Why do people leave the Catholic Church?

[Peter_J]

I really couldn’t say, since it did not happen to me.

Fair enough. I should also qualify my conclusion: If the priest in question said that people shouldn’t come to communion unless they agree with every word of the CCC, then he is a self-styled pope.

What we have here at CAF is something beyond conservativism. Some here go so far beyond RCC teaching that it is both unhealthy and well, frankly, it drives people away rather than convinces them they are wrong.

That first statement is an over-generalization – which you seem to have realized in the second statement since you qualified it as what “some” posters here do. But, as you yourself pointed out in another post, “liberals can be just as unkind and ugly however should the circumstances be reversed.”

Some of us rather suspected this was not a level playing field. Now the cat is out of the bag it seems.

My personal take on the internet is that it is a level-playing field, of sorts. I.e. some websites slant one way, other websites slant other ways; hence the internet as a whole can’t really be said to slant one way or another.

Having said that, let me add that although I see the internet as a “level” playing field, I nevertheless find it to be a very frustrating place. On all different kind of websites – whether Catholic or Protestant, whether conservative or liberal – so just so much attacking, bashing, trolling, or whatever you call it.

 

[Peter_J]

Fair enough.

I guess we must have encountered different people on this site, then. That can be the only answer because the Catholics with whom I’ve interacted have for the most part been friendly and helpful.

Hi SSTeacher,

Obviously, I don’t speak for SpiritMeadow (and vice-versa), but if you don’t mind I would like to comment on the above post.

Quite frankly, I’m a little puzzled by the logic that you are using in that and some other posts. (Sorry I don’t have all the quotations.) It sounds a lot like you’re saying, Such-and-such people were kind and polite to me, so if they were rude or uncharitable to you it must be your own fault.

That kind of “logic” is really kind of disturbing, when you think about it. freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked006.gif

 

[SpiritMeadow]

That first statement is an over-generalization – which you seem to have realized in the second statement since you qualified it as what “some” posters here do. But, as you yourself pointed out in another post, “liberals can be just as unkind and ugly however should the circumstances be reversed.”

Agreed. The modification is that some here are more conservative than the church and preach a doctrine that is beyond what is stated in dogma, or at least they profess a more conservative interpretation that I have seen in official documents. There is no question that both sides are equally guilty of overreaching. My point is only this, we are for the most part none of us experts. We are interpretating what we read. Thus, mostly we are offering opinions on what we think is teaching or not. I dislike and continue to raise a hand against those who claim “truth” as something they “know” perfectly. Especially when it is that they are right, and other perfectly intelligent thinking people differ with them in interpretation.

Having said that, let me add that although I see the internet as a “level” playing field, I nevertheless find it to be a very frustrating place. On all different kind of websites – whether Catholic or Protestant, whether conservative or liberal – so just so much attacking, bashing, trolling, or whatever you call it.

I agree. I have done a fair amount of political commentary on my blog, especially during the election time. I can tell you that basically liberal and conservative bloggers don’t reach each other since the rhetoric gets way too heated. People tend to attract like minded souls.

 

[Peter_J]

Agreed. The modification is that some here are more conservative than the church and preach a doctrine that is beyond what is stated in dogma, or at least they profess a more conservative interpretation that I have seen in official documents.

Certainly. Just like there are Lutheran website that are more conservative than Lutheranism as a whole is.

I agree. I have done a fair amount of political commentary on my blog, especially during the election time. I can tell you that basically liberal and conservative bloggers don’t reach each other since the rhetoric gets way too heated. People tend to attract like minded souls.

You know what would be interesting? If the organizers of the various online Christian discussion forums could hold some kind of “summit meeting”. Of course, I guess it could be problematic deciding which discussion forums could be represented (e.g. Christians disagree about whether Mormons are “Christians” or not).

 

[Marsha_Adams]

I would not use the word appeal. I would hope **we choose doctrines **that make sense, reflect logic, reflect the knowledge we have acquired, and feel spirit driven.

Your comment above says it all. Catholics do not choose doctrines. Choosing is what you do at a buffet. In Catholicism it is a whole package. If one says well I believe this doctrine but not that doctrine, he/she ceases to be Catholic, because all dogma is interlinked and and as soon as you reject a portion of one the entire structure collapses.

I am sorry that you feel you were driven from the Church, but from what you say I think you stopped being Catholic long before you ever left.

Marsha.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Oh no, it was just a joke thing I made up because our dear Anglican friend SpiritMeadow got a bit hot-headed and called me “disgusting” for my legitimate usage of the word “heretic” on another thread.

—Soler.

Well, PHOOEY! I wanted to collect them like green stamps.

Actually, I knew it was a joke thing, I was joining in the “fun”.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Fair enough. I should also qualify my conclusion: If the priest in question said that people shouldn’t come to communion unless they agree with every word of the CCC, then he is a self-styled pope.

I don’t follow your logic. Only Catholics are to received communion. The CCC defines the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you don’t accept the CCC in its entirety you aren’t Catholic. If you aren’t Catholic you should not receive communion.

The previous “liberal” pastor who taught other than what the CCC teaches would be more properly labeled a “Self-Styled Pope,” because he seems to think he has the authority to change the rules.

Marsha

 

[wanner47]

No church should be forced to conform to the beliefs of its followers, as such. Roman Catholicism is no different than any other faith community in that regard.

It seems to me that many denominations, however – such as the ELCA and Anglicanism – are doing just that: conforming to the will of its followers. How else to explain the fact that those two denominations had *radically *different teachings and doctrines as few as twenty years ago?

What you are really saying is that you believe that Christ himself perfectly guides the RCC in all matters of doctrine.

No, in matters of faith and morals.

I believe that Christ attempts to do so, but willful individuals have a way of thinking they are doing Christs will when they are not. Humans make errors. Statements are made when thereafter a wealth of scientific, medical, psychological and other information comes to to fore that the original speakers could not have been aware of and would have concluded differently had they known. Therefore, as against what you believe, I believe that there is no perfect assurance that everything the RCC teaches is necessarily full truth.

I do, because Jesus himself gave that assurance when he established the Church and placed a fallible human at its head.

It’d be a pretty shoddy system for Christ to set up, don’t you think? “I’m going to put a fallible human being, prone to sin – in fact, someone who will deny Me three times – at the head of My church, and just expect that everything will go smoothly without My help.” Uh, right. I really don’t think Jesus was that dumb, or that naive.

If it is, there is no such thing as an individual conscience. We need only ask the Church to direct us in every aspect of life.

We must always seek the Church’s guidance – i.e., Christ’s guidance – in everything, including forming our conscience. However, our conscience comes into play when it isn’t possible to ask the Church for guidance – i.e., split-second decisions. Also, there are some matters where faithful Catholics can have differing opinions (for example, capital punishment) and conscience comes into play there as well.

Also, Jesus Himself recommended going to the Church for guidance when trouble arises with other Church members.

Essentially I believe that Jesus set down a number of precepts for living a good God filled life, one that would lead to life everlasting. Each church has over time made attempts to interpret that to real life situations. Some have got it right, some wrong. But I suspect no one has it all right, or all wrong. Our duty as sentient spirit-filled individuals is to do our personal best in discerning by prayer and study which is which and following as best we can what we believe is truth.

Seems like a pretty shoddy system. Fred Phelps is doing that and I certainly wouldn’t call him a Christian, but he sincerely believes that he is doing God’s will. Who am I to tell him he’s wrong if there’s no objective standard of morality, if everyone simply must follow their conscience?

I cannot in good conscience turn that over to an institution, no matter how wonderful it is.

Even though Christ tells you to?

And I believe deeply that the RCC doesn’t ask anyone to, and would be appalled at some of its members gutting its own CCC directives to that effect.

The Church desires all to know, follow, and love Christ to the best of their ability, and the best way to do that is to follow his commandments and the church that He established.

 

[mark_a]

Therefore, as against what you believe, I believe that there is no perfect assurance that everything the RCC teaches is necessarily full truth.

The Church has only a few non-negotiables that are infallible or necessarily “full truth”. Pope Benedict has said that the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on truth.

The Church’s position is almost paradoxical. When doctrine develops, She is accused of changing her teaching. If She refuses to change, She is archaic and antiquated.

If it is, there is no such thing as an individual conscience. We need only ask the Church to direct us in every aspect of life.

The priests I know are absolutely positively uninterested to directing us in every aspect of life.

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi SSTeacher,

Obviously, I don’t speak for SpiritMeadow (and vice-versa), but if you don’t mind I would like to comment on the above post.

Quite frankly, I’m a little puzzled by the logic that you are using in that and some other posts. (Sorry I don’t have all the quotations.) It sounds a lot like you’re saying, Such-and-such people were kind and polite to me, so if they were rude or uncharitable to you it must be your own fault.

That kind of “logic” is really kind of disturbing, when you think about it. freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked006.gif

Hi Peter,

I don’t in the least mind you making a comment. Knowing that you’re following me around checking on my logic makes me feel as safe as prefabs.

Contentedly,
Mick

 

[michaelcollins]

I leave because mass has ended and the priest wants to turn off the lights before the next mornings mass, course I leave in a suv, but Zi return the same way before mass has started or to be honest we have trouble getting anywhere on time sometimes a little late

 

[panoikei]

If it is the quote I am thinking of it is from Bishop Fulton Sheen however the quote goes:

“There are not 100 people who hate the Catholic Church; But there are millions who hate what they believe the Catholic Church to be - which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

Not really about conversion.

God bless

Yet it is probably THE underlying reason Catholcis fall away from the Church. I’m speaking from my own experience. Far too many Catholics do things Catholics do, but they don’t beleive the fullness of truth probably because it has never been fully revealed to them. I find that many in our history are too busy trying to “look” holy but really aren’t because being holy requires not having a personal agenda. I left for many reasons but the major underlying one is that nobody I knew actually practiced or believed the fullness of the truth as taught by the Church from the very beginning. It LOOKS good in theory, but no one actually practiced it. And having been a seminarian I’ve seen and heard far too much from the 70’s & 80’s that almost cost me my faith in God. However, I found a protestant faith that claimed to be the same as the Catholic Church claims the church that Christ founded… The had a good story, backed it scripturally, solo scirptura, etc. But it turns out that they too have far too many hypocrits. That’s when I realized I had to find more clear answers as how I can know which is the true Church.

Initially, I wanted to be Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist or mainly Orhtodox because none of them believed in several dogmas I had issues with at first. I’m one of the Catholics that thought for years that the Immaculate Comception was about Jesus, not Mary. Infallibility was also an issue and since my dad was a “traditional” old Catholic I had more issues than I realized. I was very confused. Mom was more of a secular non-practicing Protestant. But most of my experience was with the Church of Christ that claimed to be the church. I was used to that part and believed in the necessity of baptism. We even had a required Lord’s Supper every Sunday. You also could lose your soul. Faith without works is dead. All of it was pulled right out fo the bible. My father-in-law was an elder and we have several preachers and deacons in the family not to mention other elders, which we believed to be the same as bishops. I just was never taught orthodox Catholic teaching. In fact, I must have hated the Catholic Church than most because of all the anti-Catholics in my life before I left the Church. I wanted to become a priest to actually start a campaign for all Catholic clergy to teach and practice orhtodox Catholciism. I thought the idea was great but since no one in the Church was actually practicing or professing it to be truth then I couldn’t believe that it was possible to be the real Church that Christ had founded. So I went on an adventure to “find” the real truth.

 

[po18guy]

I was a RCC when I came here. Certain of your more belligerent members persuaded me I should leave. I was forced to agree that it was hypocritical to remain and moreover I had not the strength for this fight. Many do, and I applaud them. The fact is, there are no decent religious forums around but this. The rest have so few followers that there is no real conversation.

In that case, I am very glad that you are still here.

I would not use the word appeal. I would hope we choose doctrines that make sense, reflect logic, reflect the knowledge we have acquired, and feel spirit driven.

Spirit driven, yes. And that is a subject that we must use care and caution with. We have all been tricked at one time or another, by the evil one, who mimics goodness, but cannot produce good fruit. As to doctrines, since the true ones come from the eternal God, they will not always make sense to us. Here, trust is a major factor. History is a major factor. Consistency also.

One could not doubt make an argument that full understanding is never acquired. However, when we have read what we think is appropriate and studied as many commentaries and interpretations of it, we must at some point come to a conclusion. I reject of course the conclusion of some that if you don’t agree with dogma, you by definition don’t understand it fully. That is just handing the ball to the Church and letting them decide for you in my opinion.

The Church is Christ - His sacred Body on earth. It cannot be separated from His truth, since He said it would not be. I have chosen obedience to the truths which have been handed down to us. Viewed in its entirety, the history of God’s covenants with man reveal a seamless garment of love and mercy. In parallel with John the Baptist, I (ego) had to decrease and He had to increase. I always have and will continue to question the imperfect, which originates with man. I do not question that which has its origins in the perfection of God. Do I like conforming myself to God’s requirements? No. This is one part of denying the self.

My advice: Grant the level of credibility to our more abrasive brothers and sisters that their comments earn for them. After doing that, and focusing on God’s love, pray for them. I will pray for you because you are certainly on a journey with the rest of us.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter,

I don’t in the least mind you making a comment.

Don’t worry, I won’t be doing it again, now that I see what your attitude is.

 

[CoachSTL]

I think that most people leave the Church in search of the truth about Jesus and life.

The Teachings of Christ that they received in the Church never took hold for some reason or another, and once they reach the age where they feel comfortable to make individual decisions, they begin to venture out to find this truth.

So, they latch on to “truths” that look good on the surface only to find later on that they are still unsatisfied. Their journey then continues. Unfortuntaely, they never really find it, and then just accept it.

It may take a lifetime of bouncing around from church to church, and opinion to opinion, for them to realize that the Truth that they were seeking was right in the Church they “left”.

Unfortunately again, their pride is a hard thing to overcome, and they may never fully return.

We can only pray for them.

 

[SSTeacher]

Peter J;4845658:

Hi SSTeacher,

Obviously, I don’t speak for SpiritMeadow (and vice-versa), but if you don’t mind I would like to comment on the above post.

Quite frankly, I’m a little puzzled by the logic that you are using in that and some other posts. (Sorry I don’t have all the quotations.) It sounds a lot like you’re saying, Such-and-such people were kind and polite to me, so if they were rude or uncharitable to you it must be your own fault

.

That kind of “logic” is really kind of disturbing, when you think about it. freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked006.gif

Hi Peter,

I don’t in the least mind you making a comment.

Don’t worry, I won’t be doing it again, now that I see what your attitude is.

Hi again, Peter,

I can see that I‘ve hurt your feelings. Let me cast aside the flippancy and address the question you raised with the seriousness that it deserves.

Others may well share your puzzlement at my lack of logic. If I’m illogical then I accept that as a failing on my part. My attitude or approach is that I’m an Evangelical Protestant currently without a church home who is inquiring into the truth claims of the Catholic Church. I’m also drawn toward Holy Orthodoxy. I haven’t spent any time on Internet forums so when I came across this one I briefly viewed the subjects up for discussion, thought my involvement might help me in my search, and quickly joined up.

For the outset, I’ve tried to choose my words carefully and as a result I’m still able to declare that most of the people with whom I’ve had interaction have helped me along. However, I became quite disappointed at an early stage to find Christians of all stripes displaying little love for each other. That’s the reason for my illogical comments. They are simply clumsy attempts to act as a peacemaker.

I can’t speak for SpiritMeadow, either, but she has been insulted as I’m sure you’ll agree if you go read her posts. I’m sure you’ll also agree that her points are made thoughtfully and articulately. And she’s a former Catholic who has obviously thought things through and now knows what she believes and why she believes it it’s hardly surprising that she makes Catholics here uncomfortable. I don’t know why she bothers to stoop to conquer because in doing so she gets herself dragged down into the dirt and it seems to me the result is that she doesn’t do herself or her denomination justice and anybody who reads this inferior verbiage (and there are more readers than writers here) is put off any sort of Christianity altogether.

Of course, none of this is any reason for me to make a joke at your expense and hurt your feelings so I’d like to ask you to forgive me, please.

Sincerely,
Mick

 

[wisdomseeker]

SpiritMeadow

Quote:
One could not doubt make an argument that full understanding is never acquired. However, when we have read what we think is appropriate and studied as many commentaries and interpretations of it, we must at some point come to a conclusion. I reject of course the conclusion of some that if you don’t agree with dogma, you by definition don’t understand it fully. That is just handing the ball to the Church and letting them decide for you in my opinion.

i sympathyse with you. i truly see that you are still seeking the Truth. i can also see that you still have love for the CC.

i understand that protestants have a great distrust. this has been passed on to them from the reformers.

we as Catholics do not worry about it because we trust in the Church. according to the SS we can rest assure that the Church will always teach the Truth.

if you notice, the Apostles did not quite understand what Jesus was saying to them. yet they stayed faithfull to our Lord.
we dont quite understand many things, but we dont have to understand everything if we did we wouldnt not need the Church, would we?. we believe and leave it to the Church. because She lead us to our Lord. that is called Faith. we have Faith and we trust because St Paul said: the Church is the Pillar and Bullward of the Truth. notice it doesnt say each individual but the Church. this is a big confort to us. and the CC is the One who can claim such a thing, no other can.

it is really weird that individuals come here from other faith and tell us that the Church got all wrong. but what they present here is their own enterpretations of SS. it doesnt do much good for them to come against the Church in here.

:byzsoc:

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Your comment above says it all. Catholics do not choose doctrines. Choosing is what you do at a buffet. In Catholicism it is a whole package. If one says well I believe this doctrine but not that doctrine, he/she ceases to be Catholic, because all dogma is interlinked and and as soon as you reject a portion of one the entire structure collapses.

I am sorry that you feel you were driven from the Church, but from what you say I think you stopped being Catholic long before you ever left.

Marsha.

Marsha I think you misunderstand me completely. When I say choose doctrine I refer to chosing to be Catholic as opposed to Lutheran or Anglican, or Methodist, etc.

It is my understanding that Roman Catholics like many other faiths require that a child reach a certain age before they are confirmed in the faith. They have to understand it first, and make a willing decision to become a part of it. Now I realize that for children, this would be obvious, they choose the faith of their parents.

But many were not given religious instruction or opportunities by their parents. As adults they do in fact decide what doctrines appear right and that is what motivates them to decide what faith to join. Others may not pay any attention until marriage and then become interested in learning to see if they wish to join the church of their spouse.

Roman Catholicism it seems to me is no different than any other in this respect. I went through a year long RCIA process, designed to teach me what I was entering to determine whether I could agree with the doctrine as given. That seems proper and right. No faith should ask, and your’s certainly doesnt, a person to join it without fully understanding what it teaches. Only then can one make a rational decision.

Are you saying that the RCIA and other catechical practices for children is for something other than teaching them what the faith entails so they can make a mature and rational decision to join or not?

I don’t entirely agree with your premise as to one having to accept all or nothing. As you know, most Roman Catholics differ with the church on some issue or several, yet they remain in the Church. There are numerous groups, at least 6 or so that I know of, that differ from church teaching in some way. And polling suggests that a majority of Roman Catholics voted for Obama, support the right to choose, use contraception, and certainly believe that other faiths offer salvation through Christ. Are you of the opinion that all these people should leave and that the RCC should be peopled by only those who agree on everything?

If so, then presumably, the holy spirit does not inhabit them? I guess I would be confused if that is your position. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It seems to me that many denominations, however – such as the ELCA and Anglicanism – are doing just that: conforming to the will of its followers. How else to explain the fact that those two denominations had *radically *different teachings and doctrines as few as twenty years ago?

How do you conclude that the followers are demanding the change rather than the clergy leading the flock in this? And exactly what teachings have changed in the last 20 years in your estimation?

I do, because Jesus himself gave that assurance when he established the Church and placed a fallible human at its head. It’d be a pretty shoddy system for Christ to set up, don’t you think? “I’m going to put a fallible human being, prone to sin – in fact, someone who will deny Me three times – at the head of My church, and just expect that everything will go smoothly without My help.” Uh, right. I really don’t think Jesus was that dumb, or that naive.

So no Pope has ever done wrong? Ever? There are instances of double papacies. Were both right? Is it just quite convenient to declare that in the end the Spirit repairs the error? Do you not concede for instance that the Church has said rather conflicting things on evolution for instance? As to Galileo? On the issue of limbo? On the type of mass? Many consider that the only valid mass is the Roman Rite I believe? It seems when these are pointed out, people have a habit of saying those aren’t dogmatic or infallible.

It seems to me the danger in what you claim is that you don’t have to police your church at all. It be definition cannot do wrong. It must be right. This I would argue is a dangerous thing. I am reminded that some people in Germany thought they had no right to oppose Hitler because Romans said we must follow our authorities. Moreover, do you agree with the manner in which the priest scandal has been handled? Many would say, that almost as worse as the behavior of individual priests has been the manner of trying to hide it that went on so long in the Church. While other churches may have similar problems with this kind of moral turpitude, surely you don’t believe Jesus kept the Church from error in this instance? Am I missing some part of your argument?

We must always seek the Church’s guidance – i.e., Christ’s guidance – in everything, including forming our conscience. However, our conscience comes into play when it isn’t possible to ask the Church for guidance – i.e., split-second decisions. Also, there are some matters where faithful Catholics can have differing opinions (for example, capital punishment) and conscience comes into play there as well.

There are plenty of Roman Catholics who think the church has spoken very definitively on the issue of capital punishment. Yet some here argue that the CCC does not mean what it says, and further that JPII doesn’t speak for the church on the issue. Is this not choosing to ignore the clear import of the Church by playing the “not infallble” card?

But if I hear what you are saying correctly, you believe that when the church speaks dogmatically, your right of conscience is gone? That seems diamentrically against the CCC and statements by both JPII and Benedict to the contrary. (I wrote a lot on that issue here, and if you go back into the archives for me, or primacy of conscious, you can find all the appropriate citations.)

Also, Jesus Himself recommended going to the Church for guidance when trouble arises with other Church members.

You would have to present the cite to me on that, to see the context. I believe it had to do with not going to the Roman civil authorities for personal disputes but I’m not sure if that is the one you are referring to.

Seems like a pretty shoddy system. Fred Phelps is doing that and I certainly wouldn’t call him a Christian, but he sincerely believes that he is doing God’s will. Who am I to tell him he’s wrong if there’s no objective standard of morality, if everyone simply must follow their conscience?

I don’t know Fred Phelps, so I can’t comment. I do believe that your Church teaches that in the end, no one may surrender their conscience, even to the Church, but apparently we differ.

Even though Christ tells you to?

If you could point me to the place where Christ said that I should give up my conscience to any church, I’d be happy to read that. It seems he was protesting that his faith was wanting and in fact he was the dissenter vis a vis the Jewish faith he was raised in and practiced all his life.

The Church desires all to know, follow, and love Christ to the best of their ability, and the best way to do that is to follow his commandments and the church that He established.

As I have said before, I don’t believe Jesus started a church. He certainly started a movement within an established faith. It was not until after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD that the Christians were formally put out of the temple as Jews, at least if I recall my history correctly. Jesus I believe started a movement of which he was the leader. He did continue to point out to members of his faith wherein they erred. I believe he taught his followers to continue that. That he actively intended to set up a separate institution is I think on some faulty ground. In any case, that would be the Church catholic, universal, of which all Christians are part of. I know of course you don’t agree.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The Church has only a few non-negotiables that are infallible or necessarily “full truth”. Pope Benedict has said that the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on truth.

The Church’s position is almost paradoxical. When doctrine develops, She is accused of changing her teaching. If She refuses to change, She is archaic and antiquated.

The priests I know are absolutely positively uninterested to directing us in every aspect of life.

Mark what you said is certainly what I was taught. I was never taught that no faith but RCC led to salvation. I agree with you as to changing doctrine. It is called “development”. I think on some matters she has spoken in a way that may prevent any “development” in the future.

As to the last, I understand what you mean. Priests are busy people!