The Church in Crisis Is Like The Light of a Dying Star

[MNathaniel]

I wrote this comment earlier but deleted. Resurrecting.

Maybe another way to explain my position is that I’m a convert who spent more than 50% of my living years trying to figure out what Christianity was.

Not even just ‘Trying to decide if Christianity was true or not.’ Trying to figure out what Christianity was.

The multitude of people claiming the word ‘Christian’ but confusing the waters with 10,000 different things that could mean, is, well… confusing.

And the one time I reached out to a Catholic (nun) she gave me a garbage answer to a question that left me walking away sad that Catholicism couldn’t possibly be true. She wasted years of my life by not taking two minutes out of her day to clarify that I’d misunderstood a word, and instead seemingly took an insular approach of just not-letting-my-question-disturb-her-faith (as if I was some kind of a test instead of a person with an eternal destiny of my own), and not bothering to make sure her answer would actually help me (or even just not harm me).

And then it turned out my next door neighbours for 20 years were Catholic. And they never once introduced themselves or gave any hint they were Catholic or open to being approached about it.

Revelation 3 has always resonated with me. Lukewarmness is from hell. It harms others in ways that the lukewarm just wander through life apparently totally ignorant of. Give me hot or give me cold.

PS I get along great with atheists and Wiccans. But boy howdy, not lukewarm Christians. Never have. Even back when I was a Wiccan I couldn’t stand lukewarm Christians, but respected consistent Christians just fine. I’ve never understood the point or the hypocrisy. Just be what you are, own what you are, live what you are. But don’t say one thing and do another. No one can respect that.

PS let me add to what I originally wrote: as an outsider who had to fight for years to get past the obstacles lukewarm Christians put between me and the Church, and who suffered a hell of a lot in those intervening years, I do not appreciate being talked down to as if I’m not being ‘expansive’ enough to recognize that lukewarm individuals are part of the “big tent” and I’m being narrow and judging people as “not good enough” if I even talk about the harm done by lukewarmness. The victims of lukewarmness matter too. The people who go unhelped.

 

[MNathaniel]

Really what Skojec is advocating is a “Church of the few” - effectively a closed community which is focussed on taking care of itself rather than on reaching out to those outside of it. That’s not to say that such a community isn’t interested in evangelising but only on its terms, expecting those who wish to join to come to them.

If this is what he is arguing, I’m not in favour of it. To be clear. And if I’ve misunderstood what he’s saying, I apologize for that. My understanding of articles like the one that started this thread has been that they don’t advocate a Church of the few, but they argue that the number of internally faithful is already “few”, and a crisis simply makes that already-existing reality visible, which makes it more clear and straightforward in terms of getting to work improving the situation.

Also, I apologize for not realizing you were a priest, Father. I’d have addressed you as such if I’d known.

I’m a bit turned about now because I feel like what you’re saying is exactly what I’m saying, and I don’t know how that’s at odds. My exact position is that times of crisis can produce the brightest lights and the most fruits.

But the exact reason I’m upset reading some of what other posters have written on this thread is that what the other posters have written is what comes off as “insular” to me (e.g. saying one has grown up to not "concern themselves too much with what other Catholics (or other people in general) are doing".). To me that is a complacent country club mentality, of “I’m fine, so everyone else can probably figure it out alone too, and who cares if others are misleading them? I’ll pray and that’s probably enough.” It might be tolerant of certain sinners, but it inherently tolerates harm and consequences that shouldn’t be tolerated (e.g. the teaching of error or the laziness about reaching out to lost souls – who are also sinners, and even more helpless sinners, in need of even more compassion). For Catholics to not police themselves is not compassionate to the wider world. (‘Police’ meant in the vernacular sense of course.)

And I find it really frustrating when some dismiss others as “arrogant” or as just wanting to exclude those who are “imperfect”, when one expresses serious concerns about the way lukewarmness has cascading consequences for those who aren’t already anywhere near the safety of a Church boundary. I don’t feel superior to anyone, I feel helpless in the face of widespread confusion and spiritual apathy that I know is harming people, and I feel like from comments here there are people who feel superior to me as if I’m ignorant, ‘narrow’ or unjust for commenting on the harm (or even for expressing that I feel encouraged when someone acknowledges harm) and that feels unjust.

 

[otjm]

Who’s speaking of rods?

Sorry - did not run spell check. Try again - it might be a bit clearer.

 

[StudentMI]

I myself wasn’t converted by examples. I’ve always valued consistency. Too often I saw consistency thrown to the wind by Christians to take them seriously.

Raised Lutheran and baptized as an infant, I wandered through other philosophies before arriving at a budding occultism. It was during that time that I read a forceful, take no prisoners book of history that portrayed the Church as the Church Militant of martyrs and witness in the midst of brutality. That sparked my interest, and not long after I was given a Catechism by a priest. The Catechism is why I decided to become Catholic. I had missed simple faith but couldn’t take the vagaries and inconsistencies of Protestantism. The blunt, ‘this is true’ model of the Catechism convinced me.

In addition it wasn’t witness that convinced my dad to become a Catholic. It was a book by Scott Hahn that I was given two copies of at Church, one for me and one for my parents. He read it out of boredom and to be polite and at the end decided to convert. He’ll be confirmed this Saturday.

 

[otjm]

Awesome!

Different things work for different people.

 

[MNathaniel]

MNathaniel:

When he suggests marrying fellow Catholics, the clear rationale (to my eyes) is that children who grow up in households where one parent doesn’t practice the faith, are much less likely to believe in the religion of the other parent, or even consider it worth learning about.

If anything, I like to think that I’m proof to the contrary!

With respect, Father, you might be proof that a contrary example is possible (and I’m glad!)… but my understanding is still that statistically speaking, what I said in my initial comment is true.

The links between religious upbringing, current religious identity | Pew Research Center

There’s a statistically significant (and substantial) difference between the adult religious identity of a person raised by two Catholics (62% of children remain Catholic) and a person raised by one Catholic and one Protestant (29% of children remain Catholic). The stats vary based on the affiliations of the parents (if it’s one Catholic and one totally-religiously-non-affiliated parent, the child has a 32% chance of being Catholic as an adult).

Obviously statistics are just numbers and any individual human story can change based on free will, etc. But these statistics are real in terms of describing reality as it’s unfolded so far, and as far as I know this result in its essential form is duplicated across studies.

And if you check the charts, it’s definitely the presence of a differently-believing-parent that affects the child. A single parent who is Catholic produces Catholic adult children at about the same rate as married Catholic spouses. The statistic is cut in half though if the Catholic parent raises the child with a non-Catholic co-parent. (In those situations, it seems that mothers are more effective than fathers at passing on their religion: in Catholic/Protestant pairings, if the mother is Catholic, it’s more likely the child will be Catholic than Protestant. If the mother is Protestant, it’s more likely the child will be Protestant than Catholic). In general, Protestants are more effective at passing on their faith than Catholics.

Also note, they asked the kids from shared-faith households about how important they felt religion was to their family growing up (etc). The results show that it makes a big difference to kids not only that their parents be technically affiliated with Catholicism, but “consider it very important” and talk about it. Continued Catholicism drops from 73% to 38% depending on how important they believed religion was to their family. This bit loops back to the conversation about consequences of lukewarmness.

Anyhow, I’ve spoken a lot on this thread. I’ll peace out now.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Awesome!

Different things work for different people.

That’s for sure. My dad couldn’t care less about apologetics and spoke many times of how bored he got when the other guy in his Catholic instruction class wanted to constantly argue with the priest about stuff like matter and anti-matter as it somehow related to God’s existence. My dad converted because my mother said “if you want to marry me, you better do something about your religion.”

 

[7_Sorrows]

As a former Episcopalian I have witnessed firsthand what happens with lukewarm
Christianity from within - Bishops, priests, and parishoners who have the attitude
that they are able to interpret the Christian faith according to their own rules and their really is no unifying understanding of what Christianity means. If you want to
believe Mary is a virgin - fine. If you don’t - that is fine too!

Didn’t Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI say one day the Carholic church might be as small as a mustard seed?

So I can say I agree with you @MNathaniel

 

[goout]

goout:

I think Christendom, as a dominant Christian cultural/social/political entity is dead and buried. We are unfortunately the generation that is watching it’s demise accelerate.

We might be watching its demise, but I don’t think it’s dead and buried. It isn’t in my parish, and it’s a pretty big parish. All I see is people who love their Catholic faith, their Catholic church, and their Catholic lives. We just want the virus to be over so that we can get back to our normal lives, attending our church and loving our faith. While there are many falling away from the faith–true–there are many who aren’t, and we will remain faithful.

The faith is what it always has been. It’s the society that has changed. And you know what? I hear of more and more people who are finding secularism and materialism insufficient and unsatisfying, in the end. People are returning to the church. I have an older friend who came back after 50 years! I am optimistic and predicting many converts and reverts.

Yes I understand. but:
Here’s what is meant by Christendom: A political, cultural and social structure that in infused and leavened by Christian values, gives credence to those values and operates with those values.

That is in the rear view mirror. But yes, your post presents hope for apostolic Christianity.

 

[mythbuster1]

Remember that excommunication is medicinal. Its purpose is to show an obstinate sinner how far he has fallen so he will repent and be saved. It’s not that they can’t be reached under any circumstances, but that they can’t be reached in their present condition because they are blinded by their own sins. To reach them, they must first become aware of their own spiritual condition, which can’t happen as long as they are able to function as hypocrites.

 

[commenter]

, I love CAF AND 1P5. It breaks my heart when people bash 1P5.

I disagree with bashing 1p5. But it is not bashing to point out a distinction.
Catholic Answers is affiliated with the Church. 1p5 is not.

Whether it’s good or bad is a matter of opinion, with varying responses. Your assessment is important. So is that distinction.

 

[choose_to_love]

@InThePew

Actually, Skojec was saying, later in the article “I want those people back” - - the ones who may fall away after not going to Mass due to the pandemic. I agree with MNathaniel that SS’s thesis is not that we can or should stop evangelizing, and later in the article, after the quote from St. Athanasius, he points out reasons for ultimate optimism.

I didn’t take the article as what would be good, but what realistically may happen. It’s a series of “ifs”, but if people stop physically attending Mass, and collections drop as well, how, exactly, will that not be catastrophic for local parishes? The blurb from St. Patrick’s amply illustrates his point. FWIW.

 

[commenter]

Rod Dreher converted from Catholic to Eastern Orthodox in 2006.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

A bit inappropriate for him to continue harping about Catholicism, other than perhaps discussing why he himself left.
If he hasn’t been a Catholic for years then he’s hardly qualified to write with any sort of credibility about events that occurred after he departed the Church.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This blog seems to be falling into the woe is me, the gates of hell have prevailed mindset.

Christ is returning for a glorious Bride without spot or wrinkle.

 

[adamhovey1988]

enjoy guitar Masses

Guilty. On occasion.

 

[Jen7]

He read it out of boredom and to be polite and at the end decided to convert. He’ll be confirmed this Saturday.

Congratulations to your dad!!

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I thought it was good. A traditional Catholic perspective. It’s encouraging because some uncomfortable truths are presented and there’s a faithful response - seeing God’s involvement, but also our own need.
I will guess that opponents to this view do some or all of the following:

1. Deny that theological modernism is present in the Church and has done damage
2. Believe that people who reject Catholic teaching but still receive Communion are just “normal” for the life of the Church (that Catholics have never expected a majority to believe the truths of the Faith).
3. Ignorance about fundamentals of the Faith is not a problem, or does not really exist (since the fundamentals are reduced to an absurd level)
4. That people who see widespread devastation and intolerable losses of Faith are “negative”, “pessimistic” and otherwise “hurtful”

Converts should be encouraged to see the Catholic world as it is. We are always challenged by God to live at the highest level. Converts have that advantage, they fight for what they believe and strive to know much - they are already moving strongly in the right direction. Conversion doesn’t stop with Baptism - we have to keep moving closer to God, and that means seeing the truth.

I find it strange sometimes to see people who have been (and are, daily) active on CAF, giving Catholic advice, say something like “I don’t pay any attention to what other Catholics believe - I just follow my own Faith”.
We’re in a community - a family of Faith. We need to pay attention - certainly, if we’re on this site giving advice every single day. Clearly, if you’re reading opinions from Catholics, then you should care about them.

From the very beginning of the article posted, many people write that there is a loss of Faith, evident in Catholic education and parish life.
I’ve seen it myself for decades.

I do disagree with Mr. Skojec’s concern about those who “practice the Faith” - this will be misinterpreted as meaning “those who live holy lives”.
That is not the question or problem.
The problem is that most do not accept that what they are doing is wrong. They reject the teachings. It doesn’t matter if it is gay marriage or the real Presence in the Eucharist or the requirement to attend Mass. It’s a replacement of one’s personal belief for the belief of the Church.

If people were committing a lot of sins - that’s a big problem. But if they confess them and keep trying to improve, that’s what salvation is all about.

It’s the people who outright deny that the Church’s teaching is true that is the problem. They are never corrected in that. There’s nothing to reform because in their view, they’re “fine as they are”.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

It was a book by Scott Hahn that I was given two copies of at Church, one for me and one for my parents. He read it out of boredom and to be polite and at the end decided to convert. He’ll be confirmed this Saturday.

AWESOME!!! :hugs:

When I was in college, our Catholic community center off campus sponsored a trip to Alvernia College, where he was giving a lecture on the Eucharist.

All of us, including me, sat attentively as he gave us the teaching of the Early Church Fathers Scriptural proofs of the Eucharist and 1st century history. It was so overwhelming that I cried for joy. At the end of the lecture he got a standing ovation.

I actually met Scott and Kimberly and was able to ask him a few questions. He was very gracious and kind to me and everyone.

P.S. What book did you give him?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

There’s value in having an open mind, but not to the point of ambivalence towards fundamental truth.

This is the big challenge with Ecumenism and with Conversion. We want to show compassion and mercy, but we also need to tell the truth. It’s a very difficult challenge and we tend to err on one side or the other. I think it’s more difficult to tell the truth - Our Lord suffered for it and showed immense courage in the face of hostility to tell the truth. That’s what caused the hatred against Him. So, I think it’s easier for us to compromise, and cover-up important things, in the hopes that we’ll win the person in time.
I’m not very good at telling the Catholic truths to those who disagree.
It’s a heck of a lot easier to do it, anonymously on CAF. But even here it is difficult to say what is needed without offending others unnecessarily.
I basically cannot say a large part of what I believe as a Catholic here. It’s just part of the ground-rules and I accept it as is.