Why do people leave the Catholic Church?

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I agree with most everything you said. I of course see the Church universal in much broader terms, and I do think that humans are interpreting that truth. Some better than others. I still believe that if you conclude that any institution has the right to make the final conclusion on meaning, then you are in a dangerous place. It is only a slip then to cultism it seems to me.

To require of God such a perfect institution means that we simply don’t have to work so hard ourselves. We leave it to the infallible body of Christ to do it for us. In that we it seems to me divest ourself of responsibility, and I believe that is error. My church does not stand with me before God, I stand alone at my judgment. I cannot imagine using as excuse, “well, I always thought that doctrine faulty, but I obeyed the church who told me it was speaking for you.” I cannot do it. I cannot reconcile it in my mind. I can only trust that a God of infinite love and foregiveness, recognizes that I have done my best.

Thank you for a reasoned reply

 

[PJM]

I suspect for three reasons

 1.   Poor instruction of the Catholic Faith. If people don't know what they have; how can they miss it:shrug: 

 2.   Many are just too lazy to try to learn their faith. God's knocks but they have their hearing tuned out.:eek: 

 3.   Because of numbers 1 and  2, many just don't feel connected. they want an experiece, but don't want to have to do anything to GET IT:blush:

Pray for then daily

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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:

My love for the RCC is forever of that you can be sure. I met some wonderful people in it, and admire a good deal about it. I thank you for being generous in your statements.

I cannot speak for Protestants per se. It may be as you say. I was not raised to be pro or anti anything frankly, so I’ve never had much against any faith. I object to personal interpretations as a rule, because I think the bible is fertile ground for misunderstanding and requires serious guidance to understand.

But I will never feel comfortable giving any church my allegience to the extent that I will believe whatever it asks me to because it claims perfect knowledge from God. As I said to another, this is just a step from cultism in my view. I presume God gave me a conscience and a mind for a reason, and I can’t hide behind a church facade in defense of my life.

That said, I certainly don’t think that the RCC is a bad thing. I think there are some who take it to an extreme which I find troubling. No doubt I would find some who take Baptist faiths to an extreme, and I surely do. There are extremes it seems in any faith system as we know. Muslims, Jews, and Christians seem all to have their right wing of absolutism. Most of us, I believe recognize that the extremists don’t speak for the majority. They are just louder than the rest of us. LOL.

blessings, and thank you again for your tolerant patience with me. I can be arrogant I know. I feel a bit overwhelmed at times being in such a minority position here. I tend to lash out sometimes. I also realize that there are simply some people it is better for me not to interact with at all.

 

[mark_a]

I think on some matters she has spoken in a way that may prevent any “development” in the future.

Care to elaborate? I’m interested to know.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi again, Peter,

I can see that I‘ve hurt your feelings.

Yeah sure. It’s all about my feelings being hurt. The fact that your attitude (e.g “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.”) is illogical and dangerous has nothing to do with it.

 

[michaelcollins]

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

Mick, I will address a couple of your points. First I was raised an evangelical protestant. I know what is taught by the majority of evangelicals about catholics and the catholic church, now you may have some who are free thinkers who dont take the teachings seriously, but they are the teachings never the less. the EP teach that the pope is the anti christ, the RCC is the whore of Babylon, the church teaches idol worship, worship of mary, praying to men (not through or for) and those are some of the kinder teachings, so when protestants come on this forum I am naturally suspicous of motives.

I have no problem with someone coming here to actually learn about my faith, I have no problem with someone who is interested in what we believe or why, lots of valid good reasons for good people to come here. I myself came here because I was seeking an answer toa question about faith I had. However, there are numerous protestants who are here to convert catholics, to debate why we are wrong on doctrine and dogma and to in general try and cause dissent and dissatisfaction,

I would challenge any of the protestant posters who do not believe in the tolerance of the church(I use church for RCC) and its members to go on a Baptists forum, state that you are catholic and begin to tell them why thier beliefs are completely and utterly wrong and ridiculous and see how long you last before being banned. I will tell you some protestants have been banned here but it took a lot of very strong effort on their part, it took a long time before they could go say, those catholics they are so insecure about their faith I could not even go on their site and debate doctrine with them. If they were honest they would admit they came here to get banned and were surprised it took so long and so much effort to do so.

The point is there are reasons many catholics here have an “attitude” it has to do with both their knowledge of the posters true beliefs about them and the fact many refuse to believe what we say is true about our beliefs but continue to espouse what they have been told we believe. the quote that almost no one would disagree with the real teachings of the church but almost everyone would disagreee with what they have been told the church teaches(paraphased is certainly true.

 

[Peter_J]

SpiritMeadow,

With regard to your latest round of posts … well, it’s hard to know where to begin. For the moment let me just say that I believe the magisterium has been very careful to explain what Catholics are required to agree with. You might want to read
Ad Tuendam Fidem and/or the commentary which accompanied it.

I hope that helps.

 

[wisdomseeker]

My love for the RCC is forever of that you can be sure. I met some wonderful people in it, and admire a good deal about it. I thank you for being generous in your statements.

I cannot speak for Protestants per se. It may be as you say. I was not raised to be pro or anti anything frankly, so I’ve never had much against any faith. I object to personal interpretations as a rule, because I think the bible is fertile ground for misunderstanding and requires serious guidance to understand.

But I will never feel comfortable giving any church my allegience to the extent that I will believe whatever it asks me to because it claims perfect knowledge from God. As I said to another, this is just a step from cultism in my view. I presume God gave me a conscience and a mind for a reason, and I can’t hide behind a church facade in defense of my life.

That said, I certainly don’t think that the RCC is a bad thing. I think there are some who take it to an extreme which I find troubling. No doubt I would find some who take Baptist faiths to an extreme, and I surely do. There are extremes it seems in any faith system as we know. Muslims, Jews, and Christians seem all to have their right wing of absolutism. Most of us, I believe recognize that the extremists don’t speak for the majority. They are just louder than the rest of us. LOL.

blessings, and thank you again for your tolerant patience with me. I can be arrogant I know. I feel a bit overwhelmed at times being in such a minority position here. I tend to lash out sometimes. I also realize that there are simply some people it is better for me not to interact with at all.

thank you. that is ok there is no hurry. i have faith that our Lord will lead you. i know it is almost unconciveable to believe that there is One Church, One Faith when we have so many and we cant make up which One is speaking the Truth. and which One is our Lord truly leading. our faith will be tested, there is a reason why we have so many people enterpreting the Bible and leading so many in different direction.

father Groeschel once said: only by the Grace of God one can see the CC. i thought why he would say such a thing?
then it came to me. it is because it is not so easy to find the things of God. i am sure our Lord will appreciate our efforts to seek His Truth much more than if we had to be forced to it. i am sure He will appreciate if we voluntarily obey Him more than if we had everything spelled out so clearly that no one could missed it.

it always reminds me of how so many missed Jesus, it is because He was not exactly what they want Him to be, their expectations. so i think in the same way is His Church, not much like we want her to be. we want see the CC full of good, holy and perfect people. She is not, therefore she cannot be the One that Christ intended. then i say if she was perfect, than what would we do? but Lord that would be so much easier for us.

God bless.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Care to elaborate? I’m interested to know.

Oh gosh that would set open a can of worms. Let me see. I’m not sure that the RCC would make the same claims about homosexuality if it understood way back just what was meant by homosexuality in biblical times. The name was not coined as I understand it until the 18th century or so. I’m not so sure she would speak the same way about contraception perhaps. But that of course in the end is mere speculation. One can never know.

I often wonder what might have happened had the Church not excommunicated Luther and he had had a chance to present his defense. What might the church look like today? Of course, again, pure speculation.

They may have reached that point on women’s ordination. I think the basic evidence is clear that the early church has both women deacons and apostles and priests for that matter. I’ve read enough to believe that later on the church suppressed this, and sadly today, I think given what JPII said, it may be impossible to reverse the situation. Archaeology has done some great work I understand in uncovering what are clear evidence of women priests which were painted over and made to appear as men by later generations. (painting sin the catecombs I’m told). I’ve just ordered a book recommended to me by a seminarian called:

The Bone Gatherers by Nicola Denzey.

It is just a personal belief I have that the church has kind of painted itself into a corner, and with the dogma, cannot now change even if it wished to without violated it’s own claim of infallibiilty and Spirit directed truth. No doubt most RCC would disagree! LOL…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yeah sure. It’s all about my feelings being hurt. The fact that your attitude (e.g “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.”) is illogical and dangerous has nothing to do with it.

Perhaps, you might be being unfair now. I do think Mick’s apology was sincere.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SpiritMeadow,

With regard to your latest round of posts … well, it’s hard to know where to begin. For the moment let me just say that I believe the magisterium has been very careful to explain what Catholics are required to agree with. You might want to read
Ad Tuendam Fidem and/or the commentary which accompanied it.

I hope that helps.

I’ll try to get to it tomorrow Peter, thank you. I may say that it’s hard to know what to believe these days. Some believe every word in the CCC is dogma and must be taken as given. Others limit it to faith and morals. Other limit it to actual infallible statements. I was in fact taught there were only two infallible statements, both regarding Mary. So it can be confusing. But like I said, I’ll take a look at what you linked to tomorrow when I have a bit more time.

 

[mercygate]

I assume this is some perverse attempt on your part to be rude? If not I am missing your point completely. I was in the RCC for many years, and had in fact been accepted into the Dominican order at one point. Did you misunderstand something?

Oh. I guess I did misunderstand. I thought you mentioned learning things in RCIA and leaving RCIA.

 

[Peter_J]

I do think Mick’s apology was sincere.

I never said otherwise. I merely suggest that the fact his attitude is “illogical and dangerous” (quoting myself) might be of more interest to the conversation than speculations about my feelings.

 

[wanner47]

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?

Oh, let’s see…

1. Homosexuality. 20 years ago, homosexual behavior was condemned by the both the ELCA and the Anglican/Episcopalian communion. Now both denominations have non-celibate homosexual clergy.
2. Abortion. Strongly condemned by both denominations 20 years ago, and both denominations are lukewarm on it now.

If you go back more years, there are more examples. Birth control, women’s ordination, etc. Condemned then, welcomed now.

I really doubt it’s the clergy leading the people, because all these teachings have changed *after *popular opinion deemed the new teachings to be acceptable.

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.

When did I ever say that no Pope had ever done wrong? In fact, I said just the opposite. Are you being accidentally obtuse or deliberately slanderous? I hope it’s the former and not the latter.

And you’re right, the things you spoke of above – evolution and Galileo – aren’t dogmatic or infallible, and never have been.

It seems to me the danger in what you claim is that you don’t have to police your church at all.

What do you mean by “police”?

It be definition cannot do wrong. It must be right

In matters of faith and morals, yes. This is what Christ promised.

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?

Godwin’s Law. Nice.

No, I don’t agree with how the priest scandal was handled. But Jesus never promised that his followers or the head of his Church would be impeccable.

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?

Yes, you are, as explained above.

I might add that Catholics don’t have a monopoly on clergy abuse; see www.reformation.com and www.stopbaptistpredators.org, for example. When you look at the numbers – i.e., the ratio of clergy to parishoners – the Catholic Church actually has the same amount (if not lower) amount of clergy abuse as happens in other Christian denomination. Clergy abuse is not a Catholic problem, it’s a human nature problem.

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?

Regardless of what other Roman Catholics may “think,” the Church itself has said that capital punishment is a topic where Catholics may have legitimate differing opinions.

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.)

When the Church speaks dogmatically, my choices are to obey Christ or deny Christ. What do you think I should do?

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.

No, it’s the one where Jesus tells people to go to the Church if one’s brother sins against them.

Matthew 18:15-20

(continued next post)

 

[Corki]

Do you think people generally leave Catholicism for reasons of conscience or simply because they aren’t much interested in spiritual matters of any kind?

Curiously,
Mick

Sorry for returning to the OP. I know this thread has gone in a different direction.

I am speaking from my own limited sample. All of the people I know who have left Catholicism have done so for one of two reasons. The first group just hyperanalyzed themselves out of Faith. These are mostly those friends and aquaintances from my university years. They either embraced agnosticm or went to a denomination that was very “fluid” on theology. Some took on the mantra of “spiritual but not religious”.

As I and my circle of friends got more mature, the reason has shifted almost 100% to sex. They want sex and don’t like the Church’s teaching on sexual morality and marriage. This includes the divorced who want to remarry, those who want to live together and those who are gay as well as those who want sex within marriage without consequences (children).

I know its overgeneralization. But an opinion was asked.

 

[wanner47]

(continued from previous post)

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.

If you really want to know about Fred Phelps, go to his site. I wouldn’t recommend it, though. It’s pretty vile.

The difference is that if one’s conscience is properly formed, it will be in accord with the Church’s **infallible **teachings and in accord with the will of Christ.

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.

And what makes you an infallible interpreter of the Bible?

As I have said before, I don’t believe Jesus started a church. He certainly started a movement within an established faith.

Jesus didn’t build is movement upon a rock. He built a CHURCH.

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.

Yes, I emphatically disagree. Jesus built a Church. Those are His own words. Why would he establish a church, and put someone at the head of it, if all he wanted to do was have a movement? Why all the teachings about community if he did not intend to establish one?

 

[mark_a]

Oh gosh that would set open a can of worms. Let me see. I’m not sure that the RCC would make the same claims about homosexuality if it understood way back just what was meant by homosexuality in biblical times. The name was not coined as I understand it until the 18th century or so. I’m not so sure she would speak the same way about contraception perhaps. But that of course in the end is mere speculation. One can never know.

I often wonder what might have happened had the Church not excommunicated Luther and he had had a chance to present his defense. What might the church look like today? Of course, again, pure speculation.

They may have reached that point on women’s ordination. I think the basic evidence is clear that the early church has both women deacons and apostles and priests for that matter. I’ve read enough to believe that later on the church suppressed this, and sadly today, I think given what JPII said, it may be impossible to reverse the situation. Archaeology has done some great work I understand in uncovering what are clear evidence of women priests which were painted over and made to appear as men by later generations. (painting sin the catecombs I’m told). I’ve just ordered a book recommended to me by a seminarian called:

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

I presume you have also read the Church’s view of these matters.

I’m just curious as to why papal infallibility didn’t make the list.

It is just a personal belief I have that the church has kind of painted itself into a corner, and with the dogma, cannot now change even if it wished to without violated it’s own claim of infallibiilty and Spirit directed truth. No doubt most RCC would disagree! LOL…

I think Catholics all agree that the Church cannot change even if She wants to. Many Catholics want change, but for selfish reasons. Someone must continue to teach the inconvenient truth. And we believe we have just the office for that man.

 

[ljsedivy]

In the 1980’s, in the small town where I grew up, many people left the Catholic church for one huge reason. A non-denominational “mega church” was developed in our community and it was “popular” to go there. From children to adults, everyone who attended the “mega church” shared their experience throughout the community. The “mega church” had a rock band and the preacher was the best motivational-speaker ever and they always seemed like they had so much fun at the “mega church.” People started to feel sorry if you were still going to that boring Catholic church when you could be having so much fun at the “mega church.” Presently, the “mega church” has expanded. It now includes huge roaring fountains at the entrance, a bookstore, and a coffee house (from what I’ve read in the newspapers).

I have never set foot in the “mega church” and I never will. Most of those people that left our little boring Catholic church in the 1980’s have made their back home from the “mega church.”

A very intelligent man from Italy once told me that if you go seeking for a church and find one that makes you “feel good” then you are selfish. If your heart is set on discovering the truth then you WILL find yourself in the Catholic church.

Since when is going to church about having someone “entertain” you? It’s about worship, giving thanks, obeying the 3rd commandment, hearing the word of God, etc.

Personally, I think most people leave because it really is a difficult faith to actually live out. Unfortunately, I think a very large percentage of today’s Catholics are “Cafeteria Catholics”. And most Cradle Catholics, I believe, have no idea what gift they have been born into and, thus, know very little about their faith. In today’s world, it takes a lot of time and effort and energy to read and study and discover all these gifts of our faith. Much easier to live life “going with the flow” which is what I have seen in the area of personal health and wellness, too.

In joy,

Laura J

 

[jlhargus]

I have never set foot in the “mega church” and I never will. Most of those people that left our little boring Catholic church in the 1980’s have made their back home from the “mega church.”

JL: I think stats show most do return 5 to 10 years. I have read of one who was a Protestant pastor for twenty years and returned.

I think for the most part the Catholic Church receives Protestants who know their Protestant faith and scripture. Catholics going Protestant for the most part don’t know there faith or scripture. They are easy targets for some faiths that target Catholics.

 

[michaelcollins]

JL: I think stats show most do return 5 to 10 years. I have read of one who was a Protestant pastor for twenty years and returned.

I think for the most part the Catholic Church receives Protestants who know their Protestant faith and scripture. Catholics going Protestant for the most part don’t know there faith or scripture. They are easy targets for some faiths that target Catholics.

cradle catholics who do not know doctrine but know the church is restrictive regarding sex, abortion, homosexuality etc, are easy prey .

of course, protestants who are intellectual are easy prey to be converted to catholisim