Formally Leaving the Catholic Church

[FickleFreckled]

JimmyJazz,
If you truly feel you must leave, please consider the fact that you might feel differently at some point in your life and refrain from burning your bridges altogether. Many people leave for many years over objections such as yours. But a whole lot of us come back. Please leave yourself that room. If Christianity or the Catholic Church isn’t the truth, then there’s no logical reason for you to need or want to formally separate yourself from it. If it is the truth, there’s every reason why you wouldn’t want to formally separate yourself.

Your situation reminds me of a limerick about the athiest Madelyn O’Hare:
Madelyn Murray O’Hare,
Fair athiest extraordinaire,
What gives you the urge
To so vehemently purge
A God you declare isn’t there?

 

[JimmyJazz]

Formal defection is an acknowledgement that you are no longer bound by (some, I think) Catholic canon law, is all. Doesn’t make you not Catholic - just like an exemption from some state law would not make you cease to be a citizen…Like you’ve been told, the link to the Church that was forged at your baptism is indelible - like your DNA link to your biological parents. It’s not a paper link and cannot be severed by a piece of paper either.

The language used in the PCLT document appears to indicate that one who makes a formal act of defection is no longer considered Catholic. In different places it uses such phrases as “abandonment of the Catholic Church,” “the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church,” and “a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church.” Furthermore, a distinction is made between heretics, apostates, and schismatics that haven’t “externally concretized and manifested” their rupture, and those that have by formally defecting; great pains are taken to emphasize that the act of formal defection does not merely have a “judicial-administrative character,” but is an actual break from Catholicism.

Someone who, as you stated above, truly harboured no animus towards the Catholic Church nor disdain for Catholics wouldn’t be so keen to be rid of the taint of Catholicism as if it were an offensive smell or something. Imagine a child of yours saying to you ‘I don’t harbour any animus towards you or disdain you, my parents, I just dislike you so intensely that I don’t want even the least ties of any kind to bind us at all’. The behaviour totally belies the professed attitude.

Membership in the Catholic Church is not a social bond; it’s a religious one. It would indeed be ridiculous for one to sever a familial relationship in terms so strong and claim to do so in respect and goodwill. But this is a different matter entirely. My situation is more like that of two business partners going their separate ways when they realize that they have entirely different visions for the company they founded. I realize that it’s an imperfect analogy, but in both cases a respectful disagreement over the “business model” leads to one parting amicably from the other, as opposed to remaining in the fold dissatisfied and alienated from the purposes of the institution.

 

[JimmyJazz]

If we accept the historicity of the gospels in mundane matters, there is very little reason to attribute the invention of a resurrection story to the apostles, unless we assume that the early Christians were actually sadomaschoists who enjoyed the thought of being tortured to death.

We need not make this assumption. Any generation of Christians later and more geographically removed than that of the original Apostles would have no means of verifying or disproving the Resurrection, and would not be “in on” any lies told by the people that converted them. As for the Apostles themselves- who, presumably, would have been the originators of the story- we have no contemporary accounts of their deaths. All we have as evidence that they were martyred are later hagiographies, which are of course universally Christian.

Even if the Apostles really did die for the Resurrection story, it does not prove that the Resurrection happened; it doesn’t even mean that they believed that it did. The early Mormons were viciously persecuted; Joseph Smith himself was, after being tarred, feathered, and driven out of one town after another, killed during a prison raid inspired by anti-Mormon bigotry. But he was still- as we will agree- a complete fraud. The same goes for the Branch Davidians, Manson Family, and Cathars, all of whom endured persecution and yet practiced religions that are certainly false- and not just false, but considerably more ridiculous than Christianity. It is quite strange, I agree, for people to risk their lives for a story as outlandish as the Resurrection without it actually having happened, but stranger still is the notion that a man actually rose from the dead.

Certainly, there would be little motivation for Paul to invent his conversion story.

I agree that St. Paul experienced a genuine conversion, and he sincerely believed that he saw Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. However, I would chalk the latter up to a purely natural cause, such as epilepsy.

I have noticed that many people who claim they are leaving the Church for intelletual reasons are really leaving for sexual reasons. Their refusal to accept limitations on their sexuality motivate them to be compelled by historical arguments that undermine the resurrection.

I assure you that I am not leaving the Catholic Church because I want to become a libertine. I believe that Catholic sexual ethics are, in many ways, grossly wrong, but my dissent runs much deeper, to the very foundations of the religion.

 

[JimmyJazz]

There are discrepancies in the Gospels. I actually think that’s a good thing because it proves that the writers didn’t collude to determine their contents.

You’re absolutely right. It’s just that I believe the discrepancies result from different oral traditions.

 

[JimmyJazz]

JimmyJazz,
If you truly feel you must leave, please consider the fact that you might feel differently at some point in your life and refrain from burning your bridges altogether. Many people leave for many years over objections such as yours. But a whole lot of us come back. Please leave yourself that room.

I’ve thought about this. But I’m almost entirely sure that Catholicism is wrong in many important places, and I don’t think it likely that I’ll be persuaded to revert at some point later in life.

 

[jlhargus]

Well, at the very least, there were crucifixions aplenty in the ancient Roman Empire, and execution appears to have been the preferred method for dealing with seditionists or apparent seditionists such as Jesus. Additionally, reporting the crucifixion meets the criterion of embarrassment used in critical study of historical texts. In contrast, the Resurrection is a truly extraordinary event; it’s just prima facie unlikely that anyone has ever risen from the dead, and if anyone has, it would be nearly impossible to prove it using historical methods.

JL: I was just wondering if you had faith and lost it or have you never believed as an adult? It seems you are hung up on things being proved, instead of exercising and building on the faith God himself planted in your heart. Some of the greatest saints have went through, what is called, the dark night of the soul, feeling abandon by God, yet they keep acting on their faith. We all go through dry times, coming through those times by exercising our faith makes us grow and produce more fruit. Pruning a vine is probably not pleasant for the vine, but it makes it stronger and produces better fruit.

It looks a thought you are well read, could that be the underlying reason for loss of faith. Could you have read to much speculative theology and put your faith in them, instead of the magisterium. I could be way off, but that is what I get reading you.

Moreover, the Evangelists- or whoever wrote the Gospels- had every reason to fabricate such a story, which, while not making it necessarily untrue, makes it even more suspect than it already is.

JL: If you call persecution, a good reason to fabricate a story then I guess that is true. I think those who wrote would have had a more comfortable and easier life had they used there education to worldly pursuits. I will be praying for you regardless.

 

[whatevergirl]

Nothing to offer, except my prayers. I hope you choose to not go through with ‘leaving’ the faith.

 

[jlhargus]

I’ve thought about this. But I’m almost entirely sure that Catholicism is wrong in many important places, and I don’t think it likely that I’ll be persuaded to revert at some point later in life.

The following are some revert and convert testimonies. Just prayerfully trying to help

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004conv.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006fea1.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0005conv.asp

 

[dans0622]

The language used in the PCLT document appears to indicate that one who makes a formal act of defection is no longer considered Catholic. In different places it uses such phrases as “abandonment of the Catholic Church,” “the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church,” and “a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church.” Furthermore, a distinction is made between heretics, apostates, and schismatics that haven’t “externally concretized and manifested” their rupture, and those that have by formally defecting; great pains are taken to emphasize that the act of formal defection does not merely have a “judicial-administrative character,” but is an actual break from Catholicism.

Hi JimmyJazz,

I suppose you have read this somewhere already but just to be clear: the *only *practical and legal effects of this “formal defection” regard marriage. One who formally defects is not bound by canon law regarding mixed marriage, disparity of cult and the canonical form of marriage. The purpose of this innovation in the 1983 Code of Canon Law was to make it possible that those who stop practicing the faith would be able to enter a valid (in the eyes of the Church) marriage.

If the language used in the PCLT document makes it seem more significant than that, it shouldn’t. If a person formally defects, the subjective “break” from the Church is clear. On the other hand, in the perspective of the Church, such a person is not a “former” Catholic. If you are baptised Catholic, that is what you will be. That is why, at the beginning of this document, reference is made to the “once Catholic, always Catholic” idea, which is something the Church takes seriously and believes 100%.

It is sad (to me) that you find yourself in this situation. I hope and pray for the best for you.

Dan

 

[JimmyJazz]

JL: I was just wondering if you had faith and lost it or have you never believed as an adult?

I was once a believer, but I never had anything like an emotionally-based faith. I always tried to justify what I believed and believe what was justified, but over the past several months I’ve come to see how weak my reasoning actually was on a lot of religious matters.

It looks a thought you are well read,…

Thank you.

could that be the underlying reason for loss of faith. Could you have read to much speculative theology and put your faith in them, instead of the magisterium. I could be way off, but that is what I get reading you.

I’ve read much about the historical Jesus and the like, but I’ve no more put my faith in John Dominic Crossan or Bart D. Ehrman than I have put it in the Magisterium. It’s just that, whereas the latter issues pronunciations on who Jesus was and what he did and expects to be taken at its word, historians are expected to at least make an effort to back their statements up. And it’s the same situation when I disagree with the Catholic Church on other issues: it seems to me that the dogma is either entirely unsubstantiated or stands on very weak ground, and the opposite position is either one of rational agnosticism or reasoned denial.

JL: If you call persecution, a good reason to fabricate a story then I guess that is true. I think those who wrote would have had a more comfortable and easier life had they used there education to worldly pursuits.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. It’s not unlikely that claiming to be privy to special divine revelation and personally knowing a man who was not only the Messiah, but also God Incarnate could give them a position of power over the minds of others sought by many a manipulative charlatan.

That being said, I don’t think that the Apostles were liars. I think that they were probably sincerely convinced after Jesus died that such a lowly fate could not be the end, and, after experiencing visions that apparently confirmed his Resurrection, began to spread the story that Jesus Christ had risen. By the time this got around, no one remembered where Jesus was buried, so no corpse could be produced to stop the infant movement from growing (and even if a corpse could be produced, it would have decomposed beyond recognition- besides which, it’s unlikely that any Jews or Romans would have been willing to go to such drastic lengths as violating a grave just to undermine the credibility of yet another messianic sect). So the story spread and grew more and more embellished until it included such elements as the empty tomb and Temple guards, and the rest, as they say, is history. Or at least, that explanation is a much more likely than the one that requires a miracle.

I will be praying for you regardless.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

It is quite strange, I agree, for people to risk their lives for a story as outlandish as the Resurrection without it actually having happened, but stranger still is the notion that a man actually rose from the dead.

Well, that sounds like the whole of the trouble for you. That is your choice to not believe in the resurrection, of course. I am not under any illusion that we will convince you to believe otherwise.

I am not aware of any credible historical evidence that suggests Peter and Paul were not martyred, and were delusional, or liars. But if you are working from the assumption that they must be delusional and liars, then their testimony will never be convincing.

There is quite a difference between Joseph Smith and the Branch Davidians dying for their beliefs and the early Christian church dying for their beliefs. The first major difference is that the fomer died for unsubstantiated ideas or supernatural experiences for which there was no corresponding physical, historical event. The latter died for a claimed historical event that would be quite easy to disprove. The Jewish and Roman leaders could have produced the body of Jesus to dispel “The Way”, as Paul refers to followers of Christ in the book of Acts before Felix.

But once again, if you wish to use an alternative explanation to the resurrection, there will always be an alternative explanation that could be true. If you wish to believe something else happened, you may. That is the thing about faith- you don’t have to have it. You can always see the world the way you choose to see the world.

 

[Pax_Vobiscum_57]

I want to leave the Catholic Church for a number of reasons. After a great deal of thought and consideration, I no longer believe in the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, papal infallibility, conciliar infallibility, a Trinitarian conception of God, any of the Marian dogmas, divine revelation, the efficacy of the sacraments, original sin, Vicarious Atonement, or miracles. The only articles of the Nicene Creed that I still affirm are those that express a belief in one benevolent Creator, the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate (although I attribute no religious significance to this event), the resurrection of the dead, and “the life of the world to come.” Besides dogma, I think that Catholic sexual ethics are drastically wrong on many points, and I’m not terribly enamored with the statist bent that Catholic social ethics have historically displayed.

However, I will look up the EWTN series that you mentioned. And I would just like to note that I plan on parting with the Catholic Church as amicably as possible, because I harbor animus neither against it nor against any other organized religion, and much less do I have any disdain for Catholics; I just respectfully disagree with them.

I have been trying to say this in a charitable way, but am having trouble, so here goes:

I don’t think you need to do anything - you’ve just excommunicated yourself.

 

[human_being]

I want to leave the Catholic Church for a number of reasons. After a great deal of thought and consideration, I no longer believe in the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible, papal infallibility, conciliar infallibility, a Trinitarian conception of God, any of the Marian dogmas, divine revelation, the efficacy of the sacraments, original sin, Vicarious Atonement, or miracles. The only articles of the Nicene Creed that I still affirm are those that express a belief in one benevolent Creator, the crucifixion of Jesus by Pontius Pilate (although I attribute no religious significance to this event), the resurrection of the dead, and “the life of the world to come.” Besides dogma, I think that Catholic sexual ethics are drastically wrong on many points, and I’m not terribly enamored with the statist bent that Catholic social ethics have historically displayed.

However, I will look up the EWTN series that you mentioned. And I would just like to note that I plan on parting with the Catholic Church as amicably as possible, because I harbor animus neither against it nor against any other organized religion, and much less do I have any disdain for Catholics; I just respectfully disagree with them.

It seems you have given this much thought and I do not want to argue. The Journey Home does have details on alot of points you make probably. I haven’t watched it too many times and am not a very qualified theologian at all,but they do have non-argumentive discussions on why very religiously knowledgeable people have left other churches and come home.I don’t know how to find specifics on the computer and am not very fast on the computer but I’m sure you may be able to find some archive type stuff from the EWTN site,or if The Journey Home has it’s own site with archives. Like I said,It seems to be a very non-argumentive show. Are you leaving for a religion or belief system which you already know of?

 

[JimmyJazz]

I am not aware of any credible historical evidence that suggests Peter and Paul were not martyred, and were delusional, or liars.

There doesn’t need to be, since a negative can’t be proven. There just needs to be credible historical evidence that they were martyred. As to being liars of delusional, I agree that these are unlikely hypotheses. More likely than a miracle, but still unlikely.

There is quite a difference between Joseph Smith and the Branch Davidians dying for their beliefs and the early Christian church dying for their beliefs. The first major difference is that the fomer died for unsubstantiated ideas or supernatural experiences for which there was no corresponding physical, historical event. The latter died for a claimed historical event that would be quite easy to disprove. The Jewish and Roman leaders could have produced the body of Jesus to dispel “The Way”, as Paul refers to followers of Christ in the book of Acts before Felix.

Anyone could have gone to Smith’s Hill Cumorah, done some simple, inexpensive digging, and found that there was no sign of a repository for golden plates ever being there. But to my knowledge, no one has. It would only confirm what every nonbeliever already knows, and would be explained away by believers.

Similarly, the Jews and Romans in power could have- if they knew where Jesus was buried, which they very well may not have- excavated his remains and presented them to the assembled Apostles as evidence that he had never risen. But there were many heterodox movements for the Jews to deal with and many revolutions for the Romans to handle; no one at the time saw Christianity as a very serious threat, or at least they didn’t think the threat serious enough to ignore strong taboos and break into a grave. And even if they did, I imagine that the Jesus’ corpse would have decomposed beyond recognition in the amount of time it took for the Resurrection story to find its way around Jerusalem, so- with the means available at the time- couldn’t have conclusively been identified as such anyway.

But once again, if you wish to use an alternative explanation to the resurrection, there will always be an alternative explanation that could be true. If you wish to believe something else happened, you may. That is the thing about faith- you don’t have to have it. You can always see the world the way you choose to see the world.

Thank you for not being stern. I’ll allow you to see things as you like as well.

 

[JimmyJazz]

I have been trying to say this in a charitable way, but am having trouble, so here goes:

I don’t think you need to do anything - you’ve just excommunicated yourself.

I thought I had been excommunicated. I just want to externally manifest my disbelief with the formal defection.

 

[JimmyJazz]

It seems you have given this much thought and I do not want to argue. The Journey Home does have details on alot of points you make probably. I haven’t watched it too many times and am not a very qualified theologian at all,but they do have non-argumentive discussions on why very religiously knowledgeable people have left other churches and come home.I don’t know how to find specifics on the computer and am not very fast on the computer but I’m sure you may be able to find some archive type stuff from the EWTN site,or if The Journey Home has it’s own site with archives. Like I said,It seems to be a very non-argumentive show.

I still plan on looking it up. Maybe some of the reverts can dissuade me before I complete my defection.

Are you leaving for a religion or belief system which you already know of?

Yes. I plan on considering myself a Deist from henceforth, so there’s not going to be a formal transition into a new religion, just out of the old one.

 

[human_being]

The fact that this is generally true of historical documents. It’s never an either/or situation of inerrancy or complete falsehood with, say, Herodotus, so why should it be with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

I don’t. I’m certainly no professional historian, and even if I were I wouldn’t arrogate infallibility to myself. However, infallibility isn’t necessary to find (or make guesses at) the truth. All that’s necessary is reason, and in this case, the proper historical method, and while that may not yield certain results (considering the paucity of information we have on Jesus), it will yield good, very likely ones. My best rational guess- and that of virtually all mainstream experts on the historical Jesus- is that the crucifixion occurred, and that the Resurrection is historically unprovable. If I’m wrong, and Jesus actually died a peaceful death in Japan or something, I won’t lose any sleep over it. Religiously speaking, the way that Christ died simply doesn’t matter to me.

And if I may respectfully ask, why do you think that the Church is infallible?

I watched a show on an Anglican evangelical priest who was involved with some kind of large group of evangelicals trying to come up with some kind of system and he said it was impossible to do without one figurehead(THE POPE) because of everybodies ability to reason. They know so much about 'reasoning" and all believe in there own 'reason" that they wasted there time getting nowhere in disagreement.He said he found there is a need for a leader. There is a need for the Pope and infallability. He said it is a gift from God to simplify things. Left to our own devices we complicate everything and try to “reinvent the wheel” but it comes up square,IMHO.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

There doesn’t need to be, since a negative can’t be proven. There just needs to be credible historical evidence that they were martyred. As to being liars of delusional, I agree that these are unlikely hypotheses. More likely than a miracle, but still unlikely.

cuf.org/FileDownloads/sspeterandpaul.pdf

Anyone could have gone to Smith’s Hill Cumorah, done some simple, inexpensive digging, and found that there was no sign of a repository for golden plates ever being there. But to my knowledge, no one has. It would only confirm what every nonbeliever already knows, and would be explained away by believers.

I know very little about the Mormon church. I have always been very bored by the subject. I do know that I have heard there have been extensive archelogical and genetic studies done by Evangelicals to discredit Joseph Smith and his claims, because I have heard mentino of them. We are only 100+ years out from his claims, and they have been objectively discredited, though people continue to believe. The Jews and Romans did not undertake such a campaign.

Similarly, the Jews and Romans in power could have- if they knew where Jesus was buried, which they very well may not have- excavated his remains and presented them to the assembled Apostles as evidence that he had never risen. But there were many heterodox movements for the Jews to deal with and many revolutions for the Romans to handle; no one at the time saw Christianity as a very serious threat, or at least they didn’t think the threat serious enough to ignore strong taboos and break into a grave. And even if they did, I imagine that the Jesus’ corpse would have decomposed beyond recognition in the amount of time it took for the Resurrection story to find its way around Jerusalem, so- with the means available at the time- couldn’t have conclusively been identified as such anyway.

That seems to be pretty illogical to me. It seems odd that they would deal with the facts of the resurrection of Jesus with bemused silence and indifference and yet deal with the followers of Simon bar Kokhba as they did. He was re-named “Son of the Lie”.

 

[human_being]

I still plan on looking it up. Maybe some of the reverts can dissuade me before I complete my defection.

Yes. I plan on considering myself a Deist from henceforth, so there’s not going to be a formal transition into a new religion, just out of the old one.

I don’t know if they have any archives or how detailed they may be but I do know that he seems to have people on the show who bring up very intelliegent points,such as your own,very thoughtful and intelligent people,some actualy in charge of large numbers of non-catholics,and they always find stronger reasons to be catholic,than not.Maybe you could search their programs somehow for former Deists.Or people’s religions who are considered this.

 

[JimmyJazz]

I watched a show on an Anglican evangelical priest who was involved with some kind of large group of evangelicals trying to come up with some kind of system and he said it was impossible to do without one figurehead(THE POPE) because of everybodies ability to reason. They know so much about 'reasoning" and all believe in there own 'reason" that they wasted there time getting nowhere in disagreement.He said he found there is a need for a leader. There is a need for the Pope and infallability. He said it is a gift from God to simplify things. Left to our own devices we complicate everything and try to “reinvent the wheel” but it comes up square,IMHO.

But the problem isn’t with reason per se; it’s with people reasoning incorrectly. I think that Evangelicalism is so fissiparous because of the proud irrationalism of so many Evangelicals: if everyone in a religion believes that he occupies a divinely guided position like the Pope does in Catholicism, and eschews the notion that his beliefs should have a rational basis, naturally there’s going to be dissension in the ranks. However, if everyone in a religion were to humbly try to reason things out, admitting that they may sometimes get it wrong and need to be corrected rationally, then there would be a bit more unity, or at least it would be easier to get to the truth.

Besides which, I take it that there are only two ways to determine whether someone- such as the pope- is infallible: reason or revelation. If it is correct that reason is unreliable, then it should prove useless in finding this infallible man; however, it should be equally useless in discerning an alleged revelation that would declare someone infallible.