Disgruntled Italian Catholics are increasingly turning to the internet to leave the Church by getting "debaptized" -- but typically, the Pope isn't making the process web friendly.
Cyberspace is one of the few places lapsed Catholics can get a copy of the formal letter called "actus defectionis" that is required by Church officials to leave the faith.
...
There are no statistics on how many Italians have defected. Proponents claim thousands, the Church maintains a handful -- and according to at least one Vaticanista, Salvatore Mazza of the Catholic daily newspaper Avvenire, debaptists can, at best, "hope to become a niche phenomena."
Still, there's enough buzz around debaptism to prompt the Vatican to publish a legislative text reminding the former faithful that they are committing an act of "apostasy, heresy or schism."
Sounds like every other cult. Once you're in, it is almost impossible to get out? And before you get out, "religious terrorism" is used to scare you into staying?
I know my comments may seem harsh, but that is what it looks like.
Why can't people just believe what they choose to believe? And what's wrong with changing your beliefs?
Read more.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Based on your comments, I think you misunderstand what it means to reject baptism, and this may be because you may not fully understand what baptism is.
Briefly, according to the Catholic Church, the sacrament of baptism provides: the forgiveness of sins, provides the grace of justification, makes one part of member of the Body of Christ, forms a foundation of communion among Christians, and seals a spiritual mark on the baptized representing his belonging to Christ. That is to say, it is much more than a public acknowledgement that "I believe in Christ" or anything of the sort, which many people believe it is.
There are many degrees of inactivity in Church life that do not sum up to actually leaving the Church. Someone could stop going to Church and remain Catholic. Someone could stop believing in Christ and remain Catholic. Someone could get excommunicated and remain Catholic. The qualifier here is whether or not someone is a "good Catholic" or if someone is a Catholic in good standing. Even an unbelieving excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic in the eyes of the Church.
Consider, then, why someone would choose to reject baptism. Most of the time, when people simply choose to believe something different than what the Church teaches, they don't bother to reject their baptism because it no longer means anything to them. Just as baptism is more than saying "I believe in Christ", the rejection of baptism is more than saying "I don't believe in Christ" or, given common theologies amongst most Christian denominations regarding baptism, "I don't believe in this Church". Rejecting baptism is the rejecting of all those things conveyed by baptism, which, to a Christian, is a HUGE deal. It may not be clear to many Christians what the rejection of baptism really means, and they may see their rejecting of their baptisms as a political statement against a Church that they've grown unhappy with; but in reality, it is much much more. In reality, it is in fact the committing an act of "apostasy, heresy, or schism", and the Church would be sorely neglegent in its duties if it did not let its departing members know of this and make an informed decision.
Anyone wishing to leave the Church is certainly free to do so. However, if they do, they should make an informed decision to do so, and have full knowledge of the consequence of doing so. I find it strange that you would equate informing the public that actions have consequeces to "religious terrorism".
If a man commits heresy by spreading false teachings, or if a man risks Hell by mistreating and oppressing those in his care, or if a man commits apostasy by rejecting his baptism, shouldn't the Church, out of care for the souls of its members, make an effort to guide them in their actions?
Is it wrong for the Church to point out that actions have consequences?
I love these types of discussions :)
It's the "according to the Catholic Church" comment that grates my nerves. That's just saying: "This is what people of this organization believe."
Fine. Believe it. But those that change their beliefs should not be scared into staying in the church.
And don't a lot of people get "baptised" without knowing what it truly means? You can not convince me that most people understand the meaning behind "baptism." Many get babtised out of familial/societal pressures or obligations and thus it's not a "HUGE" deal to them because they didn't do it for reasons of their own.
You may say that "the Church would be sorely neglegent in its duties if it did not let its departing members know of this and make an informed decision" but it still goes back to a belief system. I see this as "religious terrorism" because to me it is a scare tactic to make someone change their actions/beliefs. I would like to think the Church was doing it to merely inform its departing members, but I am a little more pessimistic about such actions (these actions are not solely relegated to religions).
Yes, anyone leaving any church should make an informed decision (of course, I would argue that anyone making any decision should be well informed but apparently that is not the way things are done these days.) but anyone joining any church should also be well informed before joining. However, I don't believe that is the case for most people. Hell, most children are never informed before being baptised, they don't get a choice in the matter and yet these beliefs are forced upon them. That is not ok.
Then, just like Judaism, I see that once one has chosen (or has been forced into) Catholicism then one is always considered Catholic in the "eyes of the Church." That bothers me. It seems cultish and quite frankly like everyone drank the kool-aid. I see that as a control issue; the Church controlling it's flock, if you will.
I admire your absolute respect for your chosen religion, but I don't believe the Church (any Church), just like governments, will always do things that are in the best interest of their members. Maybe the best interest for those members at the top, but not for the common person.
I hate these types of discussions. :-)
I absolutely agree that many Catholics do not know what baptism truly means, and I think that this is precisely why they should be informed of what it means. If a Catholic wishes to leave the Church, and if that person remains a non-Catholic Christian, under most circumstances that person would not want to reject their baptism (despite the fact that there are many theological differences amongst denominations regarding what baptism "truly" means). So, under most circumstances, those wishing to reject their baptisms have either left Christianity as a whole, or have subscribed to one of the flavors of Christianity that do not accept "standard" baptism (as accepted by most denominations). In either case, especially in this day and age, I doubt that the Church would have enough influence to scare them into anything by explaining what it is that they are doing when they give up their baptism. It may, however, lead people to change their minds if they think the only thing they are doing is voicing a dissatisfaction with the Church and breaking communion.
I think you and I probably disagree on another issue: I think that it is acceptable, and even should be encouraged, that parents should raise their children in whatever faith tradition they follow. I caveat this by saying that exploration of this tradition (as well as others) should be encouraged so the child could make their own informed decision if they wish to continue. However, I don't see raising a child in a particular tradition "forcing" a child into anything, and in particular, to Catholicism.
The reason I say this with regards to Catholicism is that while baptism makes one a member of the Church, it does not make one a full member of the Church. There is a sacrament called Confirmation that, under normal circumstances, requires that knowledgable consent be given by a baptized Catholic to become a member in full communion. Consider it a two-step process... baptism gets the ball rolling: it provides certain graces on the baptized, but it also binds the baptized's parents in a contract to raise the child in the faith and provide knowledge of the faith. When the child reaches sufficient understanding and an age capable of making a knowledgable decision, the child (now a teen or adult) may choose to become a full member of the Catholic community or not by participating in confirmation. If the child decides to not be confirmed, they choose to not be in full communion with the Church, and from their perspective, they may choose to entirely break communion with the Church. From the Church's perspective, the communion remains, but in a deficient state. As I said, the Church continues to consider the person Catholic, but communion is tarnished or broken. I've never heard of anyone breaking communion with the Church who really cared that the Church continued to consider them Catholic ("bad Catholics", but Catholics nonetheless). For instance, to my knowledge Martin Luther never formally broke communion with the Church, so even after his leaving the Church and his excommunication, his name was still on the roster. I choose him because, a) I can't think of a better example of someone who more publicly and significantly broke with the Church, and b) I can't think of anyone who cared less about what the Church thought about him after he broke communion.
Before I assigned ulterior motives to the Church for wanting people to retain their baptisms, I would need to be shown what the Church would have to gain. If participation in Church life is diminishing, the highest numbers are lost due to those jumping to a different denomination (largely due to the clergy diminishing in the Church and clergy being abundant in the various Protestant denominations and especially in the LDS). Now, to hop from Catholicism to Protestantism would not require (and in most cases would strongly discourage) rejection of Catholic baptism, so there's no threat there. I don't think the LDS care one way or another regarding Catholic baptism (I think they believe that their baptism would "override" any prior baptism), and so there's no threat there. And I've never heard of a Catholic becoming an atheist who lost any sleep over his name being on the Catholic roster. Now, I'm sure that there are, but even if these numbers are in the thousands in Italy, I'd be hard pressed to be convinced that the Church would see this as any sort of threat. Especially if these people were already not participating in Church life, and especially if scaring them to retain their baptism wouldn't lead to any gains (from the Church's perspective). If there's a crime, there should be a motive. I'm just not seeing it in this case.
How can you not enjoy this? *8)
Post a Comment