Getting de- Baptized

Did you read the article, Max?



It remains to be seen, [also in the article] just what this means in a legal sense. But for a guy who has become really disillusioned with the RC church, this may well be a political action that he feels is necessary to wake up the RC hierarchy.

Rumors of declining church enrollment are not near as devastating as stats which show that people have clearly divorced themselves from an organization.

They are not clinging to him, though. According to the article in your initial post, they attested that he left the church through his own initiative. What he's now asking, however, is that the church is re-writing history for him. It is a historical fact that they baptized him 70 years ago. They cannot change this historical fact.

I agree. Out of curiosity, what happens when a marriage is annulled---for example, when it later turns out that one of the partners was already married? Do the records of the old marriage get thrown away or "addended"? I think whatever they do with annulled marriages, that's what they should do with annulled baptisms.

I can see the guy's viewpoint.
And others' opposing viewpoints.
I'm not all that interested, hostile as I can be when I read what my long ago religion has been up to, not only recently, but long in the past. But I'm not always hostile, I've known many Catholics and several fine priests - I think - that I considered really good humans.

I'm pretty doubtful my name is on some giant list of multiple millions of catholic baptisms. Would I expunge if it were and if I could? I don't think so. It made my parents happy at a happy time. Let it be.

Those early decades are part of who I am, one way or another. I'm a tad reactive about them, but they are also my own history.

I can see the guy's viewpoint.
And others' opposing viewpoints.
I'm not all that interested, hostile as I can be when I read what my long ago religion has been up to, not only recently, but long in the past. But I'm not always hostile, I've known many Catholics and several fine priests that I considered really good humans.

I'm pretty doubtful my name is on some giant list of multiple millions of catholic baptisms. Maybe it's in fading ink on aging paper in some diocesan moldy basement. Would I expunge if it were and if I could? I don't think so. It made my parents very happy at a happy time for them, not many days before Pearl Harbor when their and other peoples' life changed. Let it be.

Those early decades are part of who I am, one way or another. I'm a tad reactive about them, but they are also my own history.

You're right that that historical fact cannot ever be changed, Thomas [unless of course, he asks the US government, [thee master in distorting/changing historical fact] to help him. He's not asking for the historical facts to be changed. He just wants the record expunged - I would guess to show his dissatisfaction with the RCC.

If they are intent upon maintaining an accurate historical record, maybe they would allow him to record the reasons for his leaving in the addenda.

I wonder how good their records are on number of children molested, number of cover ups by higher ups to hide all this.

My understanding is that people who go through the trouble of annulling a marriage do so because they want to remain in the church (and perhaps have the church approve of their new marriage). Once you decide to leave the church, why would you care at all whether the church approved of your divorce or not? I am not a part of the church and I certainly don't care.

This is why annulling a baptism doesn't make any sense to me.

I was just thinking, I was baptized twice in my youth into denominations that don't accept each other. I suppose I am probably on two lists. Technically I am still saved with the Baptists who believe once saved always saved. I haven't believed in salvation for many many years and I don't see why I should care.

If after my death I find out there is actually a heaven when I wake up there, I suppose I won't complain.

Do you dispute this, you little cowards?

I've pretty much said my say. I am not for the status quo in this regard. On the other hand, they have not captured my spirit in little black box and so I can move on, unfettered when my notion gets rejected. I have never been baptized, even in error. For which I can thank only luck.

I think making an entry in the official record saying you left the church would be a much bigger statement than making the entry fail to exist. I think the church as met its obligations if he is not on the role of any church. That his baptism exists on a church record someplace is a matter of history. I don't know if we have any knowlegable Catholics around, but I thought if a marriage was annulled, that didn't mean all records of it were erased. I thought both the marriage and the annulment stayed on the books.

The majority of people baptized - I would think - are also confirmed.
The confirmation is your acceptance of the baptism, which your parents choose for you.
Would it not be logical to first get de-confirmed and then de-baptized?

There are religious fundametalists. but certainly also fundametalist in atheism.

I'd be interested to know what you consider a fundamentalist atheist to be. There are people who seem to make a religion of their atheism, the so-called "strong" atheists who are not saying simply that they don't believe, but rather who contend that no god exists. Is that what you have in mind?

If that's the kind he means, he means me.

Two adults married within the religion and they divorced, is one thing. An infant gets baptized without its consent is entirely different.

Well, i'm not even certain that one could call a strong atheist a "fundamentalist." To my mind, you'd need the kind of atheist who goes around trying to shove their ideas down other peoples' throats, which is how i see religious fundamentalists acting. I'd be interested to know what Saab meant, but when i posted, it was about dinner time in Sweden.

Way I see it, atheists are as varied as the religious. Some are bound to be fundamentalists.

I think the uncertainty may well come from the ambiguity of words like "fundamentalist" or "radical". Literally, they mean no more than "pertaining to fundaments" and "pertaining to roots", respectively. In a broader sense, though, they have acquired the additional connotation of "crazy" or "fanatic". It is perfectly possible to be a fundamentalist or radical atheist in the first sense but not in the second---in which case there's really nothing wrong with being a fundamentalist. On the other hand, I can't see how you can be one kind of fundamentalist Christian and not the other. Nobody but crazy fanatics can adhere literally to the fundaments of Christianity, as described by Leviticus, Paul, and friends.

In some places where the Church held dominance baptismal records used to serve as de facto birth records.

'used to' being the operative words there, I think, Infra.

Given this man's age it's possible that his baptismal record serves as a kind of birth certificate.

At any rate, given the fact that baptismal records were used in this capacity they do have significant importance.