Formally Leaving the Catholic Church

[JimmyJazz]

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.

It’s not so much that people have set about to discredit Mormonism as it is that the fields of archaeology and genetics have gone on completely ignoring the claims of the Book of Mormon and have suffered nothing for it. Any Mormon apologist would tell you that this is just an argument from silence. He might even get creative and tell you that the Book of Mormon has been misunderstood, and all the apparently ridiculous bits (such as elephants and horses in pre-Columbian North America) are just Hebrew circumlocutions describing things that everyone agrees exist, and archaeology has in fact confirmed his holy book. I have no doubt that a first century Christian controvertist could have replied to the opening of Jesus’ tomb just as easily, especially considering how quickly the corpse would have decomposed.

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”.

Simon bar Kokhba also got everyone’s hopes up with his revolutionary plans, only to fail. He was a great disappointment to his co-religionists, whereas Jesus was (to them) just some unremarkable preacher who encouraged people to break the Law.

As to the CUF link, it provides sparse evidence that St. Peter was martyred besides an oral tradition dating back to the early second century. He may very well have gone to Rome at some point; I would be quite unsurprised that he did. However, this does not necessarily mean that he died there. And even if he did, there is still the matter of being mistaken about the Resurrection, or simply being a very courageous liar. If St. Paul was martyred, this is considerably less notable, since he never claimed to see Jesus in the flesh, only in a vision. It is of greater interest that someone who personally knew Christ and would have been in a position to lend credibility to the Resurrection story died for his Christianity.

 

[stuart12]

you dont believe in hell…you will when you get there.

 

[Monica4316]

I really hope you won’t leave the Church. I never saw myself becoming a Catholic until a year ago, I thought what I believed was right, until I really started praying about it. Just a question, have you prayed about all this? I mean, really, prayed, sought the truth, with humility… well in any case, prayers for you.

Peace

 

[human_being]

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.

From what I understand the Pope is only infallible in in cerain situations,certain writings such as encyclicals.Obviosly we all know and admit that at some points in history we have had some pope’s who may have not been very good people. There are only certain times that the Pope is considered infallible.If everyone in religion were to humbly try to reasonthings out as you say etc…, but it has been tried many times and still gets tryed today but never works. Our Church we have been given is solid as solid can be. People fail,the church cannot.We are all imperfect. Other religions seem to bend due to reason and even current reason which changes with time.The ground rules for the catholic church do not change with time but alot of other religions do change with the times :some allowing women leaders others allowing people of different sexual orientations to lead even though sodomy and such is clearly spoken against in the Bible. I would hope that you could find a Deist that has returned to the church and they could explain why too you because I don’t know exactly what it is and don’t really care to(no offense meant to you).The office of pope seems to simplify things. When someone dissagrees with the pope and decides to break away from the church for his own ideas it seems that it has made another church and another church and another church and another church. It only has led to confusion of the masses and disunity amongst christians. And I was told that the devil is the lord of confusion. And it seems that it is our nature to more NOT agree than to agree on alot of issues.Alot of posts on this site will show you that. It seems we as people tend to disagree more often than agree. The Pope has the position to hold us together. You know that Jesus handed the keys to only one person.He did not hand the keys to all of the apostles.He made it simple,yet we complicate it.

 

[Monica4316]

the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals. There have been morally corrupt Popes, none of them have changed doctrine

 

[Holland]

If you have to leave then I guess you have to leave but I agree with others that have posted in saying you really don’t need a piece of paper to leave the Church. I don’t know your age but you sound “young” or maybe you just sound like I did when I was 20. It took me almost 30 years to come back to the Church and its still “bumpy” for me sometimes. There was no huge moment that suddenly drew me back to the Faith. It was a slow awakening over time. If you were raised Catholic, as I was, you cannot undue the body of knowledge you have about the Catholic Church. A piece of paper won’t do that for you. Having been on both sides of this issue, I can say with certainty that my life is better having embraced the mysteries of faith in the Catholic Church. Keep your heart open. I will include you in my daily prayers.

 

[OriginalJS]

I feel that some of us have been led down a primrose path here. People come to the church and people leave the church all the time. In fact, this appears to be more frequent now than ever. The thread seems to have developed into a a typical Athens-Jerusalem discussion.

 

[LilyM]

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.

A business relationship? It’s not an imperfect analogy, it’s nothing like an analogy.
Of course membership in the Catholic Church is a social bond. We are fellow members of the Body of Christ, trying to work together to do His will on earth - you can’t GET more social than that!

Catholicism, indeed all of Christianity, is not just about the individual and God, or the individual and the Magisterium. Catholicism is very much about the individual and society as well. It creates social bonds and social relationships.

Hence the massive amount of charitable work the Church does. Hence the Church setting up, in the middle ages, the university system we use to this day, in order to further learning, not to mention the huge role the Church plays in education more generally. Hence Catholic hospitals, St Vincent De Paul, Caritas and countless other Church-run welfare groups, to cater to our brother’s needs in a plethora of areas.

Hence polygamy being against the civil law, as was abortion until just under 40 years ago. Hence penalty rates (in a lot of cases) for those who are obligated to work on Sundays, if their businesses aren’t closed entirely on that day.

Our shared Christian belief permeate our secular culture and social life and are not something distinct from it. Catholicism is very much something that creates a social bond, not a mere religious one.

 

[JimmyJazz]

you dont believe in hell…you will when you get there.

I believe in Hell. My eschatology is still largely Catholic.

 

[JimmyJazz]

Just a question, have you prayed about all this? I mean, really, prayed, sought the truth, with humility… well in any case, prayers for you.

Peace

Thank you for praying for me. I haven’t prayed on this myself because I don’t expect anything to come of it. At the most, I would experience a feeling of confirmation one way or the other, but without rationally considering the question I would be unable to tell if my feelings were correct or divine in origin.

 

[human_being]

I am going to try to post a link (which I havn’t tried yet)chnetwork.org/newsletters/july08.pdf Hey,it worked.I don’t know how to do more than 1 yet so i will be back with another post. I don’t know if the guy’s a deist but you can punch in deist youself and look into marcus grodi’s coming home network and I’m sure you’ll find someone who has had your views.

 

[human_being]

And anotherhttp://www.chnetwork.org/

 

[human_being]

And 1 more.I really hope you can navigate and find the Truth. I’m not the greatest navigator on this thing,but I am geting better.ewtn.com/journeyhome/index.asp

 

[JimmyJazz]

Catholicism, indeed all of Christianity, is not just about the individual and God, or the individual and the Magisterium. Catholicism is very much about the individual and society as well. It creates social bonds and social relationships.

For my part, I haven’t really formed any social relationships based on religion. To be perfectly honest, I’ve always felt a little lonely among other Catholics (outside of my family and a few friends, but I didn’t meet any of those people in religious contexts). I don’t mean any offense by that; it’s just that, even at my most orthodox, I’ve never quite “fit in” to the Church. But I stayed with it anyway, because for awhile, I still believed Catholic doctrine. Now that I don’t, I don’t expect to lose anything with the Catholics that I know. As for being a member of the Body of Christ, I’m already excommunicated, so what effect would a formal defection have on such a bond, if it indeed exists?

Hence the massive amount of charitable work the Church does. Hence the Church setting up, in the middle ages, the university system we use to this day, in order to further learning, not to mention the huge role the Church plays in education more generally. Hence Catholic hospitals, St Vincent De Paul, Caritas and countless other Church-run welfare groups, to cater to our brother’s needs in a plethora of areas.

Programs such as these are part of the reason that I maintain respect for the Catholic Church. Formally defecting doesn’t mean that I don’t have the utmost admiration for Catholics- or anyone else- who does this kind of work.

Hence polygamy being against the civil law, as was abortion until just under 40 years ago. Hence penalty rates (in a lot of cases) for those who are obligated to work on Sundays, if their businesses aren’t closed entirely on that day.

In my opinion, polygamy shouldn’t be civilly illegal precisely because the only reasons for outlawing it are religious and cultural. Likewise for penalizing the practice of working on Sundays. No one is the victim of aggression when consenting adults form a heterodox marital arrangement, or when someone chooses to work on a particular day of the week, so there can be no justification for using force to stop people doing these things. I think that abortion should be illegal, but because it’s homicidal, not because it’s condemned by any particular religion. That’s just me, though.

 

[LilyM]

For my part, I haven’t really formed any social relationships based on religion. To be perfectly honest, I’ve always felt a little lonely among other Catholics (outside of my family and a few friends, but I didn’t meet any of those people in religious contexts). I don’t mean any offense by that; it’s just that, even at my most orthodox, I’ve never quite “fit in” to the Church. But I stayed with it anyway, because for awhile, I still believed Catholic doctrine. Now that I don’t, I don’t expect to lose anything with the Catholics that I know. As for being a member of the Body of Christ, I’m already excommunicated, so what effect would a formal defection have on such a bond, if it indeed exists?

.

I mean social in the sense that you form a social bond with your schoolmates - you are bonded even to the ones you didn’t like or didn’t know all that well - by shared experiences, a shared environment and so on. Like it or not, that’s a social bond, and members of the Catholic Church do have the same bond with each other.

It’s indisputably there and manifests itself in a million different ways. It’s there when you see someone make the sign of the cross in a restaurant, it’s there when you notice someone omitting ‘for the kingdom the power and the glory …’ at the end of the Our Father, or when someone mentions giving something up for Lent even in a jesting way.

 

[LilyM]

In my opinion, polygamy shouldn’t be civilly illegal precisely because the only reasons for outlawing it are religious and cultural.

Like it or not, it IS an aspect of religion that has permeated into civil culture. The social bond formed by shared Christian beliefs exists, even if you don’t like the fact. And will never be completely eradicated.

Likewise for penalizing the practice of working on Sundays. No one is the victim of aggression when consenting adults form a heterodox marital arrangement, or when someone chooses to work on a particular day of the week, so there can be no justification for using force to stop people doing these things.

Except the justification that the sanctity of Sunday is a shared social as well as religious construct. NAMBLA think that no-one is a victim in some situations that we label as pedophilia, and that there is no justification for outlawing their preferred behaviours. But because the rest of society disagrees, they are nonetheless illegal.

I think that abortion should be illegal, but because it’s homicidal, not because it’s condemned by any particular religion. That’s just me, though.

Where did you get the idea that homicide is wrong in the case of abortion from, though? Plenty of societies have existed where it was not punished to anything like the extent it is in our society. Arguably there is no real social ill caused by it except for that minority that thinks an unborn baby has rights (and they are a minority - and there is always a minority that will oppose any legal state of affairs).

 

[human_being]

Some parts of the Gospels are reliable, others aren’t. I don’t really want to get into great detail in this particular thread, but I need not accept the historicity of, say, the Resurrection to accept the historicity of a relatively mundane event such as the crucifixion. With all due respect, merely because a work has some credibility does not mean that it is inerrant.

I would like to make a clean break. I’m not just lapsing into religious indifference the way so many Christmas-and-Easter Catholics do; I am rejecting my original religion on principle and want to express this rejection formally.

Why do you want to reject your religion formally? Who are you doing this formally for?Yourself? Another religion? Some kind of scientific society? Why are you choosing to do it formally?Who must you feel it is necessary to prove or show this to in some formal statement? Who do you feel that you must express this too?

 

[Jenny_Z]

If you don’t agree with most things the Catholic Church teaches, why would you feel the need to formally leave? Sounds like you’re giving it more credibility than you want to (or maybe more than you realize).

I’ll be praying for you. I hope you change your mind, if not now, then somewhere down the line.

 

[human_being]

There are still miracles that did not happen too long ago.Padre Pio had miracles attributed to him along with stigmata for many years still unexplainable by science. There is also the miracles of Fatima. There are many Christian miracles still unexplained by science.If this helps I do not know. But if these scientifically unexplainable phenomena still occur there is no reason for me to assume the ressurection did not occur. Science and knowledge do not always concretely prove everything. I think maybe (and it is your choice) if you would pray for faith it may be helpful.Because alot of religion has to do with faith.

 

[JimmyJazz]

I mean social in the sense that you form a social bond with your schoolmates - you are bonded even to the ones you didn’t like or didn’t know all that well - by shared experiences, a shared environment and so on. Like it or not, that’s a social bond, and members of the Catholic Church do have the same bond with each other.

It’s indisputably there and manifests itself in a million different ways. It’s there when you see someone make the sign of the cross in a restaurant, it’s there when you notice someone omitting ‘for the kingdom the power and the glory …’ at the end of the Our Father, or when someone mentions giving something up for Lent even in a jesting way.

Well, yes, I’ll probably maintain some kind of cultural attachment to Catholicism whether I want to or not; although I don’t really believe the distinctive doctrines of the religion anymore, it’s still been a part of my life since infancy. I don’t doubt that my experiences in the Catholic Church have to some extent shaped the religious beliefs that I hold now, so I suppose that we don’t really disagree about this.

Except the justification that the sanctity of Sunday is a shared social as well as religious construct.

But there’s no denying that it has a religious origin. Even if it didn’t, I still believe that it would be wrong to impose the idiosyncrasy of the majority on the harmless minority.

NAMBLA think that no-one is a victim in some situations that we label as pedophilia, and that there is no justification for outlawing their preferred behaviours. But because the rest of society disagrees, they are nonetheless illegal.

Forgive me if I misread you; surely you’re not comparing polygamy and working on Sundays to raping children? Clearly NAMBLA is wrong about the ability of prepubescents to consent to sex; the consensus of the psychological community stands in staunch opposition to their beliefs, and the burden of proof rests on those that would contradict it. Hopefully, it is because pedophilic sex is incontrovertibly damaging to children that it is illegal, not because the madness of the crowds simply agrees that it is damaging.

Where did you get the idea that homicide is wrong in the case of abortion from, though? Plenty of societies have existed where it was not punished to anything like the extent it is in our society. Arguably there is no real social ill caused by it except for that minority that thinks an unborn baby has rights (and they are a minority - and there is always a minority that will oppose any legal state of affairs).

There is an ontological continuity between the zygote and the adult. If the adult has an inviolable right to self-ownership, then so does the zygote, the embryo, the fetus, the infant, and the child. That’s most basically why I believe that abortion is homicidal; if you’re interested, this essay covers my beliefs on the subject fairly well. Incidentally, it is because a minority will always be displeased by some law that I don’t believe that democracy- or any other form of government (using the Weberian definition)- is just, so if it’s all the same to you I’d like to stop talking politics now.