Make your vote count
Exactly. If only more people realized this.
It’s a question of integrity. If I don’t agree with some of the church’s most central teachings that rule out – on a spectrum from abomination to sinful – contraception, abortion, sex before marriage, homosexual sex, divorce and women priests, then I really shouldn’t be a member.
Quite right, not least because your membership does its bit to endorse those central teachings. Membership is a kind of vote – passive, but nonetheless countable. If you think some of the church’s most central teachings are reactionary and hostile to women, then quite right, you shouldn’t cast your vote for them.
I haven’t practised since I made my Confirmation, yet my name is still on the membership register, the baptismal roll. The church can count on my apparent allegiance when quoting membership statistics to bolster its authority. It does so routinely when opposing legislative change. In Australia a quarter of the population identifies as Catholic, although only 15 per cent of that quarter attend Mass regularly. In Ireland about 43 per cent of the total population are churchgoers, with about 90 per cent of residents identifying as Catholic. Now, after the clerical child abuse scandals, I’ve had enough. Way too much. I want out.
Quite right. See if you can get Madeleine Bunting to go with you.
With stories such as this, I am always amazed that the “last straw” nature of the abuse scandal. “Well, the homophobia, regressive social policies, and such were bad and all, but hiding child rapists really cut it for me.” It’s like Lord Acton, who, when planning a long history of enlightened liberty as the product of Catholicism, was shocked by the introduction of papal infallibility.
On the up side, it’s another example supporting an overall model of believers thinking independently within the Church. On the down side, it shows how much a thinking, feeling human being can tolerate within the Church.
Habituation accounts for a lot. It’s the frog in the pot of water, you know.
True, but I imagine that in these cases that there are also plenty of social pressures against taking a positive action like withdrawal of membership, or much further, open criticism of the Church. It’s inertia, social and personal, that keeps the frog in the pot.
And there’s the tendency to regard one’s religion as a series of community events with a little bit of unfortunate historical baggage to sort through. Of course, they miss that the Church dislikes this attitude far more than the `new atheist’ types.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Irene Delse, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: Make your vote count http://dlvr.it/2ztQm […]
Zachary – the cynic in me wonders whether the church (or organised religion generally) really dislikes the attitude of regarding religion as essentially a community club, or rather that it simply feels it ought to be against such an attitude for form’s sake, but in reality like any organisation, will accept support from wherever it comes.
Re: Defection. It was not till just recently that almost no-one, inclusive of (probably) bishops that had any knowledge that there was a formal defection process under canon law. It only came into being some years ago when it was called for by some German bishops. In Germany mass-goers pay (stipends?) taxes that goes to their respective churches and a way was brought in for Germans to formally renounce membership of their churches so that they need not have to any longer pay these compulsory taxes. Apparently, the only change tax-wise is that the taxes are no longer paid to the Church, but, instead, goes to some other organisation. So, one way or the other, they do not exactly get off the hook with not having to pay taxes.
OT, O, you following this madness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRDyOaCJ3t0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504435.html?hpid=sec-religion
this is under the heading of you can’t make this up. There is a new species of evangelist, the ex muslim evangelist, and the dupes at Liberty put him in charge of the flock.
Ok, please return to picking on the irish …
Patrick,
I think that the Church’s stance on secularization, whether in religious or political life, has been fairly consistent, even against the opinions of the congregation. I think they might perceive an end-game, but insofar as short term interests of the Church, they damn themselves in many ways over doctrinal quibbles.
It depends on who is taken to represent the Church’s stance, but I think that the inconveniences of enforcing doctrine lend credibility to the theory that the stances are sincerely held. There might be a “form’s sake” crowd, and it might even be a majority view in the hierarchy, but in consensus decisions, they appear to be sincere believers, issue depending.
Scott, no, I haven’t. I have seen other “Muslim to Xian” stuff though, and I avoid it. A pox on all of them!
From the lead article: ‘There will always be a great number, however, who – as is the case in Australia – turn to the church for the ceremonial occasions of births, marriages and deaths. ”It’s church by half measures. It’s a very protestant view of Catholicism,” O’Sullivan says, meaning ”a la carte” Catholics who reject the parts they don’t agree with.’
I once overhead one young woman say to another “I’m a practising Catholic; in everything except my sex life.”
It strikes me that this is yet another important difference between science and religion. While some areas of science are less certain than others, and sides may be taken by participants in scientific debates until issues are settled, it is not possible for a physicist to say (for example) “I accept the first two of Newton’s laws, but I’m not having his third” – without supplying evidence satisfactory to the scientific community to back that position up. However, it is possible for a Catholic to say “I accept that one should not eat meat on Fridays, but not the ban on contraception.” (That this is now a majority position amongst Catholics is there in the birth statistics, or at least was there the last time I looked.)
In rejecting the Church’s policy on contraception, the non-conforming Catholics are also rejecting the theological justification (ie the reasoning) behind it. ‘God’s laws’ are thus not like Newton’s laws; it is only with the former that one can take such an a la carte approach.
This one is pretty good … Liberty University, god bless ’em, promoted this muslim bashing fraud to head of the department of Jesus, which is a pretty big posting at a school like that, and this muslim blogger kid in London came after him on the youtube and then it gets all mooneyesque.
4. The defection must be a valid juridical act, placed by a person who is canonically capable and in conformity with the canonical norms that regulate such matters (cfr. cann.124-126). Such an act must be taken personally, consciously and freely.
It is ironic that baptism is given to babies of only a few weeks or a few months old, when they are not in a canonical position to make choices. Parents in general would be fearful that if their bairns died in the interim that the latter would be out of favour with God and be on ther receiving end of punishment. Such actions are not taken personally, consciously or freely by the babies. The same is applicable with children in receipt of holy communion at six years old & confirmation at twelve years old.
But when one wants to leave the church one must have all their faculties about them indeed.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
My guess is that keeps a lot of Jesuits in the fold.
Ian MacDougall #10 wrote:
It strikes me, however, how close this cafeteria approach to religion resembles the all-too-common public approach towards science. “I accept Newton’s laws, but not Darwin’s theory; I accept modern chemistry, but not when it comes to homeopathy.” Maybe the casual habit of picking and choosing engendered by basing one’s beliefs on “faith,” spills over into areas which really do need to be consistent with each other.
Sastra: ‘It strikes me, however, how close this cafeteria approach to religion resembles the all-too-common public approach towards science. “I accept Newton’s laws, but not Darwin’s theory; I accept modern chemistry, but not when it comes to homeopathy.” Maybe the casual habit of picking and choosing engendered by basing one’s beliefs on “faith,” spills over into areas which really do need to be consistent with each other.’
But homeopathy has a helluva way to go before it is established as a science. At this stage it appears to have the same status and basis as faith healing and the placebo effect. One does not have to agree with every hypothesis put forward in a scientific environment.
Faith, however earnest, is no basis for a scientific claim. At this stage, chemistry does not have to be consistent with homeopathy. The foundations of chemistry have been repeatedly validated by experiment; the claims of homeopathy have only candidate status, so to speak. Should they pass the stringent tests of peer-reviewed experiment, then I would guess a certain revision of the foundations of chemistry would be needed.
But the reality of religion is that believers of whatever station can pick and choose what rules to live by. For example the ongoing child-abuse scandal in the Catholic and other churches shows that the clergy are not above playing fast and loose with the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule: right up to the His Holiness himself.
While I salute the ‘defection project’, the problem of religious belief will not be resolved until non-belief can provide at least some substitution for the social belonging that is provided by religious community. I have had numerous discussions with people who insist that they “only go for the community.”
In a recent discussion with an elderly woman (Roman catholic), literally wagging my finger at her about the church’s refusal to accept assistance in dying (in connexion with a young man with Huntington’s who had jumped off a bridge), she merely said that most people she knew did not share the church’s strictures on such things, but the community that she had belonged to all her life was her main contact (outside the family) with other people.
Religion provides symbolic ways of celebrating and participating in community. I do not think that this sort of thing should be scouted. For some, the intellectual community of unbelievers is sufficient. Others feel the need to belong to a community of project and purpose in which relationship in a common task is possible. Faute de mieux, many people will stay with religious organisations, disagreement notwithstanding.
Yes Eric, I agree.
Believing is a means to belonging. The church congregation is about on average of the same order of size as the hunter-gatherer band or the pre-industrial village. It is common for such groups to spend their whole lifetimes together.
But the thread or story or myth that binds them all has to be credible, and sin-and-redemption no longer fills that bill for the majority. Fortunately, mutual acceptance of such myths is not the only way.
I wrote a post about debaptism in Italy – a growing phenomenon – here.
You know, the blow-up over at Science Blogs has a silver lining. It broke out of my complacency and has gotten me to visit quite a few well-written blogs, such as this one…
I joined the Unitarians. I get my community fix, they’re very much in the forefront of progressive issues AND I can be an out-of-the-closet atheist all while badly singing hymns and eating lousy church-casseroles…
@18 Yeah, I do believe, by all accounts, that a group of people in Ireland first learnt, I think, about the defection, de-baptism scenario from a group of Italian atheists and consequently set up a website called ‘Count Me Out’.
Life in general in Ireland is synonymous with Catholicism and events surrounded by it. There is practically nowhere to escape to if one is not part of it. Protestants who are a small minority have learned throughout the generations to cope with being on the outside. Atheism is a new phenomenon, and is mostly associated with educated people who mostly have intellectual wherewithal to develop strategies to cope in an alien environment. Atheists fare better, I think, in larger countries, whereby they can be absorbed into a more varied religious, non religious society. Life would go on for them irrespective of religion. Not so in Ireland. Well, even Paisley pointed out that Ireland is a mono-cultural, mono-theistic country and he wanted no part of it indeed. I mean, tell me, aside from Muslims, how many countries will you find Angelus Bells ringing out on the radio at 12 noon and 6: pm every single day of every single year, calling its citizen’s to prayer. The bells also rang out on the telly, but thankfully, overtly religious symbolisms have now been considerably toned down so as to cater for those of ethnic religions, which are slowly creeping into Ireland with the dawn of the growing new Irish.
I’m thrilled to know that those of us who were in Dublin’s industrial school institutions in the past (such as Goldenbridge and Artane, to name but two) who vehemently and longstandingly pointed the finger at Mother church, have had a part to play in people setting up ‘Count Me Out’.
I don’t know. Unless you were baptized as an adult, debaptism seems more like a denunciation of family than of the Church, and seems unnecessarily provocative. I would think that a clear declaration of apostasy, denying the Dominion of God, the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Presence of the Holy Spirit, followed, if necessary, by formal defection, is more appropriate, and would be better received by one’s neighbors.
Ken,
There are actual legal issues at stake having to do with Canon Law and such. In Italy there have been times when Church officials put their weight behind bullying baptized Catholics who wanted a civil marriage ceremony. There is a book about this (in Italian only) from 2008, “Leaving the Flock” (Uscire dal Gregge), written by Adele Orioli (see my link above) and Raffaele Carcano of the UAAR. They go into detail about the legal aspects of what it means to be a “subject” of the Catholic church. To some extent, the baptized are a kind of property. So what of it pisses off grandma? She’ll deal; it’ll be good for her.
You can be as atheist as you wanna be, but there’s always that little baptismal certificate that makes you one of theirs. Imagine if they had just a bit more power to exercise over their subjects than they do presently – not an inconceivable prospect, unfortunately – do you think they wouldn’t use it to bully their own into obedience?
The point of debaptism is taking control of one’s own decision over which club – if any – to belong to. It’s strictly personal.
I agree wholly with Marie, those of us who were in the brutal Irish Gulags saw or heard very little of “God” when he was needed most. “Count Me Out” heralds an awakening long sought by those more aptly equipped to comment on the brutality suffered by so many for so long, ie, the VICTIMS, and as for being considerate to the thoughts and feelings of “One`s Neighbours`, count me out also . I still follow avidly Marie, your constant battle and progressive writings.
Regards. From an ` Angry` victim still domiciled in the UK .
Unfortunately in Ireland I don’t see the “Count Me Out” being that effective on paper. It’s nothing to do with a strong sense of Catholicism there, it’s the whole set up of education etc. Baptism isn’t a matter of belief or principle, many parents see it as the only way to get your child an education (given the overwhelming number of RC schools over state schools). Whether the perception is correct or not (in Dublin, baptism certificates aren’t that essential), parents feel they have to join the club.
Yes it’s lip service and isn’t faith based, but as long as the Church has that grip on education (and health) it will continue. People may well be atheists, but the Church will always point to baptisms, confirmations (which you have to go through once enrolled in a RC school, well you can opt out but considering the amount of “schooling” given to preparation for confrimation, your child will be twiddling it’s thumbs learning nothing for 12 months), etc numbers as proof it still has relevance.
Until that grip is removed by the state (and other states) it will always draw in “numbers” because people feel they have no other choice.
For laughs (or cries, perhaps) Google around to see what it takes to get off the LD$ church’s membership rolls.
I’ve basically decided I am not going to bother.
Very like the suppression of dissent in E. Germany, then the invasion of Czechoslovakia, then the invasion of Afghanistan turned successive people away from the communist religion, do you mean?
With RC christianity, there is yet a long way to go, never mind “submission”.