RIGHT TO DEFECT FROM YOUR RELIGION AND BE AFFIRMED IN DOING SO IS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT
If you want a canonically legal and perhaps civilly legal separation from the Catholic Church you do not believe in Catholicism. If you know the Church is not guided by God but by men and has dangerous errors and fights against facts then these are the right and honourable reasons to leave. So why do you care if the Church considers you Catholic? The fact remains that religious freedom implies the right for you to decide in your own conscience what you are. A false religion cannot properly inform your conscience so its notions do not matter except to you. It is about religious freedom and personal religious integrity primarily and should be.
LEGAL ISSUES - SHOULD THE STATE FORCE RELIGION TO HAVE
A DEFECTION PROCEDURE?
Under data protection, data must reflect the truth.
The Church should be hauled to court if it refuses say to record that Johnny is
a Catholic no more but something else.
The state must be secular. It is neutral in regard to
religion. It lets religion believe whatever a religion wants but not necessarily
do what it wants.
What if a person who thinks he is Muslim but has never
been initiated accuses his employer of discriminating against him? The state
cannot accept him as a true Muslim.
The law of the land forbids discrimination on
religious grounds. Thus it follows each religion owes it to the state to have
clear rules on who is a member and who is not. Islam, for example, needs to
require that a person be accepted as Muslim by the proper authorities in Islam.
It is true that in Islam a person can be initiated but this does not mean the
person is becoming a real Muslim. The initiation is need for regulation and
practical reasons. The person is considered or treated as a Muslim for these
reasons. But if the person does not believe that Allah alone is God and Muhammad
is the apostle of Allah that person is not a true Muslim and marked as such by
Allah. Allah knows.
The state has the right to legally enforce religion to
have clear admission and departure rules. Secularism protects religion as long
as it does not go too far. It cannot do that if the boundaries between member
and fake member are not clear. It is an offence to lie on the census form that
you are say a Catholic when you cannot be.
The state is under obligation to recognise transgender
people as being the opposite gender to what may be on their birth cert. Thus it
must recognise and protect the right of a person not to be counted part of a
religion against their will.
A person should be able to accept the Church, but
reject it tomorrow. The Church should accept that rejection and demand that the
state must recognise its acceptance. It is only pretending the person is still a
member if it refuses to accept.
THE RIGHT TO BE SEEN AS AN EX-MEMBER
It's only fair to be able to defect.
Suppose one was a member of The Family Must be Limited
to Two Children and Further Children Must be Aborted Party. If one decided it
was in error or wanted out, one would not consider it enough to not attend their
meetings and not send them money. One would want one's name struck from their
lists of members. It is the principle that is at stake. And it is nobody else's
business to label you. You alone decide what labels you will take on and to what
extent you consider them valid.
Some say that the Catholic Church is NOT a secular
organisation like the named Party, so the analogy doesn't hold. But secular or
not it is an organisation. The analogy does hold for it is an organisation.
Defection from a religion should be about declaring,
"I reject your teachings; but I want you to formally acknowledge it and make it
official. I want to be disassociated with the teachings because they are wrong
or I believe they are wrong." It is about the principle. If you sacrifice your
principles you give up your authenticity. You become false. You fail to give
others your true self.
If it is true that if a baptised Catholic becomes say
a Hindu and is still in reality a Catholic no matter what he or she does to try
and become an ex-Catholic, it follows that the conversion should not be taken
seriously by the Church, society, family or state. And the person is to be
judged as one who fights his true identity and is to be judged as devoid of
integrity. It denies the right of the person to suffer no disadvantage due to
religion. Faith should never upset or violate anybody - the case of those using
faith as an excuse for getting upset is a separate one. It denies the right of a
person to take on a new religious identity.
To refuse to facilitate defection opens the door to
forcing a Catholic burial on a defector and forcing a person to pay taxes to the
Church in countries which send a cut of the Catholic's taxes to the Church.
Catholics say that it is pointless to defect for it is not going to do you any
obvious harm in this world. For example, it will not happen that a Catholic who
divorces and remarries without annulment will come home one day to find Church
police blocking the doorway and forbidding them entry because they are living in
sin. Or that a Catholic parent who fails to have their child baptised will come
home one day to find that the child has been dragged to the nearest Church by
the local priest and forcibly baptised in their absence. Thousands of examples
could be created. But the fact remains, that if we deny that baptism binds you
to the Church forever these things are forbidden outright. If you believe
baptism binds to the Church forever that goes a little bit of the way towards
legitimising such behaviour. After all the question arises because of religion
and that says something! The doctrine is insulting.
Every religion needs to have a defection process:
- The would-be defector has the right to make it clear
that on this plane of existence he or she isn't one of the Church's people.
- Has the right to remove the right from the Church to
use his or her name when lobbying or when it asserts the following, "We deserve
a voice in your country - to spread our doctrine and influence - as we have so
and so many Catholics there".
- To say you are a member is to say you have
obligation to obey the Church and support its teaching and to give it money. An
obligation that you don't suffer for breaking is not an obligation at all. You
call evil on yourself by disobeying. Thus to declare a person a member of a
faith against their will is an act of violence. Such a declaration cannot even
be suspected of validity.
We have an obligation to formally leave any
organisation that confers fictitious obligations on us.
The right of a person who cannot in good conscience
allow themselves to be counted as members of the church must be respected.
If Vatican II was serious about religious liberty
being a right then it was admitting this right existed.
THE CHURCH RECOGNISES FORMER MEMBERS AS FORMER MEMBERS
The Church says there is an ontological matter with
baptism that it does not have the power or authority to erase or undo. But that
has nothing to do with proving that a person who leaves has not really left and
is still a real member. Erasing the baptism is irrelevant. Its power can still
be erased. Baptism can be seen as bestowing membership but everybody says you
must respond to it before it does you any good. So the membership can be
rejected. That is what confirmation is about - accepting for yourself the
membership you got in baptism. Unless you have the right to reject the
membership, there is no real choice or possibility of acceptance.
Leaving the Catholic Church makes you ineligible to
receive the sacraments and that you will no longer be entitled to a Catholic
burial. The Church says that baptism is an action of Christ himself and so no
one can undo it. But nevertheless you can officially leave the Church.
If people cannot be forced in religion they have to be
recognised as former members if they leave. "Canon. 748 §1. All persons are
bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by
virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of
embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know. §2. No one is
ever permitted to coerce persons to embrace the Catholic faith against their
conscience."
OBJECTIONS TO FORMAL DEFECTION
The once Catholic, always Catholic proverb shows the
Church does not respect those who have gone to another religion. It denies that
they have really done so. It is nasty to tell somebody who has left, "You were
baptised a Catholic and you are still one." That is really an attempt to hurt
their feelings. It is also to engage in the odious practice of labelling people.
It is trying to lay the groundwork for getting them to submit to the Catholic
Church.
There is appalling arrogance and intolerance in anyone
who would tell you that because you were baptised a Catholic, even though you
are a Mormon now, you are a Catholic still. These people are in the same league
as Christians who say to gay people, "You call yourself homosexual. You were
born heterosexual and therefore you are not homosexual. Homosexuality is a
disorder meaning you are really just a heterosexual with addiction problems."
The Church says it opposes gay people saying that
their sexual orientation is the core of their identity. It claims that saying
you are homosexual is at best, one of many adjectives that describe someone;
sexual orientation is not a person's full essence. To say it is their full
essence is supposed to be a worrying diminishment of those human persons. To do
that is supposed to be to fail them in love. To say a Catholic cannot cease to
be a member is to say that their religion is the core of their identity. If it
really believes the teaching we have outlined about gay people then it cannot
teach such a thing!
To label any person as a Catholic is to declare the
Catholicism the core of their identity. This is true whether or not the person
is a believer in Catholicism who has been baptised as a Catholic. The Church
goes further than any gay person has ever done in seeing an adjective as the
whole of the person. You are not baptised and confirmed into gayianity. You are
into Catholicism. You are not conditioned into gay doctrine. You are into
Catholicism. Gays honour individuality. The Church says we must accept the one,
holy, Catholic and apostolic faith. The labelling of people as Catholics and
seeing their Catholicism as their full essence or what they are all about is
sectarianism. All forms of sectarianism are based on this idea.
To label any person as a forever Catholic even if they
become Muslim is to declare the Catholicism the core of their identity. The
Church goes further than any gay person has ever done in seeing an adjective as
the whole of the person. If you are gay you are not baptised and confirmed into
gayianity. You are into Catholicism. You are not conditioned into gay doctrine.
You are into Catholicism. Gays honour individuality. The Church says we must
accept the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic faith. The labelling of people as
Catholics and seeing their Catholicism as their full essence or what they are
all about is sectarianism. All forms of sectarianism are based on the idea that
you are summed up by your religious or political label.
The Catholics would fume if a Buddhist sect for
instance would say that there are no Catholics but only Buddhists who won't
admit what they are. But to let the Catholics say things like that - enough
said!
THE CHARACTER CONFERRED BY BAPTISM
Some say that baptism marks you as a Catholic forever.
The purpose of the mark is so that baptism needs only
be given once.
It is more reasonable to say that God does not
literally mark you but has you recorded as somebody that has been baptised.
After all, the soul has no extension or parts so there is nothing tangible to
put a mark on. It is not a literal mark.
The mark cannot make you a Catholic forever. That is
logically impossible. You can be marked as a slave and when you cease to be
slave the mark is still there. The mark has nothing to do with meaning you are
still a slave. The mark cannot mark you as a Catholic forever as there is more
to being anything than a mark.
The baptism mark may obligate you to maintain
membership in the Church. It does not make you a member.
There is no evidence at all that there is a mark.
There is no evidence at all that a baptised person is going to be a holier and
wiser and more godly person than the unbaptised.
Catholics say, "You have a father and mother. You can
refuse to call them that but that is what they are. You have got your DNA from
them. They made you. When you are baptised, a bond like the bond made by DNA
exists whether you act it exists or whether you don't. You still have
obligations to the family you deny".
DNA makes you a member of your family but only in the
sense that you share DNA. There is more to being a family member than just DNA.
You would then be only a bodily family member at least.
To be considered irrevocably Catholic is to say that
if anybody is validly baptised they are Catholic even if they receive a
Protestant baptism. But this contradicts Canon Law which says that though
baptism puts Protestant babies into the Catholic Church it does not make them
Roman Catholic.
Catholics say baptism causes an "ontological" change.
In other words, it changes your nature from an ordinary human being to a child
of God filled with his powerful presence. But that doesn't mean you cannot
reverse that change. Maybe some day we will change our DNA so that what we got
from our parents is gone. In principle, that is possible - we just haven't
reached the point where we can do it yet.
Baptism can give a mark but this mark is not a
sacrament. It only shows the sacrament has been given. God may give membership
of the Church to babies in baptism but that does not require a mark at all never
mind one that may never be effaced. The membership and the mark are separate.
The notion that the mark makes a bond is nonsense. A
husband and wife who don't care if the other lives or dies are not really
husband and wife anymore.
If the Church is a family of love the only bond there
can be is love. To say that a mark makes a Church is to deny this and to deny
the primacy of love.
Baptism gives starting membership . Confirmation gives
full membership. Confirmations are invalid because they are a big step and the
participants cannot make a valid choice. They are compelled to go to the
ceremony and be confirmed. They do not know enough about the dark side of the
faith. Their decision is not based on facts but on sanitised information. They
are too young. The Church says confirmation is a big decision for it is
consciously accepting membership in the one true Church outside of which there
is no salvation but only separation from God for all eternity. Also the message
of the Church is the message of sacrifice and the cross and obedience to
authority.
So the Catholic Church must recognise the right of
people to tell it, "We are not your people. Accept that." It has a right
to affirm that and indeed a duty that these are not its people any more.