I can no longer in good conscience identify as Catholic. It's been fun

[gam197]

StudentMI

I will keep you in my prayers and I am going to miss you terribly. You are the only poster I know who knows all these unique people and I mean unique and books that I have never ever heard of - always a new one. You know so much history. Just amazing.

It is sad for me when anyone has trouble with the Catholic faith because it is such a beautiful faith. Again you are in my prayers.

 

[bob4]

But I’ve decided, after much thought, I can no longer identify as a Catholic. I suppose my recent baptism and confirmation were more a cry for help to God than anything. To be honest I did a lot of praying that my faith would return after those sacraments. I’m sorry to say it never did.

@StudentMI I’ve been a Catholic for a long time; I believe in the Church so it’s sad to see someone leave. Keep praying, I and others here, I believe, will be praying for you.

 

[AlNg]

A Catholic who was ever a Catholic in good faith can’t just up and leave

However, I assure other posters here that insisting that someone has no agency to determine their own religious identity is frankly a turn off to non-Catholic observers like myself. It also smacks of a kind cloying desperation whereby the Church might only hold on to many of its members through a technical appeal to entrapment by baptism.

i don’t understand it either. Here is an example of a former Catholic priest who renounces Catholicism and is officially accepted into the Russian Orthodox church. According to some of the posters here, he is still a Catholic. Does this mean that you can be Catholic and Russian Orthodox at the same time?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

No, it means the Catholic Church still considers the man a Catholic regardless of what another church might consider him. He could have become a priest in the Episcopal church or in Buddhism or in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Catholic Church will still consider him Catholic, and what’s more, will consider him to be a Catholic Priest. If he wanted to return to the Catholic Church, he would not need to convert, or go through RCIA, because he’s still Catholic.

Interestingly, his sacraments will still be valid from a Catholic standpoint, since not only is he still a Catholic Priest (once validly ordained in the Catholic Church, you can’t be un-ordained) but also the Orthodox sacraments are considered valid by the Catholic Church anyway.

So at this point he’s just a Catholic priest who has fallen into serious error.

 

[Vouthon]

You obviously just read selectively.

I do not read selectively, I am presenting the doctrine the church has always held in this respect. You did not appreciate the scholastic distinction between “subject” and “member” which is where you’re getting this wrong.

 

[Montrose]

I do not read selectively, I am presenting the doctrine the church has always held in this respect. You did not appreciate the scholastic distinction between “subject” and “member” which is where you’re getting this wrong.

A Catholic is always a Catholic and that is what the Church says so I have no interest in listening to you droning on. My last post on this.

 

[Vouthon]

A Catholic is always a Catholic and that is what the Church says so I have no interest in listening to you droning on. My last post on this.

Protestants have the exact same baptism and are in imperfect communion with the church. If a person leaves the Catholic Church and identifies as a Protestant, they are in the same position.

But fine, if you wish to get ‘insulting’ (droning on) the discussion is closed. It never should have been raised in the first place since it is distracting our focus from the person involved here.

 

[Vouthon]

I have tried to explain this distinction to him (“subject/belong” versus “member”) but he just won’t listen to me. Perhaps you will have better luck.

 

[AlNg]

Protestants have the exact same baptism and are in imperfect communion with the church. If a person leaves the Catholic Church and identifies as a Protestant, they are in the same position.

That is what i thought also.

 

[FiveLinden]

I agree with this. To assume that atheists on CAF have only the purest of intentions is in my opinion, naive. Jesus said be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.

I thought Catholics are required to put the best possible interpretation on the actions of others unless there is evidence that another interpretation should be made. In the catechism…

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.279

 

[Dan_Defender]

You are correct that a Catholic is to assume the best to start with, but when more evidence comes to light, one is not to ignore it. Any Catholic who is interested can look at your posts on CAF for the last 12 months or so to realize that your underlying message is always that the Catholic position on everything does not make sense and the atheist position is the most logical one. For someone who is so convinced of atheism, it seems illogical for you to keep posting the same things, unless your intention is different.
Like others have pointed out, this forum is to defend the faith. You can complain all you want but this is a forum primarily for the faithful.

 

[Katie777]

Everyone I know has gone through a dry period.
Then they read Acts. Then they read old testament on Who and what it entails to be the messiah. Then when it matches up a spark happens.

Then they talk to a history major who read the bible in a historical way.
Another spark.

Give yourself time and do this. You will see the love of Christ and the beauty of the faith. Forget the rest and start from scratch on what type of Catholic you are.

In Christ
Katie

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I thought Catholics are required to put the best possible interpretation on the actions of others unless there is evidence that another interpretation should be made. In the catechism…

As Dan noted, there is plenty of evidence all over your posting history. At least three different people on here have publicly called you on it recently, and we’re not in cahoots.

If you’re going to continue working subtle potshots at religion/ Catholicism into your posts, then please just own it.

 

[FiveLinden]

your underlying message is always that the Catholic position on everything does not make sense and the atheist position is the most logical one.

My actual position is that I am interested in why people believe what they do and so raise issues that clarify their beliefs. I do not promote atheism or anything else on CAF, except maybe the scientific method and I admit that it has its flaws. The fact is I’m just an unbeliever interested in Catholic belief and thought.

 

[Neithan]

The fact is I’m just an unbeliever

Unbelief and “unbeliever” have particular meanings with reference to Catholic belief, by the way. It is not merely an indifferent lack of faith, but a willful resistance to faith. I’m not sure that’s what you mean.

 

[puer.dei]

Unbelief and “unbeliever” have particular meanings with reference to Catholic belief, by the way. It is not merely an indifferent lack of faith, but a willful resistance to faith. I’m not sure that’s what you mean.

I think we all know what FiveLinden means. No need to expect a non-Catholic to know & use terms according to Catholic theological understanding. I’ll lay odds that even most Catholics use the word the same way he does.

 

[Neithan]

Still worth pointing it out.

 

[FiveLinden]

So what is the acceptable Catholic term for someone who does not believe in the supernatural and who tries to avoid ‘belief’ in favour of ‘conclusion’?

 

[Neithan]

who tries to avoid ‘belief’

If you’re actively trying to avoid Catholic belief, then yeah, unbeliever is accurate.

 

[FiveLinden]

I distinguish between 1) things I think are real because I have observed them, or others have observed and reported them in a credible way, and things I consider might explain things I have observed (hypotheses) and 2) things I think are real without accurate observation. Certainly in my life there have been many of these and gradually I have overcome them. For example I used to believe, without evidence, that evolution always tended ‘upwards’ towards the development of intelligent beings like humans. There was no evidence for this. I no longer believe it.

Hence my regular comments in threads about miracles in which I refute the claim that that ‘no miracle would satisfy me’. I am perfectly open to all Catholic belief, if only I can find observations that demonstrate it (by which I don’t mean ‘make it possible, or not irrational’. Most Catholic belief seems to me to be rational, given its faith-based premises.