A letter from the Cardinal

by ZJ — 28 February 2010

Last month, I officially resigned from the Roman Catholic Church. I haven't been to church in several years, and I no longer follow Catholicism or Christianity (not that I really believed it to begin with). However, the Catholic church has an odd policy regarding who they consider a Catholic. If you've been baptized in a Catholic church, as I was, the church counts you as a member for life even if you stop attending. The only way to have this reversed is to formally defect, notifying the bishop of your local diocese that you've left the church. After yet another preposterous moral pronouncement from the pope, I decided to do just that:

Cardinal Francis George
c/o Archdiocese of Chicago
835 N. Rush St.
Chicago, IL 60611-2030

Declaration of Defection from the Roman Catholic Church

I, --------, do hereby give formal notice of my defection from the Roman Catholic Church. I do not consider myself part of the church, and I have not attended or donated to any church since 2004. I do not believe in God, the divinity or resurrection of Jesus, the immaculate conception or assumption of Mary, or the Holy Ghost. I am an atheist and have been working to promote skepticism of religion since 2008.

I am especially repulsed by the church's teachings regarding homosexuality. I reject the notion that homosexual desires or the expression of these desires are in any way sinful, disordered, or an "intrinsic moral evil." On the contrary, the church's continual mistreatment of gay people is the true moral evil at work here.

It was a moral evil for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, of which you are president, to donate $200,000 to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California. It was a moral evil for the church to collect over $500,000 and then waste it all to stop gay people from marrying in Maine. And it is a moral evil for Pope Benedict to lie to the world and claim that gay people threaten the survival of humanity.

When the church forbids gay people from ever loving one another and tells them their very love is wrong and an offense against God, I cannot see this as anything but evil. As a gay man, I have witnessed firsthand the incalculable damage you've done to the human spirit, the wounds borne by the casualties of your war on gay lives. The poisonous dogma of the church is responsible for so much suffering and anguish, I am ashamed to ever have been known as a Catholic.

As such, I cannot in good conscience allow myself to be counted as a member of the church. I will not be part of an organization that is working every day to inflict misery upon my friends. Please record that I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I would appreciate written confirmation of this request.

Sincerely,

--------

A few weeks later, I received a reply:

Dear Mr. --------,

Response from Cardinal Francis George

I have received your declaration of defection from the Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry for the pain and hurt that I sense beneath your anger.

In proclaiming her teaching about the nature of human sexuality, it is not the intention of the Catholic Church to damage the human spirit or wage "war on gay lives." We demand that all people be treated with respect and dignity, including persons with a homosexual orientation.

What the Church does publicly challenge is the growing prevalence of a moral relativism and a cultural and individual narcissism that says, "If I want it, it must be my right...I alone know what is best for me." Such an attitude dismisses divine revelation and centuries of moral teaching and conventional wisdom, without ever considering them or attempting to understand the truths they contain. Therefore, we oppose the political agenda that seems to move well beyond securing human rights and dignity to glorifying a person's sexual orientation to the extent that it becomes the core of their identity. This is a terrible diminishment of any human person. "Gay" is, at best, one of many adjectives that describe someone; sexual orientation is not a person's full essence. For the Church not to question those who have forgotten this truth, including those who are homosexual, out of some misguided sense of political correctness would be to fail them in love - and that would be true discrimination. The Church has an obligation to be faithful in her witness to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who invites all to a life of discipleship that begins with a call to conversion, which is never an easy call for anyone to hear.

Mr. --------, with regret I will comply with your request and have your declaration noted in your baptismal record at -------- Church and a copy of your statement kept with this baptismal register. I trust you have made this declaration freely, without coercion of any kind, and clearly understand that leaving the Catholic Church makes you ineligible to receive the sacraments and that you will no longer be entitled to a Catholic burial. Since baptism is an action of Christ himself, no one can undo that; but officially you have left the Church.

I see from your birth date that you will soon be twenty-one years old. That is an age of great passion and idealism. While I appreciate your honesty, sometimes as we age, the vagary of the world and its ambiguities seem to increase, and things no longer look so black and white. Should you ever wish to return to the Catholic faith, the Church would welcome you home. I will pray for you as you continue your journey. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Chicago

I think it's great that he actually read it—I assume they don't receive many defection notices. He seemed to understand that I don't agree with the church at all, and it looks like he was just clarifying his position: people aren't supposed to figure out what's right and wrong for themselves, the church will decide that for them. It's interesting that he essentially admitted the church is engaging in a political battle, though it's odd that he would downplay the significance of sexual orientation when the church is so dedicated to opposing certain sexual orientations in practice, i.e. gay relationships and the legal recognition thereof. If it shouldn't be such a big deal to us, I don't see why it should be such a big deal to them (and if it would somehow overemphasize sexual orientation for gay couples to have the same rights as straight couples, why aren't straight couples similarly "diminished" by having those same rights?). Regardless, I appreciate that the Cardinal took the time to respond, and as he's acknowledged my defection, our business is concluded.

If you've ever been a part of the Catholic church, and you'd like them to stop counting you as a member, here's how to defect. It may seem trivial, but if you don't support what the church is doing, this is a good way to make your disapproval known. It's already inspired at least one other member of my family to formally leave the church.

Filed under , ,

51 comments (hide) RSS feed for comments on this post

TA
28 Feb 2010 14:22 | Quote
Defecting from the Mormon Church is about the same method, too. Though I heard letters don't work, that they want to interview you now.
Fabiooltje
28 Feb 2010 14:23 | Quote
Wow! Congratulations on leaving the church. Good luck with your OWN yourney through your life, finding out for yourself what standards YOU want to follow and which things YOU value.
I also appreciate that he wrote you a letter back, but I sure agree with you and not with him!
chalkers
28 Feb 2010 14:57 | Quote
My wife and I haven't had an official letter back from the mormons yet.

I go in to detail in these posts -
http://atheismisgood.com/2007/08/15/the-pa...-of-an-atheist/
http://atheismisgood.com/2007/10/04/the-pa...heist---update/

As you can see the dates are within 2007 and now it's 2010.

I am pleased the Catholics have been speedy with your request ZJ.
Infidel753
28 Feb 2010 15:11 | Quote
A well-written letter, and it's cool that he read it, but did he really address you as "Mr."?

I've noticed that religionists usually "sense" that "hurt" and "pain" and "anger" in anybody who doesn't believe their ghost stories.....You're just irrationally upset, you emotional little thing, you.

And it's funny that an all-out fight against legal equality is transmuted into opposing an alleged "glorifying" of something. I guess the Jim Crow laws were just opposed to glorifying dark skin.

I had never heard of this formal defection process and I suspect most people haven't. If it were better known, the Church would likely be inundated with such letters.
Patrick
28 Feb 2010 15:45 | Quote
Wow, a personal reply. Given the track record of catholic arrogance, I'd have expected them to force you to jump to through more bureaucratic loops or at least try some intimidation.
Alex
28 Feb 2010 16:01 | Quote
"While I appreciate your honesty, sometimes as we age, the vagary of the world and its ambiguities seem to increase, and things no longer look so black and white."

- No, I am pretty sure your church uses archaic and non intelligible methods of knowing things. That comment kind of frusterates me; but whatever. At least he did reply, that's good.
dove
28 Feb 2010 16:02 | Quote
wow he actually read it, and responded? it was a well written letter kudos to you. Its like I always say when I do speaking gigs its not just enough for us to be seen we also have to be heard, and when we speak we have to be eloquent in our words or we will be written off as a bunch of hysterical queens.
atheist evolution
28 Feb 2010 17:31 | Quote
Well done. I have followed you on Youtube and have respect for the things that you say and the hate that you have to endure because of the moral courage that you show in saying it.

I too will be defecting and asking for excommunication very shortly as a part of an upcoming project that I hope will spread the word that we find the sort of things that you spoke of in your letter completely unacceptable, immoral and evil.

We done

Peace
Anonymous
28 Feb 2010 18:37 | Quote
It says in your letter you are a gay man, but looking at your picture, I see a young girl. Are you a transsexual? Or is it just a random fake picture?
Infidel753
28 Feb 2010 19:47 | Quote
ZJ -- My apologies for the "did he address you as Mr." comment. I missed the reference to your gender in the letter, and going by the picture in the sidebar (I only just discovered your blog), I assumed you were female and was puzzled by the salutation in the reply. Since you did say you were a gay man, the Cardinal's pronouncements about homosexuality come across as all the more clueless.
Anonymous
28 Feb 2010 19:50 | Quote
"and clearly understand that leaving the Catholic Church makes you ineligible to receive the sacraments and that you will no longer be entitled to a Catholic burial."

Awesome bonus!!!!
another athiest
28 Feb 2010 20:18 | Quote
I'm married (not gay) but we chose not to have kids. No need to ADD to all our resource issues. Love and support all the others in our circle of friends. In this small sense we have a "gay marriage" and it probably causes the same concerns for those in the church who worry about such an unnatural life choice as ours. I'm puzzled at the reasons used by the church to deny rights to gays, yet they don't seem to be too vocal toward us. This tells me they are mostly just fearful. (Fear that stops them seeing "love" and "commitment" ???) I sense the church's fear of losing the authority they still have with some people.

Anyway, i've followed your tweets and videos - I find them thought provoking. Now I have to think: Hey! was I baptized?

-Andy
Anonymous
28 Feb 2010 21:39 | Quote
Somehow religious people seem to always manage to inject a final bit of condescension when addressing an atheist. That "welcome you home" pushes a couple of my buttons... makes me want to tell them go to their precious home and not come out. By the way, notice how the bishop never addresses the specific grievances of using hundreds of thousands of dollars on harebrained and malicious political campaigns, when the money could have gone to something useful.
simultaneous
28 Feb 2010 23:04 | Quote
seems like he has a point. Marriage is a religious institution and they should try to protect it. Fact of the matter is that government should not recognize marriage, since is is a religious institution. Gays in general are trying to gain cultural and moral acceptance by that is not accorded to them by religious scruples. Not that I necessarily agree with the position, but leaving the church is really a meaningless act. I have always wonder if theosophy could be applied to this problem. Picking sides really doesn't solve anything
Anonymous
1 Mar 2010 00:24 | Quote
Well, you did get a read from him. ZJ, you ARE influential and they ARE listening. I know that there are many within the Roman Catholic Church among the clergy and the hierarchy who DO agree with us on sexual orientation issues but are afraid to speak out about it. THIS DOES NOT ABSOLVE THEM! They are like the 'Good Germans' who refused to speak up against Hitler and as such, morally bereft. Whether you believe Y'Shua Bin Yusef was God or not, he was nonetheless a great teacher and he had some rather HARSH things to say about people who were wishy-washy. You are certainly NOT that. Keep up the good work!
bez
1 Mar 2010 00:32 | Quote
I defected from Dunkin Donuts. Sent them a letter. They sent me back a coupon book that gives me a free coffee and donut every day for a month. I think they're trying to keep me hooked on sugar and caffeine. Mmm, donuts, looks like I failed at defection.
Jim Jasion
1 Mar 2010 00:53 | Quote
Sorry, I forgot to identify myself in "Good Germans" comment up above. Jim Jasion from South River NJ, soon to write my own defection letter. ZJ. Again, you inspire and influence a lot of people.... for the good.

Jim
Ivan
1 Mar 2010 06:58 | Quote
Did anyone expect anything different than outright lies and condescending wishy washy from a cardinal?

I got some laughs out of his letter though:
"We demand that all people be treated with respect and dignity, including persons with a homosexual orientation." Yeah, riiight :D
The long history of equality brought to you by Christianity TM must have slipped my mind.

"Such an attitude dismisses divine revelation and centuries of moral teaching and conventional wisdom" = 'Rational thinking dismisses superstitiousness, centuries of doctrine and 2k years old wisdom ' Oh noes! :D
And he says that, after accusing you for knowing yourself what's best for you *facepalm*

He then assumes that LGBT people are that way to spite the church and that not forcing heterosexuality on them would be the real fail :D

"Since baptism is an action of Christ himself, no one can undo that" = 'our records may say otherwise, but my invisible friend will always remember, ALWAYS!' :D

oh please, it's so easy to look right through his eloquence

btw, with our european data protection act, I could legally demand that the church destroys any records it has of me (if it would have such)
Jess
1 Mar 2010 19:12 | Quote
Hi!
I have been wondering myself how to leave the R.C.C. for some years now, though never bothered to formally research it. I was so pleased when my friend shared this page with me ^_^ I enjoyed reading your well-written letter of defection. As a member of the Church (still, ugh) , I am embarrassed on their behalf at the presumptuous nature in which the response was written. However, I am pleasantly surprised to see that your letter was in fact read, acknowledged, elicited a response, and was effective at defection! Congrats.

Jess
RC
3 Mar 2010 07:24 | Quote
I, for one, am sorry you left the Church. Obviously, as they did many people of our generation, those people around you failed to pass on the Truth, left you to fend for yourself. Because of this, the possibility of your conversion - that is, a change of heart from love of the false to love of the truth, from embracing vice to embracing virtue - decreases with this sort of act: it's like getting a tattoo on your face of something that is really important to you now - but, realistically, will not be important for your future. (Think the Zune guy).

No matter what you become, what you may wish to become, every morning you would have to look at this tattoo on your face. Psychologically, you will either remain in your immaturity, holding on to this bit of foolishness as a 'defining' characteristic, or you will come to reject it and want it off your face.

While having "same sex attraction" is part of someone's natural face, to continue with the metaphor, being "gay" is a little like that tattoo: a sign of immaturity, a thing one can get psychologically stuck on.

Really, whether it's SSA or OSA (opposite sex attraction), the Christian message is that this narcissistic desire (to do what you want, when you want, with whoever you want, and damn the consequences - i.e. lust) must be 'taken up' into a higher rational order. Otherwise, you're no better than an animals, and certainly very much unlike God (God, who is Good, wants you to be like him - He's given you an intellect and will and a body and the ability to love and suffer and act - all things that He Himself can do. He also gave you free will, just like He Himself has.).

The proper order of sexuality is called chastity - that is, self-control. For some, this means marital chastity, where both proper ends of sexuality, procreation (God loves creation, and wants you to participate in it) and the firmer binding of the spouses in acts of self-giving (God is all about self-giving - think of Jesus's sacrifice), are respected. (So, in a marriage, if you use condoms, you reject the procreative end of sexual intercourse - making the act not-like-God's, and if you are bad in bed, or don't give yourself to your spouse, or commit an infidelity to your spouse, your acts are also not-like-God's).

For the rest of us, it means 'regular' chastity - that is, the self-mastery and self-control required to sublimate the sexual drive into other impulses that are creative and ordered towards a good ends. For some, it's celibacy - which allows the end of the sexual drive to be towards greater love of neighbor (rather than focused on a particular spouse).

Chastity is very hard, but a worthy effort. Personally, in my journey for self-mastery, I have to say a rosary daily and pray frequently for the strength to avoid temptations (like porn or the easy access to old girlfriends, or whatever) - other things don't work that well.

I will pray for you, and hope you may find conversion and come at last to lasting happiness.
Stutz
4 Mar 2010 04:26 | Quote
"those people around you failed to pass on the Truth, left you to fend for yourself."

Nice, RC. Nobody's heard that one before. Every time somebody disagrees with a religion, it's never "True" religion, is it? It's always man's corruption or something, but not "real" Christianity. Apparently the official positions of the Catholic Church as presided over by the various Popes over the centuries weren't ever the True way, but the great RC is the one who really, finally, gets it right, and if you'd just understand it as RC does, why, then, you'd know the Truth!

And I see that the old stand-by of the "without church guidance, everyone's a promiscuous narcissist" straw man argument is still going strong. Because the only reason people wouldn't want to be Christian believers would obviously be just so that they can go about their self-centered lives of free sex, drugs, and frequent abortions without consequence! Funny, because I find that it's generally the Catholics who are outrageously preoccupied with sexual dysfunction, and the regular folks who generally have healthy, balanced sex lives. Also funny: your precious rosary and obsession with self-mastery sound remarkably like "a sign of immaturity, a thing one can get psychologically stuck on" in exactly the same way you condescendingly describe the gay identity!

I was enjoying this post and thoughtful comments until RC tossed in this vacuous pap. Kudos to the bishop, actually, for turning out to be far closer to what I hope a "true" Catholic should act like than RC here.
ZJ
4 Mar 2010 04:53 | Quote
>>844

Being attracted to men, or women, is not 'a sign of immaturity'; describing people's sexual orientations as such is just inaccurate and wrong, not to mention offensive. Comparing being gay to a "tattoo on your face" is honestly one of the silliest things I have ever heard. On top of all of that, it's quite amusing that you would attempt to draw some kind of distinction between 'same sex attraction' and being gay. There is no difference. Really, if you believe everything you just said, you're going to have a much harder time going through life with the metaphorical tattoo of your beliefs etched upon your face.
RC
4 Mar 2010 05:28 | Quote
@Stutz - actually, the Popes and Councils and the saints seemed to have gotten it right. My contention, implied by the bit about 'our generation', was that since the 60s the underlying message has been submerged in the wider culture-clasm. We didn't hear what the Church has been saying, sadly.

You went a little off the deep end there, rhetorically: I hardly said what you quote there or what you then proceeded to surmise. The observation that the disordered use of the natural function is not good predates Aristotle as far as I know (who in turn predates Christianity), but found a fair bit of clarity with him. I certainly don't claim that's the only reason, it's often one of the more common ones in this day and age, and with this audience.

I'd hardly call it an obsession, since I don't spend much time thinking about it, but I will say self-control is a learned behavior that takes some practice. If you must use a prejorative, you could call it unnatural in the sense that it's probably not what I'd be doing if I weren't convinced it's the right thing to do.

@ZJ - Please note that "gay" is a political designation - obviously, since the term itself is used rhetorically (happy? seriously...), it has no referend otherwise. This is contrasted with "Homosexual", which is probably neutral while being technically accurate, or "having SSA" is closer to the underlying truth - the former implies a choice, the latter implies something that you didn't have much of a choice about. That said, what you do about it is still your choice. So, my point with the metaphor was that "having SSA", or "being homosexual" are part of one's face - but identifying oneself as "gay" is like that tattoo.

p.s. Just so you all know, the only reason I'm here is that I ran across the author leaving the Church, which I found sad. I didn't really care the whys and wherefores of the specific disagreement with the Church (I've certainly had my share of them - and only with age and experience did I come to realize I was wrong), my desire (badly executed, I'm sure) was to point out only that the position the Church takes is neither unthinking or unthought out.
Stutz
5 Mar 2010 00:12 | Quote
Well, thanks for the response RC. My point in the first paragraph was to put you in kind of a bind -- that as a Catholic, either you support the positions of the church, or you claim to know better. I think that supporting the church is not necessarily the better option in the opinion of most of the readers of an article like this, even if some of the less controversial "love thy neighbor"-type messages are palatable.

I realize you didn't say what I quoted in my second paragraph. I thought it was clear that I was giving a name to the straw man argument, that your point about "narcissistic desires" clearly echoed, in my opinion. And I think you've justified my opinion by saying "I certainly don't claim that's the only reason, it's often one of the more common ones in this day and age, and with this audience." The implication, as I read it, being that a narcissistic disordered use of the natural function is common amongst the youth/homosexuals/atheists? Kind of condescending, like the tone of your original comment -- not quite fully, but just vaguely condescending, in a crafty sort of way.

I will agree that the position of the Church is neither unthinking nor unthought-out, as the fields of theology and apologetics attest to. Doesn't make it rational, obviously.
RC
5 Mar 2010 07:08 | Quote
I don't want to litter up your thread with my responses, but I literally just ran across (StumbleUpon'd, in fact) an article that I think is somewhat pertinent (it's sourced, but I don't know the bias of the writer - he's definitely not Catholic (Sikh if anything), appears to be a cognitive psychologist who doesn't particularly have a horse in the race, but you can make your own judgment).

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-33477-C...-why-it-matters

Which reminded me of this one I ran across after I had responded last night - definitely a more accurate presentation of the central facts of the position of the Church than I was able to give - my intent was to be as much evocative as accurate.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features201...ity_mar2010.asp

Points #1 and #2 you'll dismiss out-of-hand, I think - using whatever arguments you might use with yourself that are not rooted in "narcissistic desires" ;-)**. But specifically take a good look at #3 and #4. After that, you might give a second glance up and rereading #1 and #2. Doing this, I think, puts the entire thing in a more palatable context.

**@Stutz: I guess I would be curious to know what the arguments that homosexual-behavior-is-a-good-thing are, outside of something narcissistic. As far as I know, the stronger underlying arguments (beneath the sound-and-fury) are grounded in (that is, they can be decomposed into) one of two ways, both of which I think are provably wrong (I don't intend to set up straw-men here, I literally have never seen an argument which doesn't presuppose something below):

- "if I'm born this way, it must be natural and everything natural is good": still questionable given the first part, and false due to the last part of the syllogism. Even if you reject the notion of a 'fallen' world, you have to acknowledge that not all natural things are good - deprivation of eyesight, for instance, is bad, but happens naturally. A more accurate analogy (and I'm not implying having SSA is a psychiatric condition - the jury is still out regarding the whys and wherefores) might be manic depression - also natural, not good - a manic depressive usually has the cognitive ability to choose to seek treatment for the effects of the disease or not, but might decide that the manic phase is more valuable than normalcy (it's not, there are contingent, serious detrimental effects, both to themselves, and to the people around them).

or

-"what I choose is what's right for me" - based in moral relativism which has no logical grounding, and fails under several trivial examples I'm sure you can come up with.

(The other arguments I come up with I classify firmly in the narissistic realm, that is the hedonistic argument: "if it feels good, do it". I think most people must agree that this fails as a philosophy on trivial examples. Other narcissistic arguments are "this is who I am"(="if I'm this way, then it must be good"), "this is who I choose to be" - but in effect, it's much more than that: somehow the rest of us must roll over and cater to it - permit the adoption of children, recognize soi-disant marriages, and either pretend publicly that what one does has no negative social effects, or at least be silent about them, to not 'hurt feelings'.

A pretext one might use would try to turn it around as say "what's the harm in what I do with another consenting adult in privacy", but this is also rooted in a flawed ethics: ask, instead, "what's the good?", and you get hedonism. That said, social harms are not often talked about, but can be seen and reasoned out, I'd rather not run through a list.

Anyway, I'm going to go dark on this thread (I'll check back a couple of times), unless something jumps out which would be criminal to not respond to (i.e. silence does not equal consent to the followups :-). Thanks for the responses Stutz, and again, ZJ, I'll pray. I wish you well.
ZJ
5 Mar 2010 07:31 | Quote
I feel I should point out that people object to your description of being gay as somehow "narcissistic" because it's just not accurate. There's just nothing narcissistic about it -- it doesn't align with the actual meaning of narcissism. That inaccuracy is why people are more likely to perceive your use of it as an attempt at unjustly maligning their sexual orientation. Homosexuality is no more a "narcissistic desire" than heterosexuality.

Further, homosexuality is not something that needs to be defended or justified as good. That is, we're under no obligation to prove to you why our sexual orientation is acceptable -- if you consider it objectionable, it's up to you to make the case for why that should be so. Those who aim to make that case have thus far failed. Most obviously, working from your two arguments above, those who object to moral relativism are still unable to prove why any claimed absolute morality actually is absolute (and an assertion of moral absolutism does not mean this really is the case).

And by the way: Trying to reverse the harm principle to imply that something is only acceptable if a "good" results from it, only transforms it into an ethically meaningless and unproductive criterion. If something is not causing harm, why should there be any need to justify or defend it?
Claz
7 Mar 2010 03:08 | Quote
Good on leaving the church, and you are certainly right on all accounts. This is a political issue; always has been.
I am intrigued by the father's position, here: "Therefore, we oppose the political agenda that seems to move well beyond securing human rights and dignity to glorifying a person's sexual orientation to the extent that it becomes the core of their identity. This is a terrible diminishment of any human person. "Gay" is, at best, one of many adjectives that describe someone; sexual orientation is not a person's full essence."

That is a great point, but then he goes back into the old "dogma will cure it" and "we have a duty to be a**holes" and I lose him.

I am sympathetic when he recognizes the prevalence of, "individual narcissism that says, "If I want it, it must be my right...I alone know what is best for me." Such an attitude dismisses divine revelation and centuries of moral teaching and conventional wisdom, without ever considering them or attempting to understand the truths they contain."

There is a wealth of relativist morality so ingrained that we think it is objective truth. We would do well to understand the value of things we have, without losing the future. He is so close! :) ...And then the God crap shows up.

He is a smart man, he just doesn't have the cure.

Great post.
Anonymous
14 Mar 2010 04:12 | Quote
"Since baptism is an action of Christ himself, no one can undo that; but officially you have left the Church."

So... since you can't undo your baptism, and baptism is what makes you a Catholic forever, how exactly can you offically leave without invalidating the baptism?

Does this mean the church can still count you in its numbers but deny you other Catholic "rights" or does it mean you're truely out? (It was my understanding after doing some research that its the former but I'm not sure.)
kenneth
25 Mar 2010 05:52 | Quote
I defected from his diocese last summer, and I didn't get a personal reply from the cardinal, just some poor functionary! Oh well. I suspect they're starting to see enough of these to actually attract notice from the higher-ups. In response to the last post, they do, at some level, still consider you Catholic forever and subject (in theory) to all canon laws. They do acknowledge your leaving the "earthly church" but say they don't have the power to undo your baptism or underlying identity as a Catholic. Sort of like Scientology's 1-Billion year contract!
Anonymous
26 Mar 2010 00:57 | Quote
Thanks for the info. I going to recommend this to some formerly Catholic friends. Someone should start a mass defection campaign if they haven't already. I've been telling people they should make it clear that they are no longer Catholic. I had no idea you could actually make it so official.
Eggnostriva
31 Mar 2010 21:38 | Quote
If you werent Gay, would you still be a Catholic.
James Smith Joăo Pessoa, Brazil
31 Mar 2010 21:41 | Quote
I didn't bother formally resigning from anything. I consider any religion to be so irrelevant to my life that I ignore anything they say and have since I was 13. De I get a lot of grief and anger from my parents. Yes, to the extent that I left home the night I graduated from high school and didn't see them for almost two years. They still wouldn't let up so we neither spoke no visited for several more years until I was married. By then, they realized I was not going to change and assaults upon my intelligence would only result in not seeing me or having any contact. It also helped when I moved 2,000 miles away.
anti-supernaturalist
31 Mar 2010 22:05 | Quote
Brava! It takes courage to "resign" from a religion with so much institutional power.

** homophobia is a by-product of male supremacist near eastern religious mores

Homophobia is common to the Big-3 monotheisms — since they condemn any form of sex not directed to reproduction. Heterosexual intercourse during infertile periods, anal and oral sex, and the ever dicey coitus interruptus are all forbidden.

As for heterosexual sex between fertile partners: no chemical contraception: no pill, no spermicides. No barriers to conception: no IUD, no condoms. No abortions, not even in cases of rape, incest. These are rigid pro-birth customs: an androcentric, completely misogynistic, demands that *no impediment to births should be permitted by law.*

Here is the right-wing ideological imperative behind RC priests, fundie preachers, mormons, xian thugs harassing at Planned Parenthood, xian murderers of abortion providers, theocratic Congress members of the “C” Street Family supporting “kill gays” legislation in Uganda.

Homosexual sexuality obviously fails to be reproductive. On this basis alone, it is forbidden. Male monotheists’ knee jerk horror and disgust are produced by religious conditioning widely diffused into the “common-sense” of backward sub-cultures like those in the US south and mid-west. (These regions I call “Ameristan”.)

Other cultures worldwide, present and past, lack an aversion to homosexuality -- which gives the lie to cross-cultural congruence presumed by xian know-nothings.

Given useless “abstinence only” sex ed, pro-birth fanaticism makes for rampant spread of STDs throughout the US, not just among know-nothing sub-cultures.

Xianity and islam have long been widespread moral cancers. That should not overshadow their beginnings as small bands drawn from the dregs of their originating cultures. With them belongs mormonism and its male supremacist embrace of polygamy. It is among the newest big paternalistic religious fictions grafted onto a near eastern religious stem.

Paternalism, Prudery, Pro-birth fanaticism — Mores dictating sexual control over women by men belong to a common cultural atavism -- faith based male supremacy. There is nothing moral about these mores. They are immoral through and through.

the anti-supernaturalist
MikeTheInfidel
4 Apr 2010 17:59 | Quote
Amazing.

"While I appreciate your honesty, sometimes as we age, the vagary of the world and its ambiguities seem to increase, and things no longer look so black and white. Should you ever wish to return to the Catholic faith, the Church would welcome you home."

In other words: Once you're old enough that the world has left you bitter and resigned to the fact that we really don't care how evil our actions are, and you've given up on having a true moral compass and instead wish to simply bow to our brilliance, you're always welcome to come crawling back to us.

What pompous condescension. What smug arrogance. What profane self-righteousness.
MikeTheInfidel
4 Apr 2010 18:01 | Quote
And as for narcissism? Nothing could more aptly demonstrate the meaning of that word than the paternalistic sense of self-importance oozing out of the archbishop's reply.
MikeTheInfidel
5 Apr 2010 02:51 | Quote
... Cardinal. Whatever. I'm not a Catholic. I got archdiocese and archbishop confused.
Christoph
15 Apr 2010 07:43 | Quote
Well done, sir.

You wrote a courteous and well-reasoned letter expressing your decision.

The Cardinal, while I disagree with him vehemently, both took your request seriously and left the door open for you to return to the Church. He did so under the misapprehension that he is right and you are wrong on the rightness of the Catholic Church. While I agree with you and not with he, it was the right thing to do from his perspective.

At least he communicated with freely spoken words and not force, which once upon a time the Church was wont to do.

Sincerely,

Christoph

P.S. Apparently I left the Church at 5. They asked my mom not to bring me back to Sunday school because I asked too many questions, which they could not answer -- some things never change.

P.P.S. I need to make it official... not to protest what you protested (although that would be a good reason in and of itself)... but to protest the cover-up by the highest officials in the Church (including probably the Pope himself) of certain horrific violent and sexual crimes committed by priests against children. In this case, it was often but not always gay priests committing the crimes... which shows that the dividing line between good and evil does not run between religious and non-religious, nor hetero- and homosexual.

We all must strive to be the best people we can be. For me, this means protesting the treatment of innocent children in the Church, and the high level cover-ups instead of justice.. and instead of child protection.
Ben
13 Jun 2010 22:17 | Quote
Its interesting to know that people in the US have to officially declare that they have to leave church. It's much more simple over here in Germany.

In Germany the church receives money from their followers not by asking for donating but by charging taxes. The state takes about 8% of your monthly income and passes it to the church.

So if you want to leave church you just tell the state (not the church) that you want to leave the church. After collecting (and keeping for themselves) another 25 Euro (about 20 Dollar) for administration the state will inform the church that you won't pay any more. This immediately results in being thrown out of church.

I assume the number of people leaving church over here is much higher than in the US, not because there are less non-believers in the US, but because leaving church in Germany means that you actually save money.

I left church in march 2010 because I stopped believing in any kind of god and I also received a nice letter from my church. They regretted my leave, hoped that it wasn't the fault of them and told me that could come around to talk.
Just a Little Common Sense
15 Jun 2010 23:27 | Quote
I was lucky enough never to have been baptized in the first place. Here in Germany, the situation is even worse: The memberships of the two major churches (catholic and protestant) gets managed by the state, and if you want to leave the church you have to show up at your local registration office, and pay an administration fee. This all is despite the fact that Germany has declared itself a secular state almost a hundred years ago. The administration fee ranges depending on the region, in the conservative, catholic south you have to pay 50 EUR (~80 USD) to quit your membership in what is essentially a civil club of believers.
Note that a fee of 50 EUR will make it absolutely impossible for teenagers to quit the church if their parents won't pay the fee it or are so conservative that they mustn't know about it. Our law says that you are allowed to choose your own religion (or lack of it) from age 14, but for a teenager of that age the fee is an incredible amount of money.
Buffy
23 Jun 2010 04:14 | Quote
Oh noes, you won't be entitled to a Catholic burial! I'm sorry, but is that something people aspire to or something?

Congratulations on breaking free.
Agent K
6 Jul 2010 11:57 | Quote
I think u have an absolutely good reason to get rid of em.

Gay marriages meh, not my problem...its the fact that someone cant love whom they wanna love without criticism or threats.
Steven
6 Jul 2010 15:17 | Quote
" This is a terrible diminishment of any human person. "Gay" is, at best, one of many adjectives that describe someone; sexual orientation is not a person's full essence. "

He is right, It should be an adjective that describes someone and not their full identity. However it is the acts of the church (and all christianity in general) who has made it a more then just a minor detail of a persons life. It is they who have made this an agenda and something to point out. If they would just stop doing this BS war against free thought it would not be an essence, it would just be a detail that would not make a big difference.

People have to live their lives with these small details on their sleeve because it has to be cherished, it has to have a voice. From the letter I get the oppinion that the church wants it back into the closet where they can't see it. But they can have their zombie jesus hanging on a cross in every room.
Anonymous
5 Aug 2010 05:51 | Quote
Haha, it's funny 'cause the response was much more eloquently crafted, restrained and just plain nice. What a kind, intelligent gentleman.

Kinda showed you up by not taking the bait and arguing, eh? Don't feel too bad though, it made for a very interesting read. Totally gonna watch your videos now.

And no, i'm not religious in any way. Just a big gay alcoholic architect.

Peace and love !
Shannon
26 Aug 2010 21:57 | Quote
I was baptized as a baby but I've never gone to church. I think I might defact too!
Thanks ZJ.
NFQ
1 Sep 2010 22:45 | Quote
I just came across your videos on YouTube (I just watched about a dozen or so, totally hooked) and they are fantastic. I don't know if you look at the comments here anymore, but I was just looking for a place to say -- you are awesome. And it seems from some of those YT videos like you aren't told that often enough. People are stupid, what can I say? I'm sorry, on behalf of humanity.

Also, is that a little dancing toast GIF under your sidebar? You just get cooler and cooler.
Juan Etazra
5 Sep 2010 02:54 | Quote
I'd Really love to get out of Chatholic church records, but since in my country (mexico) their belivers have gone from 99.2% in 1950 to 88% in 2000 they are very reluctant to let people go, and make it hard for someone to deflect
johnny
10 Oct 2010 05:01 | Quote
The Church truly isn't an evil in the world. It isn't barring you from thinking one way-we are each entitled to this in our way. Just for show.
Chanel replica
8 Dec 2010 02:58 | Quote
Beautiful post, thank you for sharing these lovely Mexican Wedding Traditions
buy viagra online pharmacy
9 Dec 2010 06:10 | Quote
he Church truly isn't an evil in the world. It isn't barring you from thinking one way-we are each entitled to this in our way. Just for show.
cartier bracelets
5 Jan 2011 01:40 | Quote
Congratulations on breaking free.