Why do people leave the Catholic Church?

[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.

Peter. Got a chance to read it. I believe I have looked this over before. In any case, this is pretty much what I understood. JPII and now Benedict are rather intend on trying to shut down dissent from the scholarly crowd. I don’t see that as a good thing. Nothing is gained by stiffling voices I don’t think. Obviously the RCC thinks rather differently. I imagine this will continue for some good time. I feel for my brethren who have elected to stay and dissent from within.

Frankly, I don’t feel its my place much to offer my opinions. I object when people, in my view, mistate the Church’s position, and I recognize in doing so, I invite those who interpret differently to disagree. Perhaps what bothers me most is the claim that no other faith is worthy but RCC. I don’t believe that the Church takes any such position, and it is very hard to converse under those constraints.

It’s all well and good to love your own church, but I think sometimes we can forget about Jesus when we do. He exhibited no such harshness it seems to me. He dissented from his faith and told pharisees as much. I don’t see that healthy disbute is a bad thing. It helps us all. Truth comes from the freedom to speak, think, study and debate.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

I see what you are saying. But I think it may be inappropriate to assume that because the leadership comes to agree with what is the opinion of most, that it is necessarily led by them. It is an inference that would require some evidence I think.

Moreover, would that be so bad if true? I find that when people I respect have a different opinion than my own, and more so when they are in a majority, I have to re-examine my own position. Sometimes I continue to believe I am right, but sometimes I am convinced I am wrong and change.

We in the Anglican faith believe that every person is endowed with God’s spirit through baptism. Moreover, we don’t draw the sharper distinctions between clergy and laity that I think the RCC does. Our laity is deeply involved in choices for rector for instance. I can’t speak to the relative powers of vestry and parish council, but I’d rather “assume” the vestry has more. I could be wrong.

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.

I think you misunderstand my point. It was that once you invoke the HS as the vehicle by which no error can enter, you open a can of worms that requires a lot of deviations. You have to account for popes and other clergy who have clearly done wrong. You have to account for “development” what some would call correction of statements, you have to introduce all these “not dogmatic, not infallible” concepts. The issue of women’s ordination is not an infallible statement but is “on the way” perhaps according to the vaticans own documents. If the HS leads without error, why is there any error whatsoever? You see the problem? There is nothing slanderous intended nor to be concluded.

What do you mean by “police”?

What I mean to say, and obviously said poorly, is that no institution can be left to its own devices without observation. Police was ain inelegant word. If everyone simply assumes that a church or any other institution can be assumed to be correct, then we have abdicated our responsibilities to make sure that it is doing as it should. Would excesses or failings be ever brought to light otherwise?

Godwin’s Law. Nice.

I’m sorry, could you explain what you mean here?

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.

My point exactly.

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.

I said as much if you read carefully. And of course the human problem exists in equal proportions in all walks of life. It is the handling of it that causes such concern.

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.

I would argue that JPII has spoken so very clearly that there can be no mistake here. I believe the USCCB agrees and calls for an end to CP in this country.

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

If you believe it deserves to be seen in that light, you choice is obvious. I don’t agree with your premise of course.

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

sorry can’t get to it now, but when I return, I’ll take a look.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Wanner:

I said:

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.

You said:
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

Yes Wanner, it is the one I was thinking of. Jesus urges that when two have a dispute, they first try to work it out between them. If that doesn’t work, then he says, take the matter before the brethren (meaning as I understand it, those among the Jesus’ followers). This would be in opposition to taking it to either the Roman civil authorities or the Sanhedrin of which Jesus was at odds. There was other Church at that time. Jesus was still alive. House churches developed after the resurrection as a means of worshiping the risen Lord.

 

[ChristIsLord]

Wanner:

I said:

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.

You said:
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

Yes Wanner, it is the one I was thinking of. Jesus urges that when two have a dispute, they first try to work it out between them. If that doesn’t work, then he says, take the matter before the brethren (meaning as I understand it, those among the Jesus’ followers). This would be in opposition to taking it to either the Roman civil authorities or the Sanhedrin of which Jesus was at odds. There was other Church at that time. Jesus was still alive. House churches developed after the resurrection as a means of worshiping the risen Lord.

jesus also says if they won’t listen to the church treat them as you would a gentile, or a tax collector (tax collectors were despised by jews). jesus also calls gentiles dogs. jesus didn’t like gentiles at all… he was quite clear about that in the new testament, paul began converting the gentiles because he grew frustrated trying to convert the jews who thought he had gone mad.

 

[wanner47]

Wanner:

I said:

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.

You said:
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

Yes Wanner, it is the one I was thinking of. Jesus urges that when two have a dispute, they first try to work it out between them. If that doesn’t work, then he says, take the matter before the brethren (meaning as I understand it, those among the Jesus’ followers). This would be in opposition to taking it to either the Roman civil authorities or the Sanhedrin of which Jesus was at odds. There was other Church at that time. Jesus was still alive. House churches developed after the resurrection as a means of worshiping the risen Lord.

I don’t have time to respond to your previous post right now, but –

Jesus said take it to the church. If he’d meant the Roman civil authorities, He would have said so (“render unto Caesar…”). If he’d meant the Jewish authorities, He would have said so (“do as they say, not as they do…”) But he did not. He said, THE CHURCH. Meaning, the Church he established and founded upon the Rock, Peter.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter. Got a chance to read it. I believe I have looked this over before. In any case, this is pretty much what I understood. JPII and now Benedict are rather intend on trying to shut down dissent from the scholarly crowd.

Yes, you could say that.

I don’t see that as a good thing. Nothing is gained by stiffling voices I don’t think.

To be fair, we (Catholicism, I mean) do allow dissenting voices to be heard; we just don’t allow dissenters to remain in the RCC.

And, if you think about, the same really holds true for most Christian groups – we just differ in what we consider “dissent”. For example, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and most Protestant denominations all regard denial of the Trinity or of the Resurrection to be “dissent” and deserving of excommunication. The more liberal Protestant denominations might not consider that “dissent”, but they would certainly draw a line somewhere – I imagine (and hope) that they would excommunicate someone who e.g. advocated racism.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

(continued from previous post)

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

I’ll take a look. I’m unclear what he has to do with this discussion at the present time, so I shall have to.

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.

You of course recognize that that is circular in its reasoning?

Premise:

1. A person has primacy of conscience.
2. Before one can exert it, one must properly form one’s conscience.
3. If after forming one’s conscience, one is still not in agreement with the Church, this is evidence that one’s conscience cannot be properly formed.
4. Ipso facto, there is not such thing as primacy of conscious.

Since the church clearly states that one must in the end follow one’s conscience, I would argue your reasoning cannot be correct.

And what makes you an infallible interpreter of the Bible?

Certainly I never said I was. But giving that to a church because it claims it is no more proof that it has it either. There was no doctrine of infallibility much before the 18th century as I understand it.

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

yes I understand that you believe that.

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?

When we get into exact translation and biblical exegesis, we can differ a great deal on what Jesus “said.” These matters were written down from oral traditions long after the fact and all that we know is that the form that has come down to us says that. We have no originals even of ANY of the original writings. And as thousands of copies will attest too, there were changes over the years due to error, and determination that this or that may have been unintentionally omitted or added.

I think it obvious that Jesus expected his followers to continue teaching in the manner he had. In other words correcting the Jewish church. His position from the beginning was that the OT was being misunderstood and was not being followed correctly. They were missing the point. There are many who believe that Jesus intended as I said no separate church, but rather to reform the Jewish church that he was raised within and continued to preach within during his life. He spent his time correcting Jewish interpretation.

When that mission was expanded through Paul, to the Gentiles, it is still unclear that they were not operating with Jewish confines. Otherwise, there was little point in the debate about whether or not Gentiles must follow Jewish law in other respects as we find in Acts. As I recall, the new Christians were not formally removed from the synagogue until after 70AD and the fall of the Temple.

 

[Peter_J]

I think you misunderstand my point. It was that once you invoke the HS as the vehicle by which no error can enter, you open a can of worms that requires a lot of deviations. You have to account for popes and other clergy who have clearly done wrong. You have to account for “development” what some would call correction of statements, you have to introduce all these “not dogmatic, not infallible” concepts. The issue of women’s ordination is not an infallible statement but is “on the way” perhaps according to the vaticans own documents. If the HS leads without error, why is there any error whatsoever? You see the problem? There is nothing slanderous intended nor to be concluded.

I think you’ve hit upon one of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics. Namely, Protestants compartmentalize things into the “fallible” and “infallible” categories. Catholics (and Orthodox) don’t, so we can be comfortable with concepts like “a fallible list of infallible documents”. (See also.)

I would argue that JPII has spoken so very clearly that there can be no mistake here. I believe the USCCB agrees and calls for an end to CP in this country.

I completely agree with you that JPII’s statements on capital punishment were clear. But what you may perhaps be missing is that he never excommunicated, or threaten to excommunicate, those who disagreed with him.

 

[adolfo123]

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

because the catholic people do not teach the faith the glorious faith…I had to myself learn many things by my free time and will…

we need like vatican 3 or something …

 

[sambos671]

jesus also says if they won’t listen to the church treat them as you would a gentile, or a tax collector (tax collectors were despised by jews). jesus also calls gentiles dogs. jesus didn’t like gentiles at all… he was quite clear about that in the new testament, paul began converting the gentiles because he grew frustrated trying to convert the jews who thought he had gone mad.

There is a difference between calling someone a dog and using a metaphore to explain a point which is (I assume you were speaking of the conversation he had with a samaritan) what Jesus was doing emphasising that Messianic prophesy was for the Jews first. It turns out in the same story he heald the person’s child (the samaritan’s child). Strange behavior for someone who “hates” gentiles. He also said the Roman Centurian had more faith than anyone in all Israel. It’s also strange that he would make the “good Samaritan” the good guy in his story. You seem a little off about this.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

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.

I didn’t mean my list to be exhaustive. LOL. As i understand it papal infallibility is a fairly recent addition.

I think it perhaps unfair to assume that all Catholics who want change want it for “selfish” reasons. I am neither gay nor have able to conceive at my age. I believe deeply in gays rights and that the bible does not speak against it. There is nothing selfish in that I don’t believe. But I’m not a member. Still, I know many religious who have serious issues with some teachings, and mostly they personally are not affected one way or another. Am i missing some definition of “selfish” that would explain it differently?

 

[sambos671]

I didn’t mean my list to be exhaustive. LOL. As i understand it papal infallibility is a fairly recent addition.

I think it perhaps unfair to assume that all Catholics who want change want it for “selfish” reasons. I am neither gay nor have able to conceive at my age. I believe deeply in gays rights and that the bible does not speak against it. There is nothing selfish in that I don’t believe. But I’m not a member. Still, I know many religious who have serious issues with some teachings, and mostly they personally are not affected one way or another. Am i missing some definition of “selfish” that would explain it differently?

Just curious. What rights don’t gays have?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I am sure you mean to make no unkind statement. But do you not see that in your belief as stated you accuse billions of people of not being sufficiently interested in truth as you are, or having the guts to work as hard at a faith as you do? You paint a very broad brush when you say that no one outside the RCC can be serious, studious, and well grounded in their understanding. Is it not possible in your mind that anyone can be intelligent and still choose another faith community?

Tens of thousands of people have made it their life’s work to study theology and biblical studies. What you say means that they are all less serious and intelligent that you are. And I am sure you mean no such thing. Now most certainly I wouldn’t find myself in agreement with all of them, or perhaps even most of them. It would depend on the issue, but I must assume that there are smarter people than myself no matter what the subject.

 

[YoGoRCC]

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

Many Catholics are horribly catechized. They really don’t understand the sacraments, so they don’t know what they are missing.

Too many parishes do a poor job of making the sacrament available and it turns some people off.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Josie: You said:

Jesus said to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into ALL TRUTH, did Jesus lie? And if he didn’t as we know he didn’t, somewhere there is a Church that is leading its members into ALL TRUTH. .

I have no reason to believe Jesus lied. That has nothing to do with a physical entity called a church however. I believe that Truth to a greater or lesser degree resides in the total Christian community. That is the heir to the teachings in my view.

 

[jargon631]

Luckily the Adventists are few in number and not very strong with the coversions here in the UK. I do not doubt that many convert to different religions, I was just pointing out that in my experience I have only met two.

youre lucky that u have only met two…i grew up at an sda academy…i moved there at age 5 and never left until i was 18, left home and joined the military…both my parents were faculty…my father taught history and languages while my mother taught health/ biology/ chemistry, and was, at various times librarian/registrar/vice-principal…i got to leave campus about 5 times a year…i dont know why the sda acts the way they do toward catholics unless its because they need a “bogeyman” in order to frighten their children(not that catholics are frightening)…they did, however, succeed in turning me into someone who despises the sda…i dot in a lot of trouble there because i would ask questions about both sda doctrine and other churches…fd

 

[michaelcollins]

Josie: You said:

I have no reason to believe Jesus lied. That has nothing to do with a physical entity called a church however. I believe that Truth to a greater or lesser degree resides in the total Christian community. That is the heir to the teachings in my view.

As Maxwell Smart once said Oh the old universal church is what he really meant trick.

That always begs the question of the time between the establishment of the RCC and the protestant reformation.

I always ask protestants ok if I give you that the first days of the church like any organization was developing, still by x date only the rcc was the church until the protestant revolution, I never believed God or Jesus would leave without a church for roughly 1500 yrs.

The strangest response I ever got was one where I was told we would have had a seperate chuch not have been part of the rcc but the church was burning at the stake anyone who possessed a bible

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Then you didn’t mean choose doctrine, you meant choose denomination.

 

[Peter_J]

You of course recognize that that is circular in its reasoning?

Premise:

1. A person has primacy of conscience.
2. Before one can exert it, one must properly form one’s conscience.
3. If after forming one’s conscience, one is still not in agreement with the Church, this is evidence that one’s conscience cannot be properly formed.
4. Ipso facto, there is not such thing as primacy of conscious.

Mental note: SpiritMeadow knows too much.



I jest. But seriously, I think the problem with your reasoning is in #3. If a person doesn’t agree with the Church’s moral teaching, then I would take that as a sign that his/her conscience isn’t as well-formed as it could be; but that does not necessary mean that he/she has neglected the duty of forming his/her conscience.

Thus I would say that your conclusion (#4), that there is no such thing as primacy of conscious, is incorrect.

 

[tobinatorstark]

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

because 1. They quit attending mass. 2. They don’t realize what they have and what the church has. 3. They are taught what the Catholic faith teaches us. A little bit of what I learned from Fr. Corapi this afternoon on EWTN.