technical question, re: "defection" from RC

  • Thread starter Thread starter JRKH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JRKH

Guest
On another Board, a gentleman has asked a question regarding the formal process for defection from the Church. As I felt unqualified to answer him it was decided to publish his post here along with appropriate links. So Here we go.

The Thread is HERE
And the content of the post and question(s) is:
This came up a couple weeks ago, and a couple of us then in chat discussed it a bit. I want to ask a quite technical question. I’m expressly not interested in debating The Scandal per se, nor engaging a new debate over the nature of the RC priesthood. I just want some understanding of the mechanics of RC canon law.

The issue at hand for me is that there came a point when a large number of Irish people decided to walk away from the RC. There apparently is an exacting and technical mechanism by which to do so. Quoting the article:

Among those who were most outraged by the abuse reports were people in their 20s and 30s… “When I saw the reports, I thought, I can’t even pretend to be part of this club anymore,” says Grainne O’Sullivan…she began a Web site, CountMeOut.ie, which walked Catholics through a three-step process for formally defecting from the church., Over the next several months, CountMeOut became a focal point of anger at the church; 12,000 people downloaded the official form for defection…Then last August, the Vatican introduced a change in canon law that will apparently make it impossible for Catholics to defect.

What confuses me is two-fold: On the one hand, that anything more than some sort of notice would be at all required by which to walk away; on the other hand, that the Vatican has actively sought to make the process which already exists unavailable.

As another fellow and I chatted about this that day, we wondered about both of these attributes. I cannot currently conceive of the reasoning in the first place which would require anything more than a notice, mostly as a matter of etiquette: “Dear Pope, be hereby notified that I’m done,” to put it far too tritely. And I also lack understanding for why the mechanism, which already reaches beyond this idea of an etiquette-appropriate notice, is being made unavailable.

In all seriousness, who does the RC perceive itself to be, that it would like to void the ability to walk?

Cynically, I and the other fellow with whom I was chatting wondered whether the motivation for removing this already-excessive mechanism was because these defection losses represent a politically inconvenient data point that the RC would rather not obligate itself to tabulate. But that is probably too cynical.

**So to summarize the question:
  • Why is there a formal process beyond mere giving of notice?
  • Why has the RC sought to eradicate even that process?**
Non-RCs, please refrain from commenting unless you have actual first-hand knowledge. I really don’t want a flamefest.

So can anyone here provide answers/insights into the above, bolded, questions? (either here or on the other board)
Thanks

Peace
James
 
Hopefully one of our cannonists will chime in with the answer to your first question. The formal process beyond the notice was really just making sure the defection was recorded in the Baptismal record, as far as I know.

As for the second, as I understood the change, the Church did not do away with the process of formal defection. The change was to the canon law regarding marriage. It used to be that someone who had formally defected was released from any requirement to marry according to the Church’s provisions. That is no longer the case. However, any other effect of formal defection hasn’t been changed, as far as I know.

The reason given was that it was so easy to defect, some couples were using the process to circumvent the marriage canons. For example, Joe wants to marry Sue at the beach but they are both baptized Catholics. A dispensation for not marrying in the Church is generally not available if both are Catholic. They (or one of them) sends a letter to the Bishop saying they are defecting. They get married at the beach and then can just have their marriage blessed if they decide to resume practicing their faith (or when they want a child baptised).
 
JRKH said:
…
On another Board, a gentleman has asked a question regarding the formal process for defection from the Church. As I felt unqualified to answer him it was decided to publish his post here along with appropriate links. So Here we go.

**So to summarize the question:
  • Why is there a formal process beyond mere giving of notice?
  • Why has the RC sought to eradicate even that process?**
    …
Click to expand...
Hello James,

I hope I can explain this in a coherent, clear manner.

In practice, the formal process *was *simply one of giving notice–to the proper authority, in a formal manner. This was deemed necessary because an act that has public consequences needs to be externalized somehow. It wouldn’t be enough, for example, for someone to say to his friend from work “I don’t want to be part of the Catholic Church anymore.” and expect that simple, informal, declaration to be, first, known to the Church who keeps records of such things, and second, effective in bringing about the consequences of this act. A further reason for the formal process was so that the person could be informed of the consequences of this act (excommunication, basically, in addition to the relaxation of three laws regarding marriage) and be encouraged to reconsider. The reason why it was called defection by a formal act was to imply these formal procedures. Unfortunately, this procedure wasn’t explicitly defined until 23 years after the Code of Canon Law was published.

Then, as noted, the Code of Canon Law was changed so that any and all references to this defection by a formal act were removed. With the whole notion of formal defection removed, there is no use for the formal procedure, consequently. It’s not that the formal process is “eradicated.” People can still do it. But, now, the only result of such a declaration is that a person is asking to be excommunicated. Even excommunicated, a person is still as much a part of the juridic structure of the Church as the Pope. In other words, the effect of a person formally defecting is now strictly spiritual and not legal. Formal defection was primarily a legal process with three legal consequences. The spiritual consequence (being in a state of mortal sin, schism, heresy, etc.) also came about but that wasn’t the main concern of the process.

A confusion about the result of formal defection is one reason why it was removed from the Code: people were thinking that it meant a person was no longer Catholic, their baptism was nullified, they weren’t bound to observe the laws of the Church, etc. This idea of formal defection was a novelty in the 1983 Code and, after it was clear that it was not fulfilling a good purpose, it was removed.

I am writing this in a rush. I hope I have helped answer your questions.

Dan
 
There are two ways a person may “abandon” the Catholic Faith.

First, a person can just be a really bad Catholic, “notoriously” or “publicly” abandoning the faith. Such people are still considered bound by ecclesiastical laws.

However, a person may formally renounce the Faith (actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica). Such a formal defection absolves a person from ecclesiastical laws.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

However, as has been noted, this absolution does not apply to marriage:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top