Are you still considered Catholic if you leave?

[Mike_from_NJ]

I’m not sure why it’s such a big deal if the number of Catholics is either somewhat exaggerated or derived in an unclear fashion? Except to win the occasional Twitter debate with a group of teenagers?

Let’s say that a pro-choice group or a pro-same-sex-marriage group, or some other group claims to have X members or X supporters. That number helps sway public discourse on the matter and perhaps public policy. Those who hold strong in their positions won’t be swayed by that number, but it’s possible those with no opinion or those sitting on the fence might be. You come to find out later that the number is significantly smaller. Worse than that, you yourself have been contributed to that inflated number for one reason or another (perhaps you were part of the group but then left after a change of heart, or you did something that tangentially supported that group in the past, or any other reason why you should most certainly be counted as part of that group). You may or may not be miffed at the idea, but at least realize that others may feel differently being tied to a group that certainly doesn’t speak for them.

There’s no reason to askew honesty and accuracy just because not doing so either doesn’t affect you or makes your position look better.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I still don’t really see why it’s such a huge issue. I mean, sure, if it was swaying any public opinion or having literally any meaningful impact on public policy, I might be annoyed, but it’s not (well I’m in Europe where it certainly isn’t).

The populace isn’t in lockstep with the popular, but the impact is not nil. If a new political party boasts a small but growing percent of the population it’s more like to at least be listened to than one where it’s just an insignificant smattering of folks.

If the pro-choice group I used to be a member of used me as a statistic despite my having renounced it (and I should caveat that I think this is a flawed analogy as membership of a political party/advocacy group is a different concept than church “membership” conferred through baptism), but that group was having zero effect on public opinion and policy, and at the same time there were endless articles saying “50% of X pro-choice group now actually oppose abortion”, no I can’t say it would bother me that much.

But your example of a wholesale change in policy almost never happens. The changes a group can go through can be subtle or not, but usually in line with the main thrust of it. I’ll give you a perfect example. Back in 1980 in The United States a woman founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) after her daughter was killed by a drunk driver and she found that man who didn’t was likely not going to get jail time. She rallied other mothers and put a face on the victims of drunk driving. She got laws passed which raised fines and required jail time for repeat offenders. Some years after that she left the group because it was becoming more prohibitionist than what she intended, focusing on reducing drinking in general instead of on reducing drunk driving. The new MADD wasn’t a 180 from the old MADD, but different enough that some stayed and some left (including the founder).

Then of course you’ve got those who are not Catholics as adults but were baptized as children. They never signed on to bolster a number for a group they disagree with.

I’m sure it might bother people who are more sensitive, but that’s a different question as to whether we should fundamentally change our ideas just because some people are always offended by things. But yes, they should clean up their statistics like you said.

It’s not about changing ideas. If the Church wants to consider all those baptized as Catholics or who have converted, that’s their right and privilege. They don’t have the right to make it seem like they have more people in their corner than they actually. There’s no excuse not to take an extra few words to say these are baptized Catholics and not necessarily Catholics by choice.

 

[yankeesouth]

So what I am getting at is that if they think the church is arrogant to make such a claim

Catholics follow the One who said ‘I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’ A pretty arrogant statement and He was killed for it. Truth has always been accused of arrogance.

So if protestants consider the Truth of the Catholic Church being the One True Church arrogance…so be it.

 

[yankeesouth]

You must admit that there are huge differences especially concerning the Eucharist. If we Catholics believe the Eucharist is the Source and Summit of the Christian life than that alone would be a concern in proclaiming Christianity to an unbelieving world. Then you have protestant denominations that allow for abortion and the redefinition of marriage. If we lump everyone under Christianity the unbeliever says look they all don’t even believe the same things.

 

[lilypadrees]

It only took me 2 Masses to get used to the new responses since the new Missals hadn’t yet been published.

 

[lilypadrees]

Absolutely, there are huge differences. But to claim that a Protestant isn’t a Christian just because he or she thinks abortion is okay and that redefining marriage is okay is wrong. They’ve been errantly taught those things by teachers, their church leaders and society.

In both instances, the Protestant’s actions and views are wrong. The belief in Jesus as their Lord and Savior
and being validly baptized makes them Christians even though they disagree with us in regard to the Eucharist.

 

[Calliope]

I know that when my father ushers at his Catholic Church (and I know the same has been true of other Churches and fellowships I’ve been part of) a head count is done at every Mass or service. If that’s true, it seems that a Parish could have a reasonable estimate of the number of practicing Catholics it serves over the course of a year. Aproximately the average attendence at Mass. He said they also keep a count of how many receive Communion.

It wouldn’t be perfect, but I think it would put you in the ball park. Would it be fair to call those who attend fairly regularly to be practicing Catholics?

The Church must be consistent in its teaching that baptism leaves an indellible mark on the soul so once baptised, always a Catholic, though I’m not sure why it doesn’t then consider anyone baptised via the valid Trinitarian formula to not be Catholic.

To be honest, it’s a Catch 22 for the Church as well. While it might appear to falsely bolster it’s numbers it wreaks havoc when it comes to percentages of Catholics who believe or practice what the Church teaches and requires. The Church can say it has over a billion members but if that’s followed by a statement that 60% don’t believe in some key teaching, that hardly makes the Church look larger or more powerful than it actually is.

It’s kind of like there being two mothers. One says she has two kids and has a great relationship with them. The other says she has seven kids, but five of them want nothing to do with her. Which one would most people think was the better mom?

Since most people who fall away from the faith and certainly those who pass away while not practicing don’t ever report back to the Church to be removed from the ranks, the Church can only ever guess at the numbers if it’s going by baptisms alone.

 

[Sbee0]

powerandglory:

Yes. Baptism is permanent. You may be lapsed fallen, excommunicated, or apostasized, but you don’t stop being Catholic.

What if someone actively wanted to “leave?” Do they not have that choice?

I suppose one could deliberately try to have themselves excommunicated. I can think of zero compelling reasons why anyone (even a Catholic-turned-staunch-atheist) would go out of their way to do that.

 

[Padres1969]

So really it’s not just baptism… It’s any act of joining the Catholic Church they believe is irreversible.