HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

Hostile Request to be released from Catholic Church
 
 
Declaration of Defection from
the Roman Catholic Church
(Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica)
 
Name:
________________________________________
Address:
________________________________________

________________________________________
Father's Name:
________________________________________
Mother's Name:
________________________________________
Date of Birth:
________________________________________
Date of Baptism:
________________________________________
Diocese of Birth:
________________________________________
Parish of Baptism:
________________________________________



I_____________________________
do hereby give formal notice of my defection from the Roman Catholic Church. I want it to be known that I no longer wish to be regarded as a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
I am writing to request removal of my name as a member of the Roman Catholic Church and request that I be recognised as having formally defected from the Church. Under Canon Law, (canons 1086, 1, 1117 and 1124) I can leave the Church by formal defection and this I intend to do.
 
I state I wish to fulfil the following rules for formal defection:
 
"For the abandonment of the Catholic Church to be validly configured as a true actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia so that the exceptions foreseen in the previously mentioned canons would apply, it is necessary that there concretely be:
a) the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church;
b) the realization and external manifestation of that decision; and
c) the reception of that decision by the competent ecclesiastical authority.
 
It is required, moreover, that the act be manifested by the interested party in written form, before the competent authority of the Catholic Church: the Ordinary or proper pastor, who is uniquely qualified to make the judgment concerning the existence or non-existence of the act of the will".
 
This notification was approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, who directed that it be transmitted to all Presidents of Episcopal Conferences PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS.
 
I further declare that I am aware of the consequences of this act regarding the reception of the sacraments of the Church, including the sacraments of the Eucharist, marriage and the sick and also with regard to burial.

I undertake to make my decision to leave the Church known to my next of kin and to ensure that they are aware of these circumstances in the case of my being incapacitated.

I acknowledge that I make this declaration under solemn oath, being of sound mind and body, and in the presence of a witness who can testify as to the validity of this document.
 
I know it is not fair to myself or to the Church to let myself continue be registered as a member when in fact that is not what I am.
 
I wish to formally defect because I know in my heart that I am not a Catholic and I refuse to be listed as one.
 
I wish "Formally Defected" to be written in my baptismal register.
 
May I remind you that you teach that the Church is a bond between the Church in Heaven, Purgatory and Earth - you call this the communion or unity of saints? You do not believe that the baptised people who are in Hell are members of the Church any more. You simply say they have the mark that they were baptised but the initiation into the Church has been broken and ended. You teach that though the mark cannot be effaced, the initiation can. I intend to efface the initiation and I do this freely and with full consent and knowledge. Until you have proof that I am marked I do not believe I am marked.
 
I wish my friends and family in the Roman Catholic Church to know that I am leaving not because of people or personalities, or "sin" on my part, but solely because I have come to the conclusion, after a suitable period of study and experience, that the Roman Catholic Church is not as it claims to be, "the only true church of Jesus Christ." The Church is wrong but where are the bishops and theologians who have the honesty to admit it? They do not exist. That is not the mark of a seeking and honest religion.
 
I have learned that the Roman Catholic Church engages in a continuing campaign to redact, rationalise, revise, manipulate and delete embarrassing details of Catholic history which, if known, tell a different, but more truthful story of the true origins and nature of the church.
 
You priests and bishops decide what the Church is to believe. You teach that there is much in Christian morality and Christian doctrine that we cannot understand for God is all wise and we are not. You say we have a duty of humble obedience to the authority of the Church for God has set it up to take his place on earth as our teacher. You embrace the essence of fundamentalism, fundamentalism commands that we simply obey for we cannot understand the things of God completely but only partly. It is divisive and has led to 9/11.
 
Just because your fundamentalism does not lead you to murder your enemies anymore does not mean that it is a good thing. You and the Islamic bomber have the same attitude: religious faith comes first. (Your teaching that God is of extreme importance is really saying that faith in God comes first.) The attitude is the same but it is only the way you carry it out that differs. Your example of faith means you cannot complain if Catholics decide to believe that they have the right to destroy Protestants. The faith comes first attitude is paying homage to violent religionists. When they see your faith they have the right to feel encouraged in their bloodletting ventures by it.
 
You make us look forward to Heaven and urge us to prefer it to this life. Yet if there are people in Hell suffering forever that should torment us in Heaven. You say that in Heaven we do not hate the damned but we are indifferent and just don't care. The person who does not care what happens to you is worse than the person who hates you. Your faith is evil.
 
You now say that the damned are in Hell against the will of God and stay there because they won't repent. In other words, they can repent but don't and won't. This doctrine is not in your Bible. It denies the justice of your God. Indeed, the Bible always says that it is God who sends to Hell and Jesus speaks as a judge, "Depart from me Ye cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. These shall depart into eternal punishment." If Hell is only for those who stubbornly refuse to go to Heaven and who won't leave Hell then Jesus wouldn't be speaking in such terms. It would mean that Hell is not punishment. A God who lets evil people enjoy Heaven forever is no better than one who does not punish but who can't do anything about people who don't want him. You know fine well the apostle Paul wrote with approval that God said that vengeance God's and God will repay. You don't have the honesty to preach this vengeful God any more and yet you claim your Bible is the word of God and he is the author. Your misrepresenting of Catholic doctrine is a trick to ply the unsuspecting.
 
You disapprove of child sexual abuse yes but when you teach lies and evil doctrines this disapproval counts for nothing. People are not going to take it seriously. You wouldn't have the right to expect your disapproval to dissuade any priest from indulging any sexual desires towards children that he might have.
 
Perhaps you make up your mind in advance that the evil doctrines are true and then you sift and manipulate the evidence to back them up? No you feel they are true or you want to believe them and then you try to make the evil beliefs look good or believable or possibly true. Your beliefs reveal the kind of people you are. You do not worship God but the perception of God. Your doctrines all show how you perceive him. You worship your own creation. The good works you do are not good because they are done in the honour of that abomination.
 
You pretend that you believe that the Protestants and Orthodox are sincere but wrong. This contradicts your doctrine that Jesus gave the Church four very simple and obvious marks by which we would know her to be the true Church and they are simple so that a person of very limited intelligence could see it. The word Catholic means universal and speaks of the Church being for all people so they can believe in it and see that it is the true Church be they professors or people of little intelligence. Your ecumenism is a smokescreen. You want to avoid inciting hatred and division for that would involve antagonising modern society and the legislature so you hide your true colours. But they will show. If God has set up one true religion and that religion is the Catholic Church then it should have a special place in every civil law for God comes first and is ultimately the only real ruler. Your doctrine brings you power - so I will not assist you in getting it so I want my name out of your membership lists.
 
Your faith is belief not knowledge. You say it is knowledge but it is obviously not. That is why you reject the view: "I have my faith and you have yours. So I will treat my faith as just my opinion and not take it too seriously. I believe for example abortion is wrong but other people disagree so I am not going to argue against abortion." Lies, lies, lies!
 
Your faith is belief. Belief means you accept something as probably true. It is not knowledge. Thus we see your arrogance in your proclamation that you are the one right Church and are better than any other religion.

I am not going to stand with liberal Catholics and pretend that secularism and Christianity are compatible. To consort with a faith that implies that secularism is godless and evil is really just weakening secularism. It is like saying you are an Irish nationalist but want the British Parliament involved in legislation regardless if Unionists care about this or not.

Secularism is the true teaching of right and wrong. Secularism says, "Live your life as you see fit." Your religion says, "Live your life only as God sees fit."

Secularism says ,"Do not be influenced by religious doctrine but by whatever helps us to work better as a society." Your religion says, "God has rights and they come before anything else for we are to obey him and love him with all our being in obedience to Jesus Christ".

Employers may think that if they employ a person, their being Catholic has nothing to do with their efficiency or inefficiency at doing the job. But if it is true that the Catholic Church carries the mark of holiness - and no other religion has it for it belongs only to the true religion - then a Catholic employee has greater potential than a non-Catholic. Catholicism cannot fit together with secularism. It is secularism that proclaims the religious faith of the believer to be irrelevant when considering her or him for a job. Religion has to hypocritically contradict itself to proclaim that. Many have refused to be hypocrites and they have refused to employ people from other religions. To employ a Muslim is to support Islam and give it tacit approval according to the implications of Catholic teaching. The Catholic doctrine still warns against tacit approval of other faiths. Suppose a Protestant minister had no congregation for Sunday worship and he was going to lock up the Church and go home. Suppose a Catholic went to his Church and the minister decided to go ahead and conduct the service. The service would not have happened had the Catholic not come so the Catholic is an accessory to the heretical worship offered. The Catholic is indicating approval for Protestantism.

I am disgusted at the hypocrisy of your basic doctrine that God loves sinner and hates sins or hates the evil we do but loves us all the same and orders us to do likewise. To be able to hate sin, you have to judge it as evil and despicable. You also have to judge it as deserving punishment via hurting the sinner back or disapproving. He who judges the sin judges the sinner. To say you judge the sin is another way of saying you judge the sinner but you pretend different. You hide your hatred under a bushel of sweetness and light. It is so obvious that whoever says they judge the sin as bad and don't judge the sinner at all are lying. And if you punish a person, you are a liar if you say it is the sin you punish not the sinner. Didn't the slave owners say, "It is wrong to own a person. We don't do that. We only own the person's services"? Love the sinner and hate the sinner only supports such twisted thinking and holds endeavours to improve human welfare up to ridicule. If sin does not describe you as a person then your good deeds don't describe you either and you deserve no praise!

The suggestion that you if you judge a person as having sinned you are not saying they are completely bad or sinful is really an admission that you are judging them. If you hate their sin you at least hate them up to a point.

Love the sinner and hate the sinner is only a smokescreen for inciting hatred against those who offend against the man-made laws that you pretend are really from God. It is a fact that sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. It will look as if you hate the person. This shows how it is impossible to prove that you love the sinner and hate the sin even if it is possible. So you can do what you sometimes do, ban suicides and cremated people from the graveyard and claim to be loving. The principle threatens goodness.

You can hate the evil a person does without hating that person but only if the person is totally unaware that it is evil and if the person cannot be held responsible for not knowing. In other words, you are hating the evil deed but recognising that the person didn't intend to be evil. Loving sinners and hating sins is totally different and is a mask for hating the sinner. The worse kind of hate is the hate you pretend is not there.

Nobody can judge if you really hate a person or not. Only you can do that. Thus the law cannot be expected to take the Church seriously when it boasts that it loves sinners and hates sins. If you claim to love the sinner and hate the sin, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is true. You cannot simply expect people to believe you. You have no right to. After all you do not love the vast majority of people in the world. You just automatically choose not to care for them which is hate in the sense that you kind of wish them evil. Your attitude is: "If really bad things happen to them or really good things it is all the same to me."

Religion says that it is easy for hating the sin to turn into hating the sinner. Secularists and unbelievers can find that it is easy to hate people who have hurt them and easier again to hate them without realising it. Religion only makes it easier still with such doctrines as that sin is very very bad for it insults such a good God who died on the cross for us. It also teaches that sin makes the sinner deserve everlasting punishment. All these imply that sin is to be hated above all evil and Jesus said you should prefer to have an eye gouged out than to sin with it. The believer makes the sinner out to be worse than the secularist makes the evildoer. And the believer does it without proof. You need proof before you can accuse sinners of creating an example that puts others in danger of everlasting Hell. Christianity needs to be seen as the craftiest and most hypocritical inciter of the worst kind of hatred there is!

To tell a child to love sinners and hate sins is to ask the child to do what he or she sees as impossible. It is child abuse. Children will not be able to distinguish even if distinguishing is possible. And it is not possible which makes this even more vicious.

Rejecting God's teaching is seen as rejecting God so hating the teaching is hating the teacher according to the doctrine of God. How much more then is hating the sin, hating the sinner?

The person who does a lot of good for others and who does it because he or she enjoys it and not for the others sake is an egoist - he or she is only doing it for herself though others benefit. But if we are honest, this does not bother us. We don't like people helping us when they take no pleasure in it. Also, one can be flattered if one's lover has a fit of jealousy though jealousy is egoistic and a vice. Your faith says a person being egoistic should trouble us for he or she is really loving himself or herself only and not loving the neighbour. Your faith sees it as the sin of pride or independence from God. The people are deceived when they think that belief in God is important and needed for human welfare.

Psychology says the healthy person is a mixture of selflessness and selfishness. On the contrary, Christianity urges us to believe that we must put God before ourselves and sacrifice for him and be wholly unselfish.

Psychology says that we must love ourselves first of all. This sound commonsense. If I don't know how to respect myself I can't respect other people. If I don't respect myself, I can't think I am of value to others so I won't help them. Christianity says it should start with loving God with all your heart. It doesn't start with you or other people but only God. This clearly is putting faith before people. The big ingredient of fanaticism is there.

If you do something for another that means you do it for them and not yourself at all. For example, you must not do it to honour yourself by doing altruistic acts.

To always treat others as I would like them to treat me means I have to put how I like to be treated first and treat them accordingly. Behind this is the thought: I like people to do such and such to me or for me. I must support this principle and help others because it helped me."

You speak of how human life is so valuable that an abortion should not be performed even to save the mother to be's life. Yet you kiss and caress Old Testament scriptures in which stoning homosexuals and adulterers to death is commanded by God. Jesus said that the Old Testament was written by God though he wrote it through men. Jesus himself said in John 6 that the only reason the adulteress he saved from stoning should not be stoned was that her accusers were adulterous themselves. The New Testament speaks of sinners being handed over to Satan by the apostles in the name of Jesus for sickness and destruction meaning they were being put to death supernaturally.

You believe like the Muslims that God's people have the right to take up arms when a nation tries to destroy God's religion by destroying his people. If you fail to hate your enemy you will not make a good soldier. You would need to feel good that you are killing for God. You would need to be patted on the back for killing. You would need to deny the value of human life by failing to be devastated when you have to kill someone.

Hate sin and love sinner means you have to be devastated when you do it.

The Church waged wars in the past in the belief that false religion had to be eradicated to stop it leading people into Hell.

You say your commandments are meant to guide and help us to live happily. If so, then why do they need to be commandments? Why not guidelines?

You cannot tell us why it is God's business how we behave. He is perfect and happy and so he has no needs. He cannot have any rights for rights are based on needs. He has no need and therefore no right to command us. Your religion with its rules and laws is man-made.

You teach that a wafer blessed by a priest is really a human person, Jesus Christ. Thus the wafer is more precious and important than a baby in a cot. Faith before people.

You say that by being baptised and confirmed in the Roman faith that I have taken upon myself the legal obligation to believe and obey the Church. I renounce those obligations by this act of formal defection. If I don't then I am a wicked disobedient person. So I honour myself by making them cease to apply to me. I do the decent thing.

I am obligated by the Commandments of the Church to pay for the support of the Church and its pastors. I am threatened by your God with Hell should I wilfully fail to cough up. I will not be intimidated. I am not under that obligation as I am not a Catholic. My parents had no right to impose that sinister obligation on me by taking me for baptism which allegedly confers it.

The apostle said that if you don't love people you see you can't love the God you cannot see (1 John). He meant that if you sense other beings you should love them and if you don't, then by implication you are giving even less love to God for you cannot see or sense him.

To make such serious claims to a child such as that there is a God looking after them, that Jesus saves them from sin and Hell and that a wafer is really Jesus is a form of abuse - plain and simple.
Idolatry is degrading because it is somebody worshipping a thing. The idol worshippers when they were told that said, "But these images are somehow gods. It is not the images we worship but the gods in them." Catholics say, "We worship the communion wafer. This is not idolatry because it really is God." This is just a dishonest attempt to avoid the truth.

Your command that we love God above all things and even above the lives of our loved ones is cruel and it can only appeal to a heart that at least secretly nurtures violent thoughts and attractions. It is the heart that exalts belief above people.

All religion is man-made. Catholics worship the creations of men. They worship the idols men invent. Even if you follow the utterances of Jesus to some visionary you are really listening to the visionary not her. It is the visionary you exalt. If apparitions really happen, then some unknown faculty of the human mind is causing them. The vision is caused by something inside the person.

You say that God made all things out of nothing. There are two more options. Maybe everything always existed? Maybe it popped out of nothing?

God cannot make anything out of nothing for nothing is nothing. It is not a material from which things can be made. There is no making. So either all things always existed or they popped out of nothing. Something popping out of nothing sounds silly enough but it is worse to pretend that this is making. So there is no room for God in this. Whether creation came from nothing or always existed there is no need for a creator.
You make the apparition of Knock optional for belief though it is more credible than the New Testament testimony to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. At least with Knock we have the detailed accounts of eyewitnesses.

The evidence is not perfect but it is a damn sight better than what the New Testament has to offer as evidence.

You make the resurrection of Jesus Christ the centre of your faith. But this makes no sense. We have no clear first hand testimonies that Jesus rose. The witnesses never even went though a process of questioning. We do for other miracle claims - such as that something appeared at Fatima in 1917 - and you consider those of less importance and even optional for belief.

Indeed it is obvious from the gospels that Jesus Christ disapproved of investigations. He claimed he did exorcisms and healings and ordered the people to recognise them as signs but made no effort to consult with physicians or professionals. It would have been very easy to get them to approve the events as miracles. It was a pre-scientific age. But his not deploying them implies that you must accept people's word for it if a miracle has been reported. Imagine the chaos and trouble that would lead to! Didn't the Inquisition think that if an accused heretic held burning coals and didn't burn that he was innocent and guilty if he got burned? That is what the miracle mentality does.

Jesus proclaimed his resurrection as the one sure sign that he was from God. He did these miracles before the resurrection. This underlines the fact that he did not allow investigation. You make it a law that miracles and apparitions should be investigated when they are popularly believed. But you only investigate them and declare them "worthy of belief" if their doctrines agree with the doctrines of the Church and the bishops. So any miracle that contradicts your faith you ignore it. Then you dare to say that there are signs and wonders verifying the Catholic faith! You are sifting the evidence. You are making up your mind before looking at the evidence. You are dishonest. Your signs and wonders do not encourage virtue in you. No good God would demean himself to perform such works.

You have the dishonesty to claim that most apparitions of the Virgin Mary should not be recognised as really from God yet you say that in most cases the visionaries are really seeing something.

The Christians have always been told to renounce the world and the flesh and the devil. I embrace the world. I am a secularist.

I was taken advantage of as a child because my parents feared the teaching of the Church. You gave them a God who threatened them with damnation or ill-luck should they neglect to get me baptised.
The Church says that babies that die after being baptised are guaranteed to go to Heaven. If so, would it not be wiser to kill them than to let them live so that there is no chance of them ever going to Hell? Could you not say that though killing is a sin, you have no choice for death is better than damnation. So its not a sin when you have no choice. My parents did not genuinely love me - they only thought they did - when they let me live after getting me baptised.

The Church cannot deny that if killing was not a sin, it would be a great thing to slay all baptised infants. Their teaching implies that it is a pity killing is a sin.

Your scriptures forbid praying for one who you see committing mortal sin (1 John). This sin is taken to be final impenitence and it contradicts the lie you now tell that if somebody dies cursing God their soul might not have gone yet so they might still repent. You don't want psychiatrists and the police after you for destroying the relatives of suicide victims by damning their loved ones to Hell.

You say that sinners must be encouraged to see their own goodness and rise above the sin. This contradicts the apostle who wrote that he who hates does not have the love of God in his heart. This is very black and white. It denies that the person who hates another can really love God and would indicate that if the person prays and fasts and preaches regularly he or she is still a fake. He or she would no doubt believe in his or her virtue and thinking that he or she is a good enough though imperfect person despite the hating.

Your insistence that people must frequently pray, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" is horrible. The doctrine of your Jesus that God will not forgive you unless you forgive all offences against you is simply a sanctification of bullying of the worst sort. It is not failure to forgive that hurts people significantly but failure to forgive when the pressure of holding grudges gets too much, failure to forgive people you need and love. If you have too many people you are against you need to forgive some of them. We all bear our own imperfections. A little bit of unforgiving can keep life interesting. Jesus' doctrine is not about concern for you but for God. Its bullying.

I am not going to be a hypocrite and start focusing on what people call the best side of the religion and ignore the dark side. A religion that has an evil side is not from a loving God and it is mocking God and supporting man-made religion to keep the focus on the good side. The Nazis had a good side too and to ignore the bad side and to dwell on the good is to deride their victims. Evil cannot thrive or function unless it does some good. The good is to be criticised as manipulation and mouse-baiting. It is not to be praised.

Your faith makes a laughing stock of morality. Thus you cannot blame the child abuse scandal on a few bad eggs. The whole system is polluted.

All faiths carry on the same way as you. They use some logic and some evidence flavoured with the promise of emotional fulfilment to influence you to accept their faiths. We speak of certain cults being strange and bizarre. But Catholicism itself is bizarre too. Religious faith is at least subliminal bigotry.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Where is the evidence that God loves the baby that dies screaming after a slow and agonising illness? Where is the evidence that babies come into the world without God in their hearts for they have original sin? Where is the evidence that sinners go to Hell forever? Where is the evidence that miracles are not magic? Where is the unbiased evidence that miracles happen?
You pretend that no matter how much evil engulfs the world that people should still believe God loves them and believe he cares and pray. Why think of God that way? Why can't one not think of one's abusive husband that way? Like it or not, you are trying to exploit the vulnerable.

If you believe God loves you despite the seemingly cruel way he treats you, and you don't have sensible evidence for this belief, then you are practicing self-delusion. The gospel preachers are trying to make you sick. Christianity is a religion that gives its victims the minds of battered wives who can't see they must leave the brutes they call their husbands.

You condone and fail to correct those who argue that if a devout Catholic pro-life activist goes and shoots an abortion doctor dead that the killer should get away with it or at least be able to build a defence of voluntary manslaughter. A voluntary manslaughter would be when you have an unreasonable but honest belief that deadly force to stop someone is justified. The secularist can say that it is unreasonable to believe that you are saving babies lives by killing the doctors because the embryos are not babies yet. The religionist will have to say that it would be reasonable. If the religionist says it is unreasonable then it will have to be for other reasons.

It is kinder to believe that death is the end than to believe that anybody could go to Hell forever. If you live a harmless life but don't believe in morality as such you would be amoral. You cannot go to Hell if you don't believe in morality or in sin. Whoever teaches about sin is populating Hell.

You do not have to be a sinner to be an evil person. The person who really believes that it is right to murder say Presbyterians does not sin but is still evil. The Catholic Church is still objectively bad even if its intentions are for the best.

When a priest is nice he is hiding the dark side of his faith and is been sweet for it is good for him to be and its a tool for seducing people into the Church. However, Jesus and the apostles were as subtle as sledgehammers and said they believed in speaking out for the truth no matter what the consequences. They taught that hiding the truth never works for the truth will set you free and Jesus claimed to be truth itself.

You have a bad influence on civil law.

You can have a family without marriage. The state protecting the family does not necessarily imply the state should care about marriage.
You declare the family based on marriage to be the unit of society. You don't believe any such thing for if men died after having sex five times you would still be teaching that they should marry though they will be leaving wives with children. Marriage is not your business or the states. It is solely between the husband and wife. It is only the contract element which involves property rights that may be the concern of the courts. The state knows marriage is none of its affair when it lets husbands and wives separate at will and get new partners and practice open marriage.

You are liberal with declarations of nullity to annul marriages. When are you going to declare that many priests are not ordained in reality even though they went through the ordination ceremony? Where are their decrees of nullity relating to their "ordinations"?

Men who become priests because they want to help others or because they like the idea of enjoying a relationship with God are breaking the law of God that we must choose to love God whether we feel like it or not and be willing to love him if it meant committing some awful eternal sacrifice. They are out of sync with authentic Catholicism.

The world would run smoother if people were more rational and thought more. Religion is a spanner in the works we could do without. There is enough to cause disagreement and division and then temptation to evil without it coming along.

Most of our good deeds are done as a result of our feelings. We do them because we feel we want to not because they are right. Just because they are good doesn't mean we do them because of that. Anyway, then what do we need your faith or Church for? We throw off that extra burden.

Your faith if practiced properly turns people into interfering busybodies. After all you believe in the teaching of the mystical body of Christ that we are intimately united with Jesus and can be described as his feet and hands and which teaches that if one part is sick the whole body is sick. So our sins are everybody else's business.

You have the arrogance to believe that even when you die, you will live on for God loves you too much to let you go out of existence. But if God destroys a person to replace that person with another one then this argument is incorrect. You really mean that you are too great to be put out of existence.

You accuse - at least in your thoughts - atheists like Dawkins of doing things that they criticise you for doing. For example, you say they believe in reason though unable to prove that it works. To say that reason is an assumption or unproven is to deny that anything can be known for sure! Belief in reason is a default position. We have to take it otherwise there is no alternative. You accuse atheists of criticising you for making spiritual assumptions. But Dawkins and co don't make as many unproven and unprovable beliefs and assumptions as you do. They are kinder than you for they agree with abortion to save the mother's life and you don't.

A person who believes that the luck in his life came because he carried a pebble in his pocket will take the good things that happened as evidence that it works. He will say that the bad things that happened were good in some way so they are evidence that it works too. A person who rejects such superstition and attributes the good things in his life to prayer will cite them as evidence that it works. He too will argue that the bad things turned out to be blessings. Prayer is an exercise in self-deception. Prayer is just another form of superstition. The Church condemns superstition: pots and kettles.

People mistake their feelings about religion for belief. For example, Catholics enjoy the feeling from the thought that Mary is their Mother and that Jesus wants to physically enter their bodies at communion.

Most Catholics don't know enough about the case against their faith to have real belief. Belief is based on evidence. Belief that only looks at supportive evidence and turns a blind eye to contradicting evidence is not belief at all. True belief looks at everything and isn't afraid to. Christian "belief" is a product of manipulation and fear and sneakiness. It is not based on evidence but on sifting the evidence and not letting it speak for itself. Christian "faith" is harmful and hypocritical and is the seed of all the religious wars waged by Christians.

There are countless faiths in the world - all disagreeing with one another. Even within a Church, you will have a variety of faiths for its not humanly possible to help people to believe even most of all the things they are required to believe. This shows that any religious believer is more likely to believe things that are wrong or false. If people were more open to the truth and were not deceiving themselves there would be more doctrinal and ethical unity in their beliefs.

The evidence that faith in Christianity is really just self-deception is overwhelming. If somebody claims to be a believer, the burden of proof is on them. We are not to be asked to believe them or to take their word for it.

Belief in belief is deadly. All religionists praise belief in belief. Would be fine if we had more concern for evidence and real evidence at that!

It is so obvious that Catholicism is a damaging and unhealthy creed. It doesn't even have a reality check and doesn't even try to take one! Those who promote Catholicism seem to wish to inflict the wiles it inflicts on them on other people.

There is no excuse for a priest teaching a gospel that is untrue for access to the truth has never been better thanks to the Internet etc. There is less excuse for him misleading others. The points in this communication are well-known particularly among scholars and atheists and sceptics and yet you listen to them and ignore them. You oppose the truth by closing your hearts and minds.

Let me know by letter that I have been removed from membership and have been declared to have formally defected. I want a simple declaration that this has been done. I don't want arrogant patronising assertions like "we regret you have taken this course" etc. I don't regret it for your religion is a travesty of logic and decency and so please do not insinuate that I am doing something regrettable. To leave a false religion is not regrettable.

I know my own mind and will not welcome visits to my home by priests or religious or other who wish to get me back. I especially will not welcome attempts to convert me to Catholicism on my deathbed.
 
Yours faithfully
 
 

Signed______________________