saying – very simply – that when the Church says there are X baptized Catholics that it could be more clear rephrasing it.

And I’m saying – very simply – that the Church reports the current year’s baptisms. Not “X people have been baptized since 1950”, but “Y baptisms this year.” It’s not the over-representation scheme that I think you’re envisioning…

Imagine if the Democratic Party announced there were “X registered Democrats” but it included people who were once registered Democrats but have changed their political affiliation.

On the other hand, if the Dems announced “Y people registered as Democrat in this election cycle” and “Z people registered Democrat voted this year”, then that would be a pretty good measure, wouldn’t it? That’s what the Church does…

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

When you say Jesus will see the indelible mark and recognize you as His own…are you referring to the moment of death?

Jesus knows everything already so nothing new to Him. I trust in His mercy.

That was my thought when I asked, for if we are with Him every day He knows who we are without having brand or mark to see and identify.

 

[Crocus]

Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

God recognizes Jesus publicly, immediately after He is baptized. I believe we are recognized in the same way, after Baptism. In any case the disciples were sent to baptize, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That leads me to conclude Baptism is important, accomplishes something of substance, leaves an identifiable “mark?” That’s one way of describing it.

As a result of my Baptism, I hope one day to hear those words of recognition.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

That is one big bee in your bonnet. It’s perfectly honest to say there are x number of baptized catholics, full stop. It’s not misleading at all. It answers the question, “how many catholics are there?” You’re complaining they aren’t answering your question, “how many practicing catholics are there?” Why do you assume that’s the question? Because it’s your question?

 

[LilyM]

Mike_from_NJ:

What survey? The numbers given by these articles (including ones written by the Church) don’t involve surveys but an assessment of the number of living people who have been baptized Catholic.

Whoops! Got this thread and the thread on the Pew Survey on Transubstantiation conflated!

In any case, when the Church talks about numbers of Catholics, they talk about baptisms, funerals, and Mass attendance. That doesn’t count everyone who the Church considers Catholic, but it does cover those who are active.

So this question about one number made to look like another number somehow isn;'t about numbers.

Nah… “Pew Survey” confusion, again.

The number of people who currently drink milk will be less than the number of people who currently or formerly drank milk. So what the Church reports is vastly over-reported specifically in terms of self-identified Catholics.

Except that what the Church reports is “number of folks who bought milk” and “number of folks who drank milk this year”. No “over-reporting” there…

I’m saying – very simply – that when the Church says there are X baptized Catholics that it could be more clear rephrasing it.

And I’m saying – very simply – that the Church reports the current year’s baptisms. Not “X people have been baptized since 1950”, but “Y baptisms this year.” It’s not the over-representation scheme that I think you’re envisioning…

Imagine if the Democratic Party announced there were “X registered Democrats” but it included people who were once registered Democrats but have changed their political affiliation.

On the other hand, if the Dems announced “Y people registered as Democrat in this election cycle” and “Z people registered Democrat voted this year”, then that would be a pretty good measure, wouldn’t it? That’s what the Church does…

But being Catholic is nothing like joining or resigning from a political party. Because the Church is nothing like a mere secular institution.

Being Catholic is closer to being, say, Aboriginal Australian. You might not identify as such, or even want to. Sadly in times past there was a great deal of stigma attached so some chose not to. You might not even be aware that you are. But if it is in your DNA it cannot be changed or undone, and if it is in your DNA it cannot be false to class you as Aboriginal, no?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

So why does saying “there are x million Catholics” equate to “there are x million self-identifying/practicing Catholics”??

That’s how language works in describing membership. If my company has 60 employees it means there are 60 current employees. It doesn’t include people who were fired, quit, or retired. If my poker club has 8 members those 8 people when asked if they’re part of the club would say “Yes”.

It is common knowledge that even atheists will often describe themselves as “raised Catholic” or “baptised Catholic” or whatever, so the word “Catholic” is not equivalent to “practicing or currently self-identifying”

First, when someone says they are raised Catholic they are adding a qualifier to indicate that their religious upbringing doesn’t match their current outlook. Second, if an atheist is asked what religion they are they would never just say “I was baptized Catholic.” It’d be something more like “I was baptized Catholic, but I left when I was 13.” That too is a qualifier. I’m asking that when the Church lists the number of Catholics that they apply some sort of qualifier like “There are X baptized Catholics including those no longer practicing the faith”. A few extra words is worth it to speak the plain truth. Why are people so averse to this clarity.

If you told me “there are x million Americans” meaning simply citizens of the US, and I wrongly assume that you are including only those citizens actually living in the United States, which I know is only a subset, the bad is really on me for not bothering to actually find out how you come up with those statistics, not you.

You know very well that “location” and “citizenship” are not bound to one another.

1. People who are citizens and live there
2. People who are citizens and live elsewhere
3. People who are not citizens and live there

What we’re talking about here in this thread are “memnership” and “whether the person considers themselves a member”. They tie closely together. For most groups they’re one and the same. For the Church they’re separate. Most people aren’t aware of this. It’s only right that when they list membership they make it clear that the number includes those who don’t consider themselves a member.

I may be “unfamiliar with your unique accounting system”, which I’m sure is hardly unique at least among Christian denominations.

Now is your chance. You have access to the greatest storehouse of knowledge man has known, the internet. You’re sure other Christian denominations follow this system, so let us know what denominations those are.

But as far as I am concerned if I am going to use or rely on your figures it is my job to become familiar (or familiar enough) with your system!

I think Homer Simpson said it best, “Marge, it takes two to lie - one to lie, and one to listen.” You’re blaming people for assuming the language for membership is like that of every other organization in the world.

Is it really too much to ask that the Chruch add a half-dozen words or so to prevent any misrepresentation?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Whoops! Got this thread and the thread on the Pew Survey on Transubstantiation conflated!

Nah… “Pew Survey” confusion, again.

No problem! It’s a CAF right of passage to mix up two or more threads one is posting in

And I’m saying – very simply – that the Church reports the current year’s baptisms. Not “X people have been baptized since 1950”, but “Y baptisms this year.” It’s not the over-representation scheme that I think you’re envisioning…

You might actually want to read the links I provided instead of assuming what they say. When it says “The number of baptized Catholics has continued to grow globally, from 1,272 million in 2014 to 1,285 million in 2015, with a relative increase of 1 %. This represents a total of 17.7% of the total population.” It’s not saying that there were 1.285 billion baptisms in 2015 but that the total number of living people who in their lives were baptized as Catholics was 1.285 billion. It also says that this is 17.7% of the world’s population. This makes sense since if we give a lowball estimate of the world’s population as a flat 7 billion then 17.7% of that is 1.239 billion.

Imagine if the Democratic Party announced there were “X registered Democrats” but it included people who were once registered Democrats but have changed their political affiliation.

On the other hand, if the Dems announced “Y people registered as Democrat in this election cycle” and “Z people registered Democrat voted this year”, then that would be a pretty good measure, wouldn’t it? That’s what the Church does…

You pretty much ignored my question. Also you again think these articles that I quoted are giving yearly baptisms done that year when it’s quite clear they are referring to total living baptized.

Being Catholic is closer to being, say, Aboriginal Australian. You might not identify as such, or even want to. Sadly in times past there was a great deal of stigma attached so some chose not to. You might not even be aware that you are. But if it is in your DNA it cannot be changed or undone, and if it is in your DNA it cannot be false to class you as Aboriginal, no?

I’m going to be a bit nitpicky and say that it’s not quite analogous. Being an Aboriginal Australian is something you’re born into. You can’t choose to become an Aborignal Australian. Even a child of two Catholic parents isn’t born into being a Catholic. They first have to be baptized. The best analogy is that of a gang. You enter it, often as a child. You can claim to leave it, but the gang very strongly states that once you join you can never leave.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

That is one big bee in your bonnet.

I’m surprised it doesn’t irritate more people. It’s quite concerning to see Catholics being fine with the breaking of the 9th Commandment simply because it is the Chruch doing it.

It’s perfectly honest to say there are x number of baptized catholics, full stop.

Agreed. Except…

It’s not misleading at all.

Wrong. It is misleading if what is presented gives the wrong impression, making people who no longer practicing the faith seem as though they are.

It answers the question, “how many catholics are there?” You’re complaining they aren’t answering your question, “how many practicing catholics are there?” Why do you assume that’s the question? Because it’s your question?

Perhaps if I tyoed slower that would somehow make this clearer
If you come out and say there are X members of a group, a person reading will naturally and rightly assume the question being asked is “How many self-identified members of that group are there?” It’s not about biases on my part, but on how language works at its most basic level. If I ask what it means if someone says “There are X” of any of the following:

Baptists, Presbyterians, Democrats, Repulbicans, Green Party members, New Jersey state senators, Teamsters, students at Wake Forest, AARP members, U.S. Army reservists, SAG members, PBA members, Sam’s Club members, practicing surgeons, members of the B-52s fan club, CIA undercover agents, 4H members, Magic: The Gathering players who regularly participate in Friday Night Magic, SNAP members, Little League baseball players, members of any particular 24 Hour Fitness gym, choir members at a given church, members of the 2019 New York Knicks, members of Ringo Starr’s All-Star Band, members of MENSA, or thousands of other possible groups

then the answer is that it means it’s the total number of people who wish to be a part of that group. If the Catholic Church wants to differ in how it counts its members it (let me make this clear again) has every right to do so provided that it makes its counting clear so that any one reading or hearing it will know this does not mean self-indentified members – which is what the language being used currently leads people to wrongly believe. As I said it would only take a few extra words to make that clear, and because it would be so easy to do I have a nagging thought that this choice not to do so might be intentional.

 

[LilyM]

Gorgias:

Whoops! Got this thread and the thread on the Pew Survey on Transubstantiation conflated!

Nah… “Pew Survey” confusion, again.

No problem! It’s a CAF right of passage to mix up two or more threads one is posting in

And I’m saying – very simply – that the Church reports the current year’s baptisms. Not “X people have been baptized since 1950”, but “Y baptisms this year.” It’s not the over-representation scheme that I think you’re envisioning…

On the other hand, if the Dems announced “Y people registered as Democrat in this election cycle” and “Z people registered Democrat voted this year”, then that would be a pretty good measure, wouldn’t it? That’s what the Church does…

Being Catholic is closer to being, say, Aboriginal Australian. You might not identify as such, or even want to. Sadly in times past there was a great deal of stigma attached so some chose not to. You might not even be aware that you are. But if it is in your DNA it cannot be changed or undone, and if it is in your DNA it cannot be false to class you as Aboriginal, no?

I’m going to be a bit nitpicky and say that it’s not quite analogous. Being an Aboriginal Australian is something you’re born into. You can’t choose to become an Aborignal Australian. Even a child of two Catholic parents isn’t born into being a Catholic. They first have to be baptized. The best analogy is that of a gang. You enter it, often as a child. You can claim to leave it, but the gang very strongly states that once you join you can never leave.
[/quote]

A gang is a terrible analogy. Catholicism isn’t illegal or immoral for starters.

Your local priest isn’t going to knock on your door asking why you haven’t been seen at Mass recently. No-one is going to demand you fork over money for the collection plate and start hurting your friends and relatives if you refuse. Or send your kids to the local Catholic school. They aren’t going to send a priest to you on your deathbed unless you ask for one.

You can leave in every single way that matters. I don’t see ex-JWs getting upset that practicing JWs can have sacraments performed on their behalf (and believe me, no-one can do that as a Catholic).

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

A gang is a terrible analogy. Catholicism isn’t illegal or immoral for starters.

I meant it only as it relates to membership. In that regard it is quite accurate. They consider you a member for life no matter what you might say otherwise.

Your local priest isn’t going to knock on your door asking why you haven’t been seen at Mass recently.

I was listening to something by Father Larry Richards not too long ago where he lamented that priests don’t do that anymore.

No-one is going to demand you fork over money for the collection plate and start hurting your friends and relatives if you refuse.

True, although in places like Germany they won’t issue sacraments to anyone who has not paid the church tax (Kirchensteuer)

Or send your kids to the local Catholic school.

Nowadays? No. There was a time where baptism meant the possibility of having one’s child taken away from them. See the tale of Edgardo Mortara (but that’s off-topic and for another thread)

They aren’t going to send a priest to you on your deathbed unless you ask for one.

True.

You can leave in every single way that matters. I don’t see ex-JWs getting upset that practicing JWs can have sacraments performed on their behalf (and believe me, no-one can do that as a Catholic).

I think ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses are far more concerned about the shunning and being cut off from the family after leaving the faith.

 

[LilyM]

Mike, two questions.

1. Once.you are born into a family you remain part of.it always. Would you dare call your parents liars for saying truly that you are their child just because you don’t want to acknowledge your connection with them for whatever reason?
2. What on earth makes you think you have more right than the Church itself to say who it can and cannot consider to be members?

You are making an extremely bold claim.in staying that the Church is unlike any other organisation in how it counts members. A bold claim requires much evidence. You made.the claim - you bring the evidence that the Catholic Church is terribly unusual.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike, two questions.

1. Once.you are born into a family you remain part of.it always. Would you dare call your parents liars for saying truly that you are their child just because you don’t want to acknowledge your connection with them for whatever reason?

I agree, once you are born into a family they are you’re family – even if you decide never to speak to them again. The question is whether this is analogous to joining your particular religion and no other.

1. What on earth makes you think you have more right than the Church itself to say who it can and cannot consider to be members?

I’m starting to wonder if the obtuseness that I’ve experience on this thread is purposeful.

I will make my position clear yet again:

1. When a group says they have X members it’s assumed to mean each of those X members chose to both be a member and remain a member of the group.
2. If the Church wants to say that anyone who has ever been initiated as a member – even as a baby – is a member for life then they may do so, with one important caveat…
3. Because it is wrong to deceive or mislead, the Church should be crystal clear that they are counting people who don’t believe in the Church’s teachings and/or want nothing to do with the Church as members. It would night be right to make people think that those people are self-identified Catholics.

You are making an extremely bold claim.in staying that the Church is unlike any other organisation in how it counts members. A bold claim requires much evidence. You made.the claim - you bring the evidence that the Catholic Church is terribly unusual.

In my response to MiserereMeiDei I listed a wide spectrum of 25 groups where membership is determined by choosing to join and remain in the group. I could literally list a 1,000 more without much thought. I need you to do a little of your own legwork and find me some groups that consider you a member for life, whether you want to be or not.

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Mike, two questions.

1. Once.you are born into a family you remain part of.it always. Would you dare call your parents liars for saying truly that you are their child just because you don’t want to acknowledge your connection with them for whatever reason?

I agree, once you are born into a family they are you’re family – even if you decide never to speak to them again. The question is whether this is analogous to joining your particular religion and no other.

1. What on earth makes you think you have more right than the Church itself to say who it can and cannot consider to be members?

I’m starting to wonder if the obtuseness that I’ve experience on this thread is purposeful.

I will make my position clear yet again:

1. When a group says they have X members it’s assumed to mean each of those X members chose to both be a member and remain a member of the group.
2. If the Church wants to say that anyone who has ever been initiated as a member – even as a baby – is a member for life then they may do so, with one important caveat…
3. Because it is wrong to deceive or mislead, the Church should be crystal clear that they are counting people who don’t believe in the Church’s teachings and/or want nothing to do with the Church as members. It would night be right to make people think that those people are self-identified Catholics.

You are making an extremely bold claim.in staying that the Church is unlike any other organisation in how it counts members. A bold claim requires much evidence. You made.the claim - you bring the evidence that the Catholic Church is terribly unusual.

In my response to MiserereMeiDei I listed a wide spectrum of 25 groups where membership is determined by choosing to join and remain in the group. I could literally list a 1,000 more without much thought. I need you to do a little of your own legwork and find me some groups that consider you a member for life, whether you want to be or not.

Every human family in the world for starters. How many hundred millions of those are there?

The Church is not comparable to any merely human institution. Nor, given that it considers itself the faith founded by Christ from which all others have more or less strayed, can it be compared to denominations which only started many centuries later. Nor to social sporting or political clubs.

Some Christian groups may well choose to act as if they are mere social clubs which can be joined or left on a whim. The Catholic Church takes itself a bit more seriously than that. Given the claims it makes for itself, so it should.

Again with your accusations of misleading and deception. They really are tiresome and somewhat offensive. Since you have nothing better or more original to contribute, I have nothing further to say to you on this topic.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Every human family in the world for starters. How many hundred millions of those are there?

Can you join a family so that you can never leave them. People are born into families. And again there is the question of whether your religion – and your religion alone – is like a family. Baptists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. were not agree with this special pleading being used here.

The Church is not comparable to any merely human institution. Nor, given that it considers itself the faith founded by Christ from which all others have more or less strayed, can it be compared to denominations which only started many centuries later. Nor to social sporting or political clubs.

Religions can be joined and they can be left just as they would social, sporting, or political clubs. You claim yours is the exception, making it unique. And because it is unique (or at the very least extremely rare if you deign to find another organization you can join but can’t leave) then most people are going to assume that all of its members wish to be considered as members. And if the Church would say that it’s not the case with them, then they should make it abundantly clear when saying they have a certain number of members. By not saying so and people reading it as though the Chruch were not a special institution with special membership rules, then it is being deceptive.

Some Christian groups may well choose to act as if they are mere social clubs which can be joined or left on a whim. The Catholic Church takes itself a bit more seriously than that. Given the claims it makes for itself, so it should.

I don’t think it’s called for to undercut the sincerity or seriousness of people who worship differently than you. I’m sure you don’t appreciate if others say that about Catholics.

Again with your accusations of misleading and deception. They really are tiresome and somewhat offensive. Since you have nothing better or more original to contribute, I have nothing further to say to you on this topic.

If you can’t list organizations that you can join but not unjoin, just say so. If you are unable to come up with a reason why the Church can’t simply add a few words in making clear how it counts its members, just say so.

 

[Minks]

@Tommy999 “So these friends of mine who used to be Catholic who have attended my Methodist church for several years and became members, abd have no intention of going back according to them—are they considered more in trouble or “in error” than a garden variety Methodist like me who has never been Catholic?” (Post 4)

As Catholics, we try to abide by the conditions set forth by Jesus to the Apostles. We fall short, but keep trying. Unlike some other faiths, we don’t judge the state of an individual’s soul. We were warned, though, not to turn away from our teachings, that our actions are more grievous if we do that, than if a person unchurched in the Catholic faith does the same thing. As to how much trouble we’re each in, God will let us know when He judges us.

 

[Gorgias]

You might actually want to read the links I provided instead of assuming what they say.

Yet, the statistics you cite speak only of “baptized Catholics”. Not “currently active Catholics”, which would be a different measure. (And one which the Church does report!)

You pretty much ignored my question.

No, I just pointed out that you’re railing against statistic Z because it’s not statistic W, but ignoring the fact that statistic W does exist and is reported – and is what you’re looking for all along!

you again think these articles that I quoted are giving yearly baptisms done that year when it’s quite clear they are referring to total living baptized.

They mention both: not only “number of baptisms in this date range” but also “total baptisms.” Now, if you’re saying what I think you’re saying – that the Church is inflating its numbers by only looking at numbers of people baptized – then I think you’re missing an important point: do you really think that they’re counting people who are baptized who are also dead? After all, that’s what you’re complaining about, right? That they’re only taking into account baptism? But that’s simply ludicrous!

It is misleading if what is presented gives the wrong impression, making people who no longer practicing the faith seem as though they are.

I think that the Church is pretty upfront about the numbers of folks who practice the faith, and the fact that this number is well smaller than the number of baptized Catholics! That, however, is a different survey altogether!

If the Catholic Church wants to differ in how it counts its members it (let me make this clear again) has every right to do so provided that it makes its counting clear so that any one reading or hearing it will know this does not mean self-indentified members

And yet, they are saying this: not “currently self-identified” or “currently active”, but merely “baptized.”

 

[whatistrue]

It’s sad that anyone who either isn’t Catholic or is Catholic but is not familiar with how the Church arrives at its number will get an inflated impression as to its membership rolls.

All of those links you provided use the term “baptized Catholics”. Where exactly is the issue with this? It is quite evident to the so-called “reasonable man” that the number is based only on baptisms, so whether someone stays or not is not relevant.

 

[QwertyGirl]

do you really think that they’re counting people who are baptized who are also dead ?

Of course they are.

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

If one truly doesn’t believe in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church why would one need to undergo a “debaptism” for “closure?”

In other words, if baptism is meaningless, how is a “debaptism” meaningful?

The illogic is amazing.

 

[Crocus]

do you really think that they’re counting people who are baptized who are also dead ?

If that’s how they counted, it might account for my ancestors alone.