CT,
You didn't offend me, and no apology is needed. I'm the one who should be apologizing. I've been sarcastic and snarky lately. In the middle of a big move, and I probably shouldn't be engaging in these conversations either, until I've regained my own emotional equilibrium. Pax.

I apologize, SB, for offending you. Due to my new schedule, I must withdraw from this discussion. Peace.

CT,
You wrote:
If Adolf Hitler had instead of Catholic background and formation, a Quaker background and formation, he would have been less likely to have engaged in some of his later acts. Likewise, if Adolf Hitler had instead of Catholic background and formation, a world view steeped from a young age and instilled by his parents in a philosophy coincident with the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand (so suppose contrary to fact that the non-religious philosophy of Ayn Rand were popularized by her or someone else from Hitler's youth or that a philosophy of relevant similarity had been popularized etc), then it is also less likely that he would have engaged in some of his later acts.
That is quite an assertion. Why do you believe it? Is it because you've seen some compelling evidence? Perhaps you've read a study that showed that, all other factors being equal, a Catholic upbringing led to more antisocial behavior than a Quaker or Objectivist upbringing, even if the people in question had abandoned their childhood ideology later in life? If so, kindly share. If not, perhaps you'd like to share your reasons for thinking that. I'd hate to think that it's a matter of simple prejudice.
That a Catholic background does not seem in this particular class of cases to be more favorable than an Objectivist background gives us some reason to doubt Catholicism (the same is not true of Quakerism as the Quaker religion for obvious reasons).
Or perhaps your doubt is what makes a Catholic background seem so relatively harmful.
Basically, given that Catholicism claims not only that it is true, but that it is conducive to good and ISTM to argue that it is the most conducive to good amonst all composite structures of society and belief (for if it weren't then it would be acknowledging that there is another comparable structure that is a better "leaven" for the world than the Church), while the inferiority in respect to being conducive to good in a specific class of cases is not insurmountable for the claim of overall superiority in conduciveness to good to be true, it is in itself something that, however weakly, "disconfirms" Catholicism -- i.e. makes it less likely to be true, even if on balance it still be more likely than not to be true based on the evidence as a whole.
Okay, you didn't even need Hitler to beg this particular question. But even supposing you were correct in your original assertion that an Objectivist or Quaker upbringing contributes less to Hitleresque behavior than a Catholic upbringing, you're still off-base. The Church doesn't claim to produce the lowest level of fascist leaders among its lost sheep; she claims that God imparts graces through her sacraments. It's even conceivable that the children who most need those graces are most likely to be born to Catholic families.

My own editing made a muddle of the parenthetical remark
(the same is not true of Quakerism....)
Just omit "as the Quaker religion"

SB,
The question is not ideological sympathy (I haven't explored that question; but certainly it is only in very bizarre cases where any two ideologies share no commonalities whatsoever; a libertarian ideology and a fascist ideology both for example share a belief that there ought to exist a government)
If Adolf Hitler had instead of Catholic background and formation, a Quaker background and formation, he would have been less likely to have engaged in some of his later acts. Likewise, if Adolf Hitler had instead of Catholic background and formation, a world view steeped from a young age and instilled by his parents in a philosophy coincident with the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand (so suppose contrary to fact that the non-religious philosophy of Ayn Rand were popularized by her or someone else from Hitler's youth or that a philosophy of relevant similarity had been popularized etc), then it is also less likely that he would have engaged in some of his later acts. Of course, other kinds of background and formation may have increased the likelihood (but they would be moot in terms of how in this particular case, the increase in likelihood would not have changed the relevant outcomes except in terms of creating potentially more undesirable outcomes). So a Catholic background, like all or virtually all things, is of intermediate significance in terms of making it less or more likely for a given individual to perform certain later acts. That a Catholic background does not seem in this particular class of cases to be more favorable than an Objectivist background gives us some reason to doubt Catholicism (the same is not true of Quakerism as the Quaker religion for obvious reasons).
Basically, given that Catholicism claims not only that it is true, but that it is conducive to good and ISTM to argue that it is the most conducive to good amonst all composite structures of society and belief (for if it weren't then it would be acknowledging that there is another comparable structure that is a better "leaven" for the world than the Church), while the inferiority in respect to being conducive to good in a specific class of cases is not insurmountable for the claim of overall superiority in conduciveness to good to be true, it is in itself something that, however weakly, "disconfirms" Catholicism -- i.e. makes it less likely to be true, even if on balance it still be more likely than not to be true based on the evidence as a whole.

CT wrote:
Non-coercive eugenics is practiced today in the selection of particular genetic traits by couples who seek in vitro fertilization -- in some cases their preferences may be termed by some non-eugenic and only superficial in nature whereas in other cases it may be termed eugenic, such as preferring a donor that has or is likely to have a higher IQ. IMHO the spread of non-coercive eugenics will allow humanity to advance not merely technologically, but in wisdom and beauty in philosophy and the arts.
...and you think this would happen because the populace would have a generally higher IQ?
I see occultism as just superstition and harmless fodder for movies like the new upcoming movie directed by IIRC Michael Bay of Transformers fame regarding the Ouija board [which is just a harmless Parker Brothers game; Parker Brothers is the same company that gives you games like monopoly IIRC].
...and I see it as indicative of an unhealthy obsession with control. Funny that you regard non-Christian superstitions as harmless, while blaming Christianity for a wide range of social ills.
Paganism I see as something of rich artistic value and even as a religion, as a polytheistic religion more healthy for society than monotheistic religions like Christianity.
...which is why life in pre-Christian Rome was so much nicer for everyone than life in Rome post-Constantine.
The newer book IIRC discusses how polytheism by nature tends to be more tolerant than monotheism (monotheism demands everyone worship its god; polytheism allows for religious diversity with a cafeteria of gods).
Also more tolerant of practices like cutting the hearts out of your neighbors to make sure the sun rises in the morning.
Given that, I would have initial skepticism towards the thesis that Hitler's motivations were polytheistic; I would think rather that his motivations, in terms of his religious ones, that is, were closer to any monotheistic background he had or inherited or was imbibed with and any occultic distortion or supplementation of that background.
Really? This is the kind of logic you prefer to rhetoric?
1. This guy in this book says that polytheism is more tolerant than monotheism.
2. Hitler led a brutal socialist regime.
3. Therefore it's more likely that Hitler was a monotheist than a polytheist.
Wow.
I disagree, Tim with your historical view of Hitler as merely an opportunist with no convictions (that's how I understood your remarks at least).
So would I. Hitler was a tool. He was democratically elected by the German people in the 30s, and he had at least enough popular support that he never had to contend with any local uprisings. (Uprisings in conquered territory were a different matter, and to be expected.) At the very least he was a tool of the German people, but I think it's likely that he was, like most public leaders, a tool of influential parties. No one gets elected head of a large industrial nation without a substantial number of backers, handlers, and advisors.
From what I gather from reading a book by someone in your Catholic cohort (a Mr Buchanan who incidentally like you has similarly praised Hitler's oratical skills), Hitler was for instance ideologically opposed to Communism and that that rather than opportunistic motivations was behind his betrayal of Russia after they carved up Eastern Europe between themselves.
Ideologically opposed to Communism, but head of a Socialist state. Interesting. How does that not make him an opportunist?
The book also described Hitler as a realist and not ideologically pure in the way that say a party you might support like the Constitution Party might be.
If this is the same Buchanan with which I'm familiar (Pat) I have no doubt your paraphrasing is deceptive. Pat Buchanan has better sense than to claim that Hitler wasn't an opportunist, but was rather an anti-Communist idealist (enough so that he ordered his army to make a suicidal strategic error) and then turn around and say that he wasn't ideologically pure, but was, in fact, a realist.
Can we at least agree and can Catholics acknowledge that be everything else as it may, Hitler did receive the sacrament of baptism and confirmation, and that he did receive a Catholic upbringing and education, and that he did have a Catholic background?
Sure.
Now you seem to want to say that there is a total disconnect between that and later actions, that one had not one iota to do with the other, a fissure of personality. But given how humans are a complex whole with each experience reverberating in later experiences and choices we make, that would seem prima facie doubtful, no? How his background may have impacted his later life is something of historical interest, no?
Certainly. Now, are you saying what you seem to be saying: that there is something evil about Catholicism that contributed to the atrocities of the Second World War?
It is amazing that today some (though not all) Catholic bishops in the US (and now one who heads up the analog of the Supreme Court in the Vatican), want to publically say that such and such a politician or politicians will be denied Communion in their diocese or if they are officiating Communion or that more broadly that he, she or they should be denied Communion.
Why is that amazing? It's kind of their job.
All this public condemnation of the Nancy Pelosi's and Joe Biden's of American politics. Yet was there a like condemnation of Adolf Hitler's person? No.
Does this indicate to you that the Church was complicit in Hitler's actions? Take a look at what history has to say about it. There was actually a lot of debate about how best to deal with the Nazi atrocities, and it was decided that it would be best to offer quiet help to the victims and potential victims, rather than declaring an outright war on a country allied to Italy, which surrounded the Vatican. You can criticize all you like, with the benefit of sixty-plus years of hindsight, and argue about whether or not this was the best policy. But if you're actually accusing the Church of complicity, I want you to come out and say it directly.
Yes there was at an early stage a condemnation of some ideology that had some coincidence with that of Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, but there was no public, specific talk against Adolf Hitler the way there has been with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.
Tactical decisions. If you're implying some sort of ideological sympathy, come out in the open and say so.

Non-coercive eugenics is practiced today in the selection of particular genetic traits by couples who seek in vitro fertilization -- in some cases their preferences may be termed by some non-eugenic and only superficial in nature whereas in other cases it may be termed eugenic, such as preferring a donor that has or is likely to have a higher IQ. IMHO the spread of non-coercive eugenics will allow humanity to advance not merely technologically, but in wisdom and beauty in philosophy and the arts.
I see occultism as just superstition and harmless fodder for movies like the new upcoming movie directed by IIRC Michael Bay of Transformers fame regarding the Ouija board [which is just a harmless Parker Brothers game; Parker Brothers is the same company that gives you games like monopoly IIRC]. Paganism I see as something of rich artistic value and even as a religion, as a polytheistic religion more healthy for society than monotheistic religions like Christianity. There's a new book that examines how relatively speaking monotheism is worse than polytheism for human good as judged by history. Unfortunately, I have only peeked into the book and don't recall it's name. But here's another book -- also yet unread -- that addresses a somewhat similar topic:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-descripti...
The newer book IIRC discusses how polytheism by nature tends to be more tolerant than monotheism (monotheism demands everyone worship its god; polytheism allows for religious diversity with a cafeteria of gods). Given that, I would have initial skepticism towards the thesis that Hitler's motivations were polytheistic; I would think rather that his motivations, in terms of his religious ones, that is, were closer to any monotheistic background he had or inherited or was imbibed with and any occultic distortion or supplementation of that background.
I disagree, Tim with your historical view of Hitler as merely an opportunist with no convictions (that's how I understood your remarks at least). From what I gather from reading a book by someone in your Catholic cohort (a Mr Buchanan who incidentally like you has similarly praised Hitler's oratical skills), Hitler was for instance ideologically opposed to Communism and that that rather than opportunistic motivations was behind his betrayal of Russia after they carved up Eastern Europe between themselves. The book also described Hitler as a realist and not ideologically pure in the way that say a party you might support like the Constitution Party might be.
Can we at least agree and can Catholics acknowledge that be everything else as it may, Hitler did receive the sacrament of baptism and confirmation, and that he did receive a Catholic upbringing and education, and that he did have a Catholic background?
Now you seem to want to say that there is a total disconnect between that and later actions, that one had not one iota to do with the other, a fissure of personality. But given how humans are a complex whole with each experience reverberating in later experiences and choices we make, that would seem prima facie doubtful, no? How his background may have impacted his later life is something of historical interest, no?
It is amazing that today some (though not all) Catholic bishops in the US (and now one who heads up the analog of the Supreme Court in the Vatican), want to publically say that such and such a politician or politicians will be denied Communion in their diocese or if they are officiating Communion or that more broadly that he, she or they should be denied Communion. All this public condemnation of the Nancy Pelosi's and Joe Biden's of American politics. Yet was there a like condemnation of Adolf Hitler's person? No. Yes there was at an early stage a condemnation of some ideology that had some coincidence with that of Nazi Germany and Adolf Hitler, but there was no public, specific talk against Adolf Hitler the way there has been with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

"Catholics in trying to distance Adolf Hitler as much as possible from Catholicism argue among other things that Adolf Hitler's beliefs were closer to occultism or paganism than they were to Catholicism."
Which all happens to be TRUE, but I believe any dispassionate observer would understand that Hitler USED religion (paganism, the occult) the same way he used contemporary pop-science theories (like eugenics) to justify particular actions he wanted to initiate (like killing Jews, who he happened to hate) for narrow reasons of a personal and tribal nature.
Hitler was no deep thinker. He was a man of instinct, and developed a finely tuned sense for what your average German felt and would tolerate. He was also a passionate, gifted speaker and just happened to come along at the right time to take advantage of a rising tide of German nationalism.
The fact that some people - sixty years later - want badly to see Hitler as a Catholic reveals MUCH more about them than it does about him.

Inocencio, my blog is not about Catholic teachings. I used to have a description of my blog which stated that my blog covered a "catholic scope of topics" through the "microscope of reason" and "telescope of" such and such. The word "catholic" there is referring to varied and universal, not Roman Catholicism the religion. My second post there doesn't even mention Catholicism. I currently have in draft a purely non-theological post regarding a technical result in mathematics. I plan to publish it though given my meager and rudimentary knowledge of mathematics for all I know it is a result that has already been made or is too trivial to deserve a mention. I also have a working draft of a post on the Liar Paradox, with no theological import whatosoever. Some potential topics in the future might include economics.@RO
Here's the definition of catholic that is listed as the primary one at dictionary.com (which unfortunately seems to have been taken over by ads)
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
Of course in Catholic circles, the term "catholic" often has the meaning of the church catholic as opposed to a the church local and Catholic prelates have publically debated regarding which has certain kinds of "priority" (I don't recall if they referred to "logical priority" or some other kind of priority, but then Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict, argued that the church catholic had a certain priority while IIRC Card. Walter Kasper argued that the church local (ex. a diocese) did)
And my first blog post was not motivated by religion; I have no religion. Adolf Hitler had religious beliefs; whether you want to call his religious beliefs "Christian" "pagan" or "occult" -- religious, they were.

I don't think you understand that "religious" does not mean "Catholic" or "pro-Catholic." Consider for example the "hundred years" war. Or any number of historical things. That Adolf Hitler was a religious man is something no one doubts. Catholics in trying to distance Adolf Hitler as much as possible from Catholicism argue among other things that Adolf Hitler's beliefs were closer to occultism or paganism than they were to Catholicism.

CT,
What exactly is your standing as a self-proclaimed "former Catholic"?
Obviously, your "motivation include religious motivations" because you spend so much time on a Catholic blog and even started your own blog so you could write about Catholic teachings.
I think it is obvious that as long as the Church teaches that some acts are immoral you will feel the obligation to attack and undermine it's teachings.
You desire license not freedom.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

...Adolf Hitler's motivation included religious motivations...

Regardless of the fact that Hitler reportedly said he wanted to "crush the Catholic Church like one tramples a frog", or something like it.
Drivel beyond one's wildest dreams...

I don't think I've said Adolf Hitler continued being a practicing, believing Catholic, as in believing in all Catholic doctrines, but then neither is according to many here Nancy Pelosi a "believing Catholic" -- some terming her a "dissenting Catholic".
What I *have* claimed, is that Adolf Hitler's motivation included religious motivations -- I don't think anyone denies this. And what I inquired into above, the only person I recall who previously challenged me on it was manifestly mistaken as I noted on what constitutes "formal defection."
And I argue that "formal defection" prescinding from whether it exists as a concept in the human mind, and prescinding from whether it serves a function in law, is something that has ontological existence under Catholicism; it was possible to do those acts which now constitute formal defection at any time in the existence of the church, according to catholicism -- prescinding from its legal effects, so prescinding from whether it were possible to do it in a way that would have certain legal effects.
In any event, the very text from the Vatican up above states that in the case of Adolf Hitler, due to his having him be baptized, he retained a special "ontological" bond with the Church -- the text says that Hitler could never have lost this bond.

CT, your dogged attempts to try and retro-fit Hitler as a card-carrying Catholic are disgusting, and very telling.
When it comes to your own beliefs, you seem very comfortable with being only reasonably certain, but when it comes to the claims of religion (and Christianity in particular) you become a logical positivist.
So, you (somewhat triumphantly) assert that it can't be logically *proven* that Hitler WASN'T a Catholic... though to any reasonable person he clearly wasn't.

Ed can correct me if I am wrong in my analysis, but there are a few points I would like to make about the application of this interpretation of formal defection to historical matters.
1. According to both the 1983 and 1917 CIC:
Can. 9 Laws regard the future, not the past, unless they expressly provide for the past. [1983]
Can.10. Leges respiciunt futura, non praeterita, nisi nominatim in eis de praeteritis caveatur. [1917]
Thus, neither the 1917 code or the 1983 code are germane to the issue of how the original Protestant Reformers would have been judged, regarding formal defection. Each generation of law has the right to interpret itself, historical interpretations being taken into consideration.
Since the issue of the norms for formal defection have only been specified recently (2006), taking can. 9 and can. 16 §2 into account, this matter of the Reformers is moot. They were not bound to follow a future code of canon law. They were bound to the laws of their times (which, in practice, contained many of the same principles, in nascent form), those being the post-Decretal/Tridentine period of law.
During those periods, no such written notification of defection was required. The canons of Trent do not mention anything having been to be made in writing to require that someone had formally defected. I don't know the entire history of canon law, but certainly, a trial of some sort to ascertain the facts before canonical action with regards to formal defection could be imposed seems likely, even if a formal notification in writing by the individual were not give, so there would have been at least some attempt to get at the mind of the person, both by statement and actions in an open forum.
Thus, I would suspect that the canonical status of the original Reformers would not be changed by this clarification, since Trent certainly had them in mind when they stated their anathemas. Later Protestants, who had an additional debt of culture, history, and education to overcome, would have probably been less likely to have been considered formally defecting, since their faith formation was, itself, defective (defectus contra defectio, if you will).
As to Hitler, he was under the 1917 Code. He did not get his excommunication lift, therefore, he died outside of the Church. This is a de facto defection even if it is not a formal defection, since the effect is the same - to remove someone from communion with the Church.
As to the metaphysical change in status, a clarifying document,
Actus Formalis Defectionis ab Ecclesia Catholica
Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts
Vatican City, 13 March 2006
Prot. N. 10279/2006,
states:
7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.
As to the matter of Church/state standings - they involve different domains of authority, which happen to coincide within the sphere of actions. Simply put: render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's; render unto God what is God's. No time to explain more. Must go.
The Chicken

CT,
You wrote:
In the Catholic Encyclopedia, it even states that in cases of true conflict where things cannot be worked out, the authority of the Church must override that of the State. That is a dangerous religious ideology; it is the setting up of a parallel govt. It is sociologically analagous to militias.
That's more or less correct. It's one of the reasons Protestant America used to be so wary of Catholics. (JFK did a lot to change that.)
For the record, if the Church's claims are true, and a human government is in conflict with those claims, then the human government is wrong, and it is appropriate to resist that government in a reasonable and proportionate manner. I don't find that ideology dangerous at all. What I would find more dangerous is an ideology that insisted on obedience to human authority, whether that authority was objectively right or wrong.
Also, I think we all owe a lot to the militias of this country. I think they have served, and continue to serve, as a check against tyranny. I think they're part of the reason no foreign power has attempted to land troops on our soil, and part of the reason our own government is hesitant to tick us off too much.

I'm bummed that I missed a chance to respond to Robert B sooner. Rob, if you're still reading:
You ask two questions:
Why can't everything be final?
Why can't there be clean breaks?
The reason there can be no clean breaks is because every moment is final. You can defect, but you can't get unbaptized. You can get divorced, but you can't get unmarried. Every day you get older. Every time you cut yourself, you can heal, but you will scar. Everything you touch has its course altered by that touch, and everything that touches you alters your course in some way as well. That's what it is to live. You dance with all of creation, and you will never, ever dance alone or be able to recapture or erase any of your old steps, either from your life, or from the lives of others, or from the world itself.
If you do try to erase your past, there are two possibilities:
-A false record will be blank, just as you wish, but it will be false.
-A true record will show the initial event, as well as your subsequent attempt to erase that event.

Ed Peters wrote:
Would most (indeed, would any?) of the 16th-century Reformers have been considered to have "formally defected" from the Church under this interpretation?
To which SDG responded:
Dang! Good question! Go Ed!
IMHO, it is also a dang good question to ask if Adolf Hitler would have been considered to have "formally defected" under this new authentic, authoritative interpretation of "formal defection." I remember a previous discussion here were someone tried to tell me that the mere fact that Adolf Hitler did not seek to get any excommunication he may have incurred lifted constitutes "formal defection." Clearly it does not (neither under the non-authentic prior interpretation of canonists nor under this newer authentic and binding interpretation). I don't see why asking the question of the Reformers is "dang good" but asking it of Adolf Hitler is something that would not be of historical, ecclesial, theological, or human interest.
I actually think I read this authentic interpretation but I had forgotten it.
Having been reminded of it again, it actually sounds eminently reasonable itself. I don't think anything "new" is created in the interpretation; rather something implicit in the law is now made explicit. Since that which was implicit was uncertain, I do agree with the conclusion that JA makes as to retroactivity. I think the authentic interpretation has a subtle theology that underlies it.
I also believe that the notion of "formal defection" whatever the history or lack thereof of the term, as a concept, is something of theological significance as opposed to mere arbitrary or utilitarian legal creation.
To formally defect (in the sense coinciding with this authentic interpretation) I would argue (given the truth of Catholicism), is something of metaphysical significance -- it changes the way the formal defector is or is related to others prescinding from its legal effects. So even if the legal introduction had never taken place, I would argue, formal defection (coinciding again with the concept in the authentic interpretation), would entail a change in the state of being or state of relatedness of a person.
In terms of secular law, this interpretation given by the Vatican, may be problematic. Unlike, Ed Peters, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it -- I don't recall if this is federally or in other jursidictions -- some courts have ruled that a church cannot do certain things with respect to someone who has communicated to the church his wish to be no part of it that the church could ordinarily do with respect to ordinary members. So if a Catholic bishop decides to not receive and recognize the formal defection of someone who has communicated it to him and proceeds to engage in problematic actions that wouldn't be with respect to members, the church could face legal jeopardy. One particular court case I recall along these lines involved the Mormon church IIRC ... in any case it involved some issue of discipline. I wonder how a secular court would rule on a case should one ever be considered apt for adjudication, of a Catholic bishop who imposes a canonical penalty on someone who has already expressed his wish to no longer be Catholic but who is not recognized as having formally defected.
In theory, I believe the church reserves the right to enact legislation affecting not only Catholics but any baptized person. This exemption did not even exist previously. Ex-Catholics were still subject to the marriage requirement IIRC.
There are other potential collisions between canon law and secular law. Even Ed Peters in one of his old blog posts acknowledged it. This was a post IIRC dealing with an issue related to the child abuse crisis and some legal clarification of Ed Peters made of a church law or legal document. Some European clergymen have asserted a bishop-priest privilege, that bishops should not be forced by secular authorities to reveal confidential communications between them and their priests. One social threat of Catholicism lies in its claim to be an authority, including a legal authority, on par with the State, albeit with different orientations. In the Catholic Encyclopedia, it even states that in cases of true conflict where things cannot be worked out, the authority of the Church must override that of the State. That is a dangerous religious ideology; it is the setting up of a parallel govt. It is sociologically analagous to militias.

Robert -
No matter how hard you try to run from God, he's there nonetheless. :)

YES! This is exactly what I'm talking about!!!!!! Even though you leave the Catholic Church and send a letter. The RCC WILL still count you was one of theirs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You never really get totally free from THEM! I would like to know how does one break totally free from the RCC with out leaving a paper trail?!?!?!?!

I converted to the RCC in the 1970s, then married, had children, they were also baptized, etc....then I left when the kids were very little...the only one who has any memory of being Catholic is my oldest.
I just found out about this defection thing, where the church still counts you as one of theirs until you send a letter.
I want to send a letter on behalf of my kids too (all are still under 18)...I just don't want the church artificially inflating their numbers using me and my kids...when we have been long gone.
The thing is, I don't think me or most of my kids are even listed on the rolls of the RCC, since all of us (except my youngest) were baptized in the SSPX! My youngest was baptized in an Eastern Rite, to which we'd started attending when the SSPX left our area.

The difference is you guys are christians/catholics whatever. I am not so whats the point? All I was asking for was a way to defect from a place I am not a physical member or a believing member. Well, after a few days I found my answer and I sent a letter to the diocese of brooklyn yesterday. I live mine and you live yours. There's no point to debate.
Yes, Tim J I do it my way. Whats your point? Oh yeah, I do find it all amusing! I like the Sid Vicious version better than Franks. Cheers, Rob.

"I Did It My Way" - Hell's theme song.

I'm just living a lifestyle that I like. This is me... No one influenced me.
He's loved, he's laughed and cried. He's had his fill; his share of losing. And now, as tears subside, he finds it all so amusing.
To think he did all that; And may he say - not in a shy way, no, oh no not him, he did it his way.
For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught. To say the things he truly feels; and not the words of one who kneels. The record shows he took the blows - and did it his way!

Well, whatever Bill. What I'm trying to say or get across is I'm just living a lifestyle that I like. This is me. How do I determine what best is. Is this your question? Because Bill I puzzled by your last post. This is how I determine whats best or what I like for me. If I try something and I like it. I say yeah this is for me. Here's an example. I got married because I thought that was the "best" thing to do and the "best" for me. I found out though living my life that the "best" thing for me is to get a divorce. No one influenced me. I thought about it one day then called a divorce lawyer. What I found out is "Best" for me is being single. So in a nutshell how I found out whats "best" for me is to experience them through life. As they say "Life's the best teacher". And again I say I am not aiming for anything. I have no aims or "goals". I just live my life. I hope you can see that now. Again regards, Robert B.

I'm disappointed in you, Robert B. You walked right into an obvious trap. The last sentence of my first post still applies.

Bill, I should have said what's best for me. What's best for me not may be best for you. It's that simple. Yes, I know we can get into a whole debate as to what's best who decides what is best yada, yada, yada. On my off time I'm gonna do whats fun for me. And it may involve things that may not be fun for other people. But, as the saying goes "To each, their own." We can get into a debate as to what fun is too! I suppose? What I love? I love a good laugh, a good drink, a good time and fun women. As I said whats fun for me may not be fun for you. It's that simple. I do what I want and I've had for lots of years. So, Bill it's that simple. Regards, Robert B.

Bill, who said I was aiming for something? I just live my life,make my plans and just go with it. Naming Hitler and those guys is what? Supposed to scare me? I couldn't care less. I have no aim. I just live life. Go to work, eat, sleep, play. What more is there once you really think about it.
Regards, Robert B.

"Without influences of someone else telling us what to do, what is right and wrong", how do you determine what "best" is?

"I believe in just living life as best we can. Without influences of someone else telling us what to do, what is right and wrong."
That's not much to aim for. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Marquis de Sade, and any other monster of history you can name would have agreed with that.

Hi Tim J. I will tell you what I do believe. I believe in just living this life as best we can. Without influences of someone else telling us what to do, what is right and wrong. I have had christian friends and I didn't see anything different in their lives as compared to mine.
As an answer to Karl. I can see that you were some sort of catholic or christian or at least had some kind of christian education. Or you believe in god. That's why you feel heartbroken. I had no christian education or do I believe in a god. I feel nothing I am not heartbroken about leaving a church I had no ties to, to begin with. I really don't have time to waste on things I don't believe. Some people believe that Elvis is still alive and put all their energy into that. I have my life and I enjoy it. It's just finding out all these little things that I'm still attached to after my divorce. That had me thinking what else am I attached to without knowing it. That's how I came across the rcc and how to get rid of them. I do not have any contact with my ex wife, nor do I want to. Anyway, that's it in the smallest reponse I could get. Regards, Robert B.

As another person who wanted to formally defect from the Catholic Church, and did just that, I remain heartbroken that I felt that I was compelled to do it because it was the right thing to do.
I still believe that but I remain heartbroken.
This is just my two cents and needs no reply Robert and is written without any judgement.
Thanks.
By the way, I have never actually seen what is noted on my Baptismal Certificate. For that I am glad, although I hope it does say that I have so defected.
My one hope is that God forgives me in my desperate weakness.
As a university trained twice-degreed Chemistry major and Doctor of Chiropractic I see no "proof" that God
does not exist. Either way, I see it as a matter of faith. I like logic too, but still get lost when things are convoluted. I like simplicity.

Robert, you strike me as a very straightforward man, and I appreciate that. There are a lot of people who call themselves Catholic who believe almost nothing of what the Church really teaches, and that is very hypocritical, in my view. Either be a Catholic or don't, but don't play games.
Logic is a great thing. You have said a bit about what you don't believe, may I ask what you DO believe?

Hey thanks everyone. I just typed up my letter to ( third revision) the brooklyn diocese. Even though I don't know the church i was baptized in, I'm sure they will find it. I'll mail this out tomorrow. Again thanks for trying to help. Regards, Robert B

Hi Tim J.
Guess what you are right I just wrote a letter to the diocese of brooklyn. To tell them to get my nameoff the list. The only thing is, I don't know the church where I was baptized. All I know it was in brooklyn. My parents couldn't remember when I asked them years ago and my sister can't remember either. So, I guess they have to hunt it down or they should have a big general list of allthe names and just type it in the computer and it should pop up and that should be the end of that. BTW Tim the numbers thing is just something I thought about. Because I know lots of people who were baptized and don't ever go to church and I'm sure they are counted as members. Again that me. I like logical and correct things it's one of my quirks you can say. If things ain't correct in my life it just irks me ya know? And if they are not correct I like to get them that way. If I could. That's why I divorced my wife. Just fixing a mistake. Anyway, thanks again, regards, Robert B.

Robert -
I *believe* that what you would need to do is to contact the diocese in which you were last registered (probably the one in which you were baptized) and write a letter to the bishop making a formal declaration that you are no longer a Catholic.
If you have already done that, then you have nothing more you need to do.
BTW, nobody is handing out awards to the religion with the most adherents, so your thinking there is just - in all charity - somewhat bizarre.

Hi again everyone.
I was thinking about what I have said and I thought I went off track. So, now I'm gonna get back on track and ask what I want to know. After all this thing is called "Formal Defection". I will stick to the facts. The facts are: The number one fact is, I do not consider myself a catholic and or a christian. Now, to the other fatcs. I was baptized as an infant in some church in Brooklyn, N.Y. Later I had my first communion (by the pestering of my Aunt to my mother.) in some church in Queens, N.Y. I never had my confirmation. (matter of fact I found out about such a thing from my ex wife when I was in my mid-20's.) So, I'm guessing that my name is on the baptism list of that church or the "HQ" of the rcc and my name must be on the first communion list of that church or the "HQ" of the rcc. Am I right? Or am I wrong? I don't know these answers. Inbetween these times I never went to church, nor did my family. Let me rephrase that. My family did go to church for weddings, funerals, baptisms and first communions. But never, never, ever! Did my parents go to church on a regular sunday that did not involve weddings, funerals, baptisms and first communions. I got married by the justice of the peace. Then later divorced by a bunch of lawyers and a judge. Anyway, in all this time I have never went to any rcc. Nor, am I a member of any rcc. So, does the rcc still count me as a member? If yes, how do I formally defect? Like I said before I like clean breaks. Again unfortunatly I am stuck with my ex wife through the stupid social security law. If nothing can be done about getiing off these lists, then I guess I'm gonna have to live with it begrudgingly though. And the on the other side of the coin is that if there are such lists and it's impoosible to get your name off them then the rcc misleads people as to how many people are really in the rcc. But, that's another topic. This is just my pet peeve I guess. But as I have said I like clean breaks. Anyway, thanks for your time. Regards, Robert B.

Hi Memphis Aggie
You see that's the point there never will be "a just in case." As for old girl friends, they are forgotten. The "only ifs" I've ever had were only if I didn't get married. I'm not much into sentimentals. So, you're telling me that some one the rcc excommunicates can get back in? If they chose to. There are only things I'm sorry about. I'm sorry my parents baptized me. Then get me to make my communion. They should have left me alone. I'm sorry I got married. That's the biggest mistake! Not because of the big, bad, mighty rcc. No for me I found out that I'm better off alone. and just getting off these lists will make me feel better as I have said numerous times I am not a catholic or a christian. I'm a guy with a quirky idea of getting rid of garbage. Getting rid of things I don't need. The extent of my catholic/christian life was being baptized at a church my parents didn't attend nor did they ever attend church not even christmas or easter. Then I made my first communion I just had it done. Didn't attend church, neither did my parents. My parents never gave weekly contributions to any church. The only time my family was in a church was for a wedding or a funeral. So, if you count being baptized and having your first communion without going to church a catholic then I guess there are gazillions of catholics out there. That's why I want to get my name off the baptism and first communion lists. Because those have to be the only lists I'm on. I never went to a catholic church. Except for weddings, funerals and baptisms. I never went to the rcc for like a regular sunday church thing. I never got up early on a sunday morning got my suit on and went to church. It's not my upbringing. So anyway is there still anybody out there who knows anything about these lists and how to get off them? Please let me know. Regards, Rob.

Hi Robert,
Think of it this way. Have you ever had an old girlfriend whose memory makes you say if only ...? Or imagine a lonely mother who has lost contact with a grown son. The Church longs for you like that, so it remembers you and keeps the light on, just in case.

I don't want anyone's goat. I maintain all the lists and you've never been on any list. Some name you might think to be you may be on a list, but that's not you.

That is a troll, trying to get your goat, Robert B. Ignore the jerk.

There are names on lists, but unless you are a name, you are not on any list.
WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN????? I bet you, you cannot explain what you just said.

I know these lists are out there. Just getting off them is the problem.
There are names on lists, but unless you are a name, you are not on any list.

Memphis Aggie is right. What Vesa said carries no weight. I don't believe nor do I care what happens when I die. When I'm dead I'll be totally free from all this nonsense that goes on in life. There is no need for the church or a god. Just like I have no need for an ex wife but unfortunatly there will always be a connection there. Through the social security. I just wanna know why can't there be clean breaks? I see it as really simple, but everyone has to put more on it than there really is. I have seen a lot in my life and after a lot of thought I don't believe. It's really that simple. Therefore it makes sense to me that if I don't believe, I should have my nice neat package of cutting ties. And I would think that the rcc would agree with me. I'm sure they wouldn't want to have a bunch of non believers counted as believers. Unless they are just going for numbers. Just counting everyone who was baptized or what have you and never went to church again. Does anyone get what I mean. I know if I ran some sort of organization and someone who was in it, then decided not to be in it. I would let them go in a moments notice. Why have dead wood lying around? I guess I have my quirks. I like things neat and tidy. You should see how neat and organized my apartment is. If I had to move I could pack up my things in a moments notice and be on my way. and doing it all by myself to boot! But funny enough getting back to organization and having all the right papers as someone had just posted. I do not own my baptism or first communion papers. I would definitly know if I had them. Anyway, I guess this is fruitless, just like the social security thing. I can't change that either. I wish I could. Just for the record I am NOT mad at the rcc or it's people or god for that matter. How can I be mad at a church I know nothing about and how can I be mad at people I never met and how can I be mad at a god/spiritual being that doesn't exist? If any of you on this blog think so, then you have read FAR too much into what I'm trying to do. I know I have made mistakes in life. Now, I'm just trying to fix them. Again, it's just that simple. So, I have come to the conclusion that none of you guys on this blog know how to get my name off baptism, first communion lists. I know these lists are out there. Just getting off them is the problem. Just like a "roach motel" I guess. You can check in but you can't check out. Maybe that will get someone off their fanny and give me the correct info. Thanks anyway. Rob.

Vesa,
I avoided that argument because, although I believe it, I'm sure Robert B does not - so it carries little weight with him and may be the kind of argument that causes him to disengage entirely. That said, your statement may be more correct one Biblically because to warn another of the danger preserves yourself from sin (I think that's explicitly in Jeremiah).
What I am hoping to encourage is what I view as the first crucial step toward any conversion which is simply the lack of active resentment toward the Church or God or in other words an open mind, characterized by a lack of hostility. It might not sound like much but that's where I started. In fact I was in the second stage, in that I had an outsiders appreciation of the value of faith, for years before I had any faith myself.

The only clean break in this life...
Robert B,
Continue the path you are on and I can assure you that the "clean break" you are after will inevitably happen -- although it will not be realized in this life, but in the one to come.
The "clean break" will be one that you will wish did not occur; for when that event ultimately happens, the eternity afforded by this "clean break" in the life to come cannot be undone.

Robert B,
I think I get it, you like the neat and tidy unambiguous break. Hot or cold, not at all lukewarm. Sounds great, but nothing in this life is that clean or perfect, the baggage of the past is carried on no matter what you do. You can seek to reduce the effects of the past, forget about it, or move on, but that's it. The only clean break in this life is for the faithful, i.e. Baptism. Even reconciliation has links to the past through penance and reparation.
Or another way of putting my long winded spiel is: "that'd be nice but it doesn't work that way".

Robert B,
Your analogies are working just fine. And I think Pascal answers most of your questions in the Pensees. If anyone gets what you're saying, it's probably him.

As Esquire correctly put it: "All the Persons who really matter have copies of it..."
I think the capital P was intentional.
Vesa also got it right: "PRAY!"

Ok I guess no one understands what I'm trying to say. I don't own any papers from the rcc so, I have to assume that those papers don't exist and since I never was a member of any church, I again would have to assume there is no list with my name on it and just forget it. You see this started a while ago when I found out that my ex wife will get some kind of cut from social security when I die. And that really bothered me. Then I started thinking about where else am I linked to that I am not involved with anymore and I thought about the rcc. So, again it's about clean breaks. I love 'em they are so final. It's kind of a thing with me I guess you guys won't understand that. And to think that my ex wife and the rcc are still connected t me even in a small way irks me. Why can't anything be final? To me things being final are like neat little packages. that you can just drop off and lose. Does anybody out there get that? Well, Like when you leave a job, you don't want anything to do with your old job at your new job, right. I don't know if my analogies are working here. So, I guess I have to just live out my life and forget about these things. I'm just a kind of neat freak and I like things that I'm done with to be gone. I've done it with other aspects of my life. I guess it's all "paper trails" as some say. I would just not like to have paper trails with anything I'm done with. So, I guess I just have to end this idea of having my name removed from things I'm not part of anymore. Thanks for your time.

The clean break you're looking for Robert is forgiveness. If you could forgive the Church you would worry less about the connection , just like if you could forgive your ex you would not begrudge her a little money after you die.
That said, I fully understand the lack of faith; I was an atheist/agnostic for 37 years. I understand that the outside pressuring may be a big part of why you left. Worship should be sincere or it's not really worship. I suggest you try to detach your self from any lingering resentment for your childhood experiences in the Church. Your Aunt and zealots like us may come on too strong but we really do mean well.