Formally Defected from the Roman Catholic Church?

[QwertyGirl]

They have no way of tracking dead people who were baptized but who left the faith.

Let’s use me as an example. I was baptized as an infant, so I am included in their head count. When I die, the Church will have no knowledge of my death because I am no longer Catholic and certainly there won’t be a Catholic funeral. And yet, the Catholic Church will continue to include me in their count. Very misleading, at best.

 

[Gorgias]

My discussion partner: The link uses “baptized Catholics” so clearly that’s different from just saying “Catholics”
Me: Actually the link I gave uses the terms interchangeably. In fact, it uses the term “Catholic” 4 times more often.

The thing is, the Church is proclaiming the truth according to its doctrines: those baptized Catholic are Catholics. Full stop.

And yet, the Catholic Church will continue to include me in their count. Very misleading, at best.

Well… we see you as still being a Catholic. Not at all misleading.

In any case, perhaps the nuance being missed here, in all the tempest of “overcount! overcount!” is the fact that people continue to be baptized Catholic. In other words, adults continue to have their children baptized, and unbaptized adults continue to seek entry into the Church. Perhaps there’s value in seeing what the statistics are trying to communicate – rather than castigating them for not communicating them for what they’re not attempting to communicate – and recognize what that message is: people continue to enter into the Catholic Church.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Well… we see you as still being a Catholic . Not at all misleading.

Yes they count me a Catholic while I am still alive. If the Catholic church is saying that dead people are still Catholic (which wouldn’t surprise me if they did say that) then that is intentionally misleading. That is not the way the average person takes a headcount of organizational memberships, and the Church hierarchy knows this.

Yes, the church has its own way of counting members. And yes, the leaders of the church recognize that it is not the way everybody else counts members. That is why what they do is intentionally misleading.

 

[Wannano]

whatistrue:

This is simply a repetition of your own issue rather than a thoughtful response. You kept saying that the Church should make it clear that they were referring to baptized Catholics only, yet when it was shown that they already did, you didn’t really seem to care. I try to only debate with people who do so in good faith. Muting now.

I know I’m being muted here, but let’s quickly go over the last conversation.
My discussion partner: The link uses “baptized Catholics” so clearly that’s different from just saying “Catholics”
Me: Actually the link I gave uses the terms interchangeably. In fact, it uses the term “Catholic” 4 times more often.
My discussion partner: You’re mean! (covers ears)

Facts are powerful things.

Here’s something you folks might want to discuss: A Christian by definition is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus. The Catholic Church defines a Catholic as someone who was baptized as a Catholic (or who was properly baptized earlier and later moved to Catholicism). If someone were to be baptized then leave the Church for a non-Christian faith or no faith would they be both Catholic and non-Christian?

Very essential question in my opinion and one that gets immediately swept under the rug. It drives home the point that the Catholic Church is not “the” church Jesus established but only a part of the Church Jesus established. The first century church would not have entertained the idea of keeping someone in membership who had turned their back on Christ and His teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

If the Catholic church is saying that dead people are still Catholic (which wouldn’t surprise me if they did say that) then that is intentionally misleading.

They’re not. They’re saying “here’s how many we baptized.”

That is not the way the average person takes a headcount of organizational memberships, and the Church hierarchy knows this.

And when folks ask the question ya’ll are asking, the answer that comes back is stated in terms of active participation at Mass.

And yes, the leaders of the church recognize that it is not the way everybody else couts members. That is why what they do is intentionally misleading.

Says you.

I’m gonna say that “intentionally misleading” is in the eyes of the beholder. If you recognize what they’re saying – and what they’re not saying – then you’ll realize that the “misleading” is more like “misunderstanding” (and perhaps, willfully “mischaracterizing”).

Here’s something you folks might want to discuss: A Christian by definition is someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus.

You might want to reconsider that assertion. There are those who consider themselves ‘Christian’ who would disagree with that statement.

If someone were to be baptized then leave the Church for a non-Christian faith or no faith would they be both Catholic and non-Christian?

They would be a “non-practicing Catholic.”

 

[ltwin]

The percentage of income tax paid varies depending on the German state. In Bayern and Baden-Württemberg it percentage is 8%, whereas all other Bundesländer have to pay 9%.

Let’s say you are earning 50,000 euros and thus pay about an average income tax of 20%, which equates to 10,000 euros. The church tax (8-9%) is then added on top of this 10,000 euros which would mean you would be paying around 800-900 euros in church tax.

What Is German Church Tax & Do I Have To Pay It? - AiRelo

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Mike_from_NJ:

My discussion partner: The link uses “baptized Catholics” so clearly that’s different from just saying “Catholics”
Me: Actually the link I gave uses the terms interchangeably. In fact, it uses the term “Catholic” 4 times more often.

The thing is, the Church is proclaiming the truth according to its doctrines: those baptized Catholic are Catholics. Full stop.

Again you’re missing the point. The question-in-hand is whether a person reading these articles will be able to tell if the Church is referring to Catholics-by-choice (CBC) or Catholics-by-baptism (CBB). A previous commenter said the way one would be able to tell the difference between the two was by the term “baptized Catholics” as opposed to plain “Catholics”. I showed that the Church not only uses the terms interchangeably but uses the plain “Catholics” term far more often when describing CBB. With all that being said, how does one reading something like that – someone who is unfamiliar with the concept of Once Catholic Always Catholic - know that the Church is referring to CBB and not CBC?

You might want to reconsider that assertion. There are those who consider themselves ‘Christian’ who would disagree with that statement.

It seems so odd to me that someone makes an assertion, but doesn’t take half a minute to back up that assertion. As part of general discourse 101 if you say something like there are other Christians who don’t define Christianity by faith in Jesus Christ it’s expected to back up that statement with examples. For all I know you could possibly be true, but through a lack of effort we are expected only to take your word for it.

And that brings up another instance of this issue. In your recent reply you made a claim multiple times that the article that I quoted not only listed the number of baptized but also the number of Catholics-by-choice (CBC). I asked you several times to cite that source, which should have been very easy. You ignored it. It’s proper to either cite your sources or retract statements that you can’t back up.

I’m going to be very upfront here. Each time you reply to me here and don’t either cite what you claimed about the article or retract it I’m going to ask you again and again for your due diligence in this matter. If you do’t back up your claim about other Christians who don’t define Christianity by faith in Jesus, that too I will ask you over and over again.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If someone were to be baptized then leave the Church for a non-Christian faith or no faith would they be both Catholic and non-Christian?

They would be a “non-practicing Catholic.”

Yet again you missed the point. There are two factors being presented here: being Catholic and being Christian. You only mentioned the Catholic part and not the Christian part. @Wannano put it quite succinctly. The Catholic Church does not speak for all of Christianity. It is a subset of Christianity. If it wants to define who is and isn’t Catholic in an unusual way they may do so (in as long as they make clear they are using an unusual system) Christians as a whole define being Christian by faith – a very sincere faith. This makes for an odd conjunction when one does not fall within the definition of a group but falls within the definition of a subset of that group.

 

[LilyM]

Mike_from_NJ:

If someone were to be baptized then leave the Church for a non-Christian faith or no faith would they be both Catholic and non-Christian?

They would be a “non-practicing Catholic.”

Yet again you missed the point. There are two factors being presented here: being Catholic and being Christian. You only mentioned the Catholic part and not the Christian part. @Wannano put it quite succinctly. The Catholic Church does not speak for all of Christianity. It is a subset of Christianity. If it wants to define who is and isn’t Catholic in an unusual way they may do so (in as long as they make clear they are using an unusual system) Christians as a whole define being Christian by faith – a very sincere faith. This makes for an odd conjunction when one does not fall within the definition of a group but falls within the definition of a subset of that group.

Unusual? Tell me what other religion than some Christian sects make provision for “formally defecting”?

Islam perhaps? (hint - many sects of Islam think of anyone who leaves not only as simply an apostate but worthy of death)? Judaism? Buddhism? Have you investigated how these other religions count their membership figures? Given some of them don’t really seem to have a formal entry process either, Lord alone knows how they tally up their membership. And you can’t possibly know that they all count all those and only those who currently self-identify.

It seems to me that it is in fact the idea that one CAN formally defect from one’s faith that is in fact more unusual.

To answer an earlier question - baptism is absolutely a spiritual equivalent of birth. Hence the many explicit scriptural references to being “born again” and in particular to baptism as part of this process of spiritual rebirth.

I haven’t equated being baptised to being born into a family without good reason, and the Church is clear enough that it does not believe that baptism can be reversed or undone by a formal process any more than your physical birth and parentage can be reversed or undone. It has a similar attitude to other sacraments by the way - marriage, for example.

I suppose you must think the Church would be deliberately deceptive and misleading if they were to tell someone, as a Catholic validly and sacramentally married in a Catholic ceremony, that it cannot dissolve nor annul that marriage? And therefore include, in its figures of married Catholics, those who may have since civilly divorced but not been anulled?

 

[Crocus]

The percentage of income tax paid varies depending on the German state.

Yes I saw that when I opened the calculator. At best we can get a close estimate.

The question was about whether the tax was “hefty.” Acknowledging foreign governments’ authority to assess taxes in ways they see fit, IMO 1.8% of gross salary is not a weighty amount, especially when people appreciate the benefits and services they receive in mutual cooperation.

 

[Gorgias]

The question-in-hand is whether a person reading these articles will be able to tell if the Church is referring to Catholics-by-choice (CBC) or Catholics-by-baptism (CBB).

I guess you’d have to ask each of them. Otherwise, you’re engaging in mere speculation (or worse, in projecting your views and opinions on others).

As part of general discourse 101 if you say something like there are other Christians who don’t define Christianity by faith in Jesus Christ it’s expected to back up that statement with examples. For all I know you could possibly be true, but through a lack of effort we are expected only to take your word for it.

Nah… I’m just expecting that you know what you’re talking about, and not just making wild claims.
And, when you do, I just call you on it. My bad.

Oh – and for your example? Mormons. (You’re welcome.) .

In your recent reply you made a claim multiple times that the article that I quoted not only listed the number of baptized but also the number of Catholics-by-choice (CBC).

I certainly did not! (You might want to re-read my reply.) On the other hand, I am saying that the Church also gives the statistics on active Catholics. Just to make sure you understand me: I’m not saying that they do so in the article you cite, but elsewhere.

It’s proper to either cite your sources or retract statements that you can’t back up.

This is getting tedious. One would have hoped you’d had a better grasp of the topic before making your claims. On the other hand, maybe you’ve never heard of “CARA” before. https://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/

If someone were to be baptized then leave the Church for a non-Christian faith or no faith would they be both Catholic and non-Christian?

Hardly. You asked what we would call such a person. I replied.

There are two factors being presented here: being Catholic and being Christian. You only mentioned the Catholic part and not the Christian part.

Not sure where you’re missing the point. His current faith would call him a member, and the Catholic Church would call him a non-practicing or lapsed Catholic. Not sure what’s so hard to grok, here…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Unusual? Tell me what other religion than some Christian sects make provision for “formally defecting”?

Now, if you look at my posts in this thread my concern wasn’t so much about formally defecting but as far as counting those who have defected in any way, shape, or form. In most religions there is what could be termed an informal defection (i.e. simply no longer attending). But because Catholicism has this Once Catholic Always Catholic system they not only don’t allow people to informally defect, but they also have to come up with a method to detemine when people leave (which leads to the flawed counting Catholic funerals that’s been talked about). Still none of this in anway absolves the Church from making Catholics-by-baptism appear as Catholics-by-choice.

Islam perhaps? (hint - many sects of Islam think of anyone who leaves not only as simply an apostate but worthy of death)?

As far as religions that don’t allow one to leave that’s a very good point. You may have already seen this video As much as I’ve gotten on the Catholic Church about this numbers issue it’s practically nothing compared to this.

Judaism?

Judaism has its own peculiarities. First, there’s being Jewish by celebrating Judaism then there’s being a Jew simply by being born of a Jewish mother (It’s kind of like an ethnic thing but only matrilineally). There’s a reason why the term secular Jew exists to differentiate those who are practicing. Second, most synagogues require an annual fee, so they have a strong handle on their membership numbers.

Buddhism?

I’m no expert on this matter, so the ones here can correct me; but there is a gamut of ways to study Buddhism. There are plenty that don’t require a specific process by which one becomes a Buddhist. I don’t see any instances of people leaving Buddhism and then being non-plussed as to being claimed as a Buddhist.

Have you investigated how these other religions count their membership figures? Given some of them don’t really seem to have a formal entry process either, Lord alone knows how they tally up their membership. And you can’t possibly know that they all count all those and only those who currently self-identify.

Well, we can look at Hinduism. This article when it talks about leaving says “There are no restrictions on leaving Hinduism if the person does not like it. It is not considered a sin.”

Regarding the Baha’i faith this article talks about the faith in trying to be known as the most widespread religion requiring its members creating a “community” even if there are only two members. If they did something like trying to inflate their numbers that would have been the time to do that.

Of course there are those faiths that practice some level shunning, cutting off those members who have left the faith for one reason or another. They certainly are decreasing their numbers and not inflating them.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

To answer an earlier question - baptism is absolutely a spiritual equivalent of birth. Hence the many explicit scriptural references to being “born again” /snip/

But the Church does believe some baptisms are not valid, so it’s not baptisms in general but the ones the Chruch approves of. And as people discussed earlier in the thread it’s not even valid baptism alone that makes one Catholic, because the Church considers some Christian baptisms as valid and then use something like completing RCIA as the dividing line to whether one is Catholic or not. It’s deinitely complicated enough, even for many Catholics, that it’s not safe to assume people understnd OCAC when an article cites numbers of Catholics.

I suppose you must think the Church would be deliberately deceptive and misleading if they were to tell someone, as a Catholic validly and sacramentally married in a Catholic ceremony, that it cannot dissolve nor annul that marriage? And therefore include, in its figures of married Catholics, those who may have since civilly divorced but not been anulled?

That’s a whole other barrel of fish I’ve been focused on membership because all organizations involve membership, and for most there is either a formal or informal way of leaving. Most that we know of (not including Catholics, Islam, and street gangs) dont list as members people who don’t wish to be considered members.

---

I guess you’d have to ask each of them. Otherwise, you’re engaging in mere speculation (or worse, in projecting your views and opinions on others).

I’m simply using a few facts we know for certain:

1. Many people including many Catholics are not familiar with Once Catholic Always Catholic.
2. The vast majority of organizations list members based on those who are members-by-choice.
3. We can’t use the term “baptised Catholic” as some of esoteric clue to refer to Catholics-by-baptism since the Church itself uses the term “Catholic” in the exact same way.
4. Even if one wants to make that unwarranted logical leap we know from items 1 and 2 as well as the very basis of lanugage itself that many people would not such a leap.
5. Since it’s reasonable to expect some people to read CBB as CBC then the barest minimum of effort to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding.

Oh – and for your example? Mormons. (You’re welcome.) .

Unfortunately, no thanks have been given. Mormons believe in the divinity of Christ, although not in a way most other Christian groups. Are there any other Christian groups you can think of that wouldn’t define Christian by believing in the divinity of Jesus?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I certainly did not! (You might want to re-read my reply.) On the other hand, I am saying that the Church also gives the statistics on active Catholics. Just to make sure you understand me: I’m not saying that they do so in the article you cite, but elsewhere.

You specifically said that the Church said so, and the link I gave was the only one from the Church referenced in this thread. And here’s why you can’t claim some other article:

Let’s imagine Pope Francis is in his airplane talking to reporters. He says something that could be construed as controversial. Reporter A writes an article that is technically correct, but gives people the wrong impression. Reporter B writes an article that eliminates the chance of a wrong impression. You wouldn’t excuse reporter A just because a reader could just read reporter B. Reporter A has a duty to be clear and correct. Now if this were truly analogous then reporter A was a Church-approved source who okayed the article as written.

This is getting tedious.

That’s not my fault.

One would have hoped you’d had a better grasp of the topic before making your claims. On the other hand, maybe you’ve never heard of “CARA” before. https://cara.georgetown.edu/frequently-requested-church-statistics/

So you’re citing an article from someone other than the Church in lieu of the article from the Church. What’s sad is that the Church article is the source for many other articles – especially those written by Catholic news agencies.

Hardly. You asked what we would call such a person. I replied.

Not sure where you’re missing the point. His current faith would call him a member, and the Catholic Church would call him a non-practicing or lapsed Catholic. Not sure what’s so hard to grok, here…

Read what I asked again (I kept it in the quote). I asked in part if such a person would be a non-Christian. Would you consider someone who falls into that criteria as a non-Christian.

There are two factors being presented here: being Catholic and being Christian. You only mentioned the Catholic part and not the Christian part.

 

[Gorgias]

• Even if one wants to make that unwarranted logical leap we know from items 1 and 2 as well as the very basis of lanugage itself that many people would not such a leap.

The thing is, it sure seems that you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. The concepts themselves are out there, and if anyone asks, then it’s not like the Church is hiding anything.

• Since it’s reasonable to expect some people to read CBB as CBC

Again, that’s your presumption.

Unfortunately, no thanks have been given.

LOL! Unfortunately…

Are there any other Christian groups you can think of that wouldn’t define Christian by believing in the divinity of Jesus?

In other words, “you answered my challenge; please do so again”?

But hey, I’ll keep playing the game: deists. those who perceive Christ as merely a teacher or philosopher. Unitarians. Must I keep going on?

So you’re citing an article from someone other than the Church

It’s Georgetown University, for crying out loud! And, that organization is literally tasked with doing statistics about the Catholic Church:

CARA is a national, non-profit, Georgetown University affiliated research center that conducts social scientific studies about the Catholic Church. Founded in 1964, CARA has three major dimensions to its mission:

• to increase the Church’s self understanding
• to serve the applied research needs of Church decision-makers
• to advance scholarly research on religion, particularly Catholicism.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The thing is, it sure seems that you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

Let’s turn this around. Imagine if a news organization defined Catholics as people who regularly attend Mass. We’ll call it Catholic-by-attendance (CBA) Even the Church admits that a low percentage of Catholics attend weekly Mass. Now in their articles they just list the number of Catholics using the CBA, which by definition would be less than both CBB and CBC. Other news organizations use that information and post the same number simply as the number of Catholics. You don’t think places like EWTN, National Catholic Register, Crisis Magazine, GetReligion.org, and others wouldn’t lambaste these organization for reporting such a lowball number?

By your reasoning they have nothing to complain about. They’re just making a mountain out of a molehill. Or is it that we should strive for truth and clarity in all things? Should we seek to remove any and all misconceptions even if it shines a more positive light on something we are for? Does the commandment about not bearing false witness not count if it benefits the Church in some way?

The concepts themselves are out there, and if anyone asks, then it’s not like the Church is hiding anything.

But you’re assuming someone will ask. As I’ve said most non-Catholics and many non-Catholics don’t know of Once Catholic Always Catholic. Even those who understand may not know that they apply this very rare standard for when they announce membership numbers, since they rightly assume that this information will be disseminated in part to people who don’t know of OCAC. I’ve said it a few times, and I’ll ask here: What harm is there in adding a few words to these statements to make the message abundantly clear?

• Since it’s reasonable to expect some people to read CBB as CBC

Again, that’s your presumption.

It’s not a presumption, but based on fact. Tell me, I’m assuming you keep up on the news. What organizations have been in the news where you have gone to lengths to verify their membership counting methods? Of those how many have a method different from counting the number of people who choose to be members?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

In other words, “you answered my challenge; please do so again”?

Correction: You answered my challenge incorrectly. Please do so again correctly.

But hey, I’ll keep playing the game: deists. those who perceive Christ as merely a teacher or philosopher. Unitarians. Must I keep going on?

I offer you a sincere thanks. Yes, there are some people who define Christianity by Jesus’ teachings and not by his divinity. Again, thank you.

It’s Georgetown University, for crying out loud! And, that organization is literally tasked with doing statistics about the Catholic Church:

First off, are you saying that there aren’t people who question the orthodoxy of Georgetown?
Perhaps here, or here, or here?

Second, as I said before. If organization A says something incorrect we don’t give them a pass because organization B (presumably) has the correct information. We don’t give a pass to the Houston Chronicle if gets something wrong just because people get the correct information from the San Francisco Chronicle, even if the two organizations have a connection (as they’re both owned by Hearst Communications).

 

[Gorgias]

You don’t think places like EWTN, National Catholic Register, Crisis Magazine, GetReligion.org, and others wouldn’t lambaste these organization for reporting such a lowball number?

Not if the number being asserted is true.

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?

Or is it that we should strive for truth and clarity in all things?

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

I’ve said it a few times, and I’ll ask here: What harm is there in adding a few words to these statements to make the message abundantly clear?

What’s the verbiage you’re looking for? If the story just 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?

First off, are you saying that there aren’t people who question the orthodoxy of Georgetown?

No. Yet, that’s not in play. It’s a Catholic university, and this entity within the university is tasked with researching the Catholic Church itself. “Orthodoxy” doesn’t come into play here.

If organization A says something incorrect we don’t give them a pass because organization B (presumably) has the correct information.

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’!

 

[Phemie]

Crocus:

What is the income related to that $1000?

About $30,000 US, give or take. The average salary of a Polish worker in Germany.

I just did tax calculations on that salary and the church tax came out to 33€ and change for a year.

 

[Phemie]

Crocus:

Is that hefty?

Yes. For an average Pole working in Germany, that comes out to about $1000 bucks US. Not exactly peanuts. Especially for some who thinks they should be paying zero.

$1000 in church tax would mean they are paying at least $11,000 in federal tax since church tax is 8-9% of the federal tax depending on where you live in Germany.