Why Do People Leave The Catholic Church?

[opticks]

Traditional Ang:

Opticks:
I don’t know what kind of “tough (yet typical)” questions you were asking about God and Science in Church, but you must not have givben people much time to answer or decided that you didn’t want to here what they had to say.

They were simple questions like, “Who came first, dinosaurs or Adam and Eve?” Or, “Why did we prosecute scientists when they were correct and we were wrong?” Now remember, I’m 8 or 9 when I asked these questions, and the people I was asking were nuns, my parents, and my catechism instructor. I now realize they just didn’t have the answers, and should have deferred to someone who did. Instead, I read books and found “answers” which caused my faith in their knowledge and authority to vanish.
Traditional Ang:

Because I know One of the people involved in this study (He’s a Medical Doctor) who’s a committed Christian:

planetpuna.com/run/datproject.htm

I can’t judge this project based on the info given (do you have any links to published literature?), though I will caution you that you are arguing from authority here. Doctors should stick to fixing sick and broken people; they are not scientists.
Traditional Ang:

And, there’s a book called The Bible Code, by Michael Drosnin which is based on the work of some Israeli Mathematicians. if you don’t want to buy the book, you can find the review here:

bbc.co.uk/dna/getwriting/A275320

Pure mathematics can lead people down ridiculous paths when there is nothing physical involved. IMO, that book borders on numerology. I’ve heard of similar things done using Microsoft’s EULA, with similar results. That is, finding meaningful statements in a long random string of characters.
Traditional Ang:

I’ve found that people who “Leave the Church over the Conflict between God and Science” usually don’t understand either.

I understood the science part just fine, but my understanding of religion, including Catholocism had to be wiped clean and renewed with a discerning eye.
Traditional Ang:

Can I ask you a question, how did it make you feel taunting your parents? Did it make you feel powerful? What did they do to deserve that abuse from you?

I should have used a better word than taunt. At no time was I nasty or verbally abusive. It was in a more jocular tone.
Traditional Ang:

Is that they way you want people to treat you? or, Now that you’re freed from the dictates of religion, is this part of the deal - That you get to be as nasty to other people as you damn well please, not caring about their feelings or even about common human decency?

Perhaps you missed the part about me returning to the Church, and thus confessing my sins?

 

[petra]

teresa613:

I can understand your journey, mine was similar, I was a catholic who converted to Orthodox Judaism, a few years ago I would have believed what you believed but I had to learn, how beautiful Torah is, how beautiful the mitzvot are, they are a hollow system without spirit. And they don’t make people good. Even if the rabbis teach so, people can leave a total observant life and be wicked in their hearts. My proof, living a live by mizvot is a waste of time, it has no effect on the soul. Most Jews I met, do everything out of guilt, out of a form of social connection to the group they belong to. Or to say, if I don’t go to shul, what makes me Jewish? I saw much hatred, bigotry, lies, double standards which I could not take anymore. The most I was disgusted by the anti-catholic and anti-christian and anti-gentile attitude…How beautiful Torah could be with God’s spirit, but without it is just an empty system without meaning…I had to make my decision, I started returning to church last June. And I still only go to church, I am not sure if I am ready to return totally. Faith so far is only a glimpse of my former faith but I hope with God’s Grace, I come to a deep faith again as I saw without God’s grace, all the mizvot just become a self-righteous system. I remember the last real time I was at shul, the cantor was outstanding but I felt something missing, the next Sunday I was back at mass, as I saw the Eucharist I knew what I missed.

Brigitte, I am happy for you, and my post is not as much as a response to you personally as it is an echo of your sentiments in the context of the Catholic faith. I just put this “out there” – to no one in particular, but as an expression of where I’m at.

When I first converted to Catholicism from over 20 years of being a born-again Protestant Christian, everything I saw in Catholicism was beautiful. In my naivette, I thought it was the true home of God’s grace. I saw the sacraments as God’s gift to help me become closer to Him, and I was most drawn to the Eucharist. In that blissful time, I experienced the love and security of the God I had known in my Protestant faith, in the context of the fullness of faith in the Catholic Church.

In time, and as a result of participating in this forum, I have seen a much different side of Catholicism. I see now that the sacraments are not gifts, they are gates. They are not a help, they are a requirement. I see now that our relationship with God is fragile and highly conditional upon our following the rules, some of which only apply to Catholics, like Sunday obligation. These rules are deal breakers, and if violated, damn people to hell–unless they dutifully walk through the sacramental gates. I’m told that these rules are not burdensome. So why do I feel as though I’m being crushed? Catholic guilt is real, and it has been toxic to my growth in the Lord.

Your comment about the Torah being beautiful, but without spirit rang so familiar to me. The Catholic Church is beautiful. The sacraments are beautiful. But legalism has snuffed out the Spirit. It is an empty shell of works and duties. Church doctrine exhalts the efficacy of the work of Christ, but in practice, Catholics must work their way to heaven.

The implied fragility of one’s relationship with God stands in stark contrast with the permanency of marriage. Catholic tracks and articles properly indicate that for true martial intimacy to develop, there has to be deep trust and a sense of safety. If either party feels that in the process of making human mistakes (excluding extremely hurtful betrayals or abuse) the marriage could be jeopardized, that trust cannot develop. If we have to worry that our partner will leave if we don’t measure up, it is a relationship build on conditions and convenience.

I believe it is possible to negate and reverse the spiritual transformation from being unsaved to saved. I believe salvation can be lost. But I cannot believe it is as easy as the Catholic Church says it is. I have to believe that Christ’s work on the cross accounted for our struggling inadequacies as we walk with Him through life. I can’t believe we toggle between salvation and damnation for missing a Sunday obligation. Yes, missing church is a sin. It would be wrong for a family member to stay at work late and miss dinner without phoning. But is it a deal breaker?

I’m rambling, and I’ve discussed this before on this forum. But what you said prompted me to post my thoughts.

 

[BibleReader]

Philthy:

All good stuff, however you didn’t quote the percentage of people remaining in the Catholic Church who use ABC. That would be significant to your argument. If we see a higher percentage of individuals who remain in the church practicing, say NFP, instead of ABC then your argument has specific support for the doctrine you have isolated as having a causal relationship to people leaving the Church. Otherwise, we don’t know if its an incidental finding or not…

Phil

The only good study of the subject was federally-financed, in the 1990’s, and it found that about 3.5% of sexually-active church-going Catholics use NFP. The numbers are really, really dismal.

 

[joruus]

Dear Petra,

I assume, since you’ve discussed this at other places on the forum, you might have already heard this, but your statement made me want to bring it up in case you have not.

By definition a mortal sin is one in which you substitute something else for God as your last end. It is a complete turning away from God. For a sin to be mortal it must be grave, and have been committed by the sinner with full knowledge (which, as I understand it, = having a reasonable understanding of the evil consequences of the sin), and full will (again, as I understand it, something akin to the sin being “freely and willfully committed”).

I would argue that it is very difficult for a sin to meet these requirements. Apostasy, premeditated murder, and adultery have been the prime examples through the ages. Missing Sunday service, especially say, to stay home and take care of a sick grandmother, is not a sin. Missing Sunday mass one week may be a sin, but is not grave, and certainly not mortal. Few people miss Sunday mass with the intention of completely turning away from God. Missing Sunday mass two times every month for a year is certainly more serious and more dangerous, since in the weakening of the spiritual discipline and separation from the Church community, one can become more open to other types of sins, but I hope no one here would say that it’s a mortal sin.

The Sacraments are both gifts and gates. The definition of a sacrament (notice the small “s”) is a visible sign of God’s love. The Catholic Church elevates seven specific Sacraments above all others because they are visible signs of God’s love, channels of grace instituted by Christ Himself. They are paths (gates) to meet God’s grace. God can and does work in the world in ways that are not these Seven Sacraments. That is, He is not limited to them. But the celebration of them and participation in them enriches our lives in primary ways that other sacraments do not (the Sacrament of the Eucharist is our spiritual sustenance and draws us together into one body, in the Sacrament of Reconciliation we are reconciled with both God and the larger Church community, which has also been weakened and hurt by our sin). The Sacraments are never meant to “keep people out.” They have requirements and rules associated with them, but these are meant to prepare our hearts to approach the Sacraments with hearts fully open to the grace imparted there.

As to the other rules and regulations in Catholicism, especially the moral rules. None are meant as burdens. They are meant to relieve burdens. There are certain things we should not do because God and our ancestors know the trouble, the disorder, and the evil they cause. They do not want us to have to undergo that same evil or subject others to it. Catholic teaching is meant to help us form our consciences well. The rules demonstrate what we know to be the right thing to do in __________ situations. Some are absolute (abortion is never right! Some are situational. (Lieing to a Nazi about hiding a Jew in your basement is not a sin!) Lived correctly, these moral teachings are full of the Spirit because they are of the will of God. The Spirit moves us to live them.

This is not to say that scrupulosity is not a problem in the Catholic Church. One can be overscrupulous, but that can occur in any church. Once can follow the rules to the exclusion of the bigger picture of the Spirit. But that is not how it should be nor how it is meant to be. The Catholic Church knows this. Whether it is fully practiced in all places, I doubt. I am very scrupulous myself. This is good-- it prevents me from rationalizing even small evils. But it is also bad-- I can be harder on myself than is merited. I am working on this. Seeing how the rules which are manifestations of the Spirit and the Spirit itself, the bigger picture, fit together is part of my work and my learning. There is a saying, “God loves you just as you are, but doesn’t wand you to stay that way.” God loves us each with a love greater than we can imagine, but in allowing ourselves to be fully open to this love and its expression in us, we will be transformed. The Church, in its moral teaching, reveals what some of that transformation will look like in thought and action.

I am new to this website. I do not know what other threads you have read here. I apologize in my own way for any excessive legalism you have encountered. From all my understanding of the Catholic Church, that is not what the Catholic Church is.

–Joruus

 

[Ainchel]

Everything boils down to two reasons for leaving the Church:

Truth and love.

If they cannot find truth in the Church, it is because it is not taught or because it is hard too hard to accept (see John 6:66)

If they cannot find love in the Church, then we all need to look first at ourselves. Unfortunately, many of the replies to this question exemplify the lack of love in our Church.(There are a couple of people whose replies were very loving…may God continue to shine on you, in you, and through you!)

Truth and love must both be present because *together * they form something greater than their individual parts, just as flour combined with water form something greater than they are by themselves.

 

[larryo]

There are probably as many reasons for leaving the Church as there are people leaving. Among the chief reasons I think are: 1) poor example by parents and other family members. 2) poor catechesis at home and at school/church, 3) immoral lifestyles such as drug addiction, homosexuality, and fornication, 4) too easily resorting to divorce when marriage hits the rough spots, 5) bad/heterodox liturgy, 6) indifferentism on the part of clergy and chancery offiicials, 7) association with irreligious friends, and 8) un-Catholic Catholic education at the elementary, high school, and college levels.

 

[SFH]

Because they give in to temptation.

 

[petra]

Joruus,

Thank you for your kind reply. What you have said rings true with me and is consistent with what I understand of my relationship with God through reading the Scriptures. Missing mass habitually would tend to weaken one’s spirit and place one in danger of committing a serious sin and/or formally turning away from God. But missing one mass without an approved reason or excuse would not render one damned.

However, that is not what I understand that the Catholic Church teaches. Missing a single mass is considered a grave matter. If there is full knowledge of the Church’s position on this and there isn’t a reasonable excuse, such as illness, family needs, etc, the Church considers it a mortal sin – even a single instance.

I don’t lovingly make dinner for my husband because I’m afraid if I don’t, he will divorce me. I do it because I love him! And even though I love him, if the marriage hinged upon my making dinner, it would change everything. Even though I could make dinner every night and, therefore, have no reason to fear that he would leave me, the joy of making dinner would be completely gone. The relationship could not grow in intimacy because it would be based on my fullfilling that condition. I would be earning the right to be married. Thank goodness I don’t have a marriage like that. But it appears that the Catholic view of our salvation is that fragile and that conditional. The joy is gone and there is only fear. I never knew this fear as a Protestant, and believe me, I served Him with every part of my life. I had plenty of “works” to demonstrate my faith. But the works were a natural result of my faith, not a condition for God’s love and acceptance of me.

 

[oudave]

tradcatmel:

People leave the catholic faith - because they do not KNOW it.

Going back to the catechism…

Why did God make you?
God made me to KNOW Him, LOVE Him, and SERVE Him in this world - and to be forever happy with him in the next.

How can we love something that we do not KNOW?

Learn the faith, do not leave it…

Hi
It has been my experience when talking to Catholics that have converted that the reason for leaving the church is that they started reading the Bible. When my wife started reading the Bible the one question she ask was how come they never taught me that in Catholic school. We have 11 former Catholics in our church and most feel the same way. My wifes family are all Catholic and were never encouraged to read scripture.
In Him and Him Only, Dave.

 

[reen12]

Hello.

The assumption is made that Roman Catholicism is
“true”, in the sense that Jesus was the Christ,
that the Church He founded exists today.

It seems to me that room might be made for a
person who one day says to his/herself:
I was told this was true before I had developed
the adult critical faculties that would enable me to
decide, for myself, *if *this is true.

But if I conclude that it is not true, technically
I’m an “apostate.” How can I be an apostate if
the choice was made* for* me?

I see the whole process as circular reasoning.

reen12

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Opticks - I’m sorry that I missed the part about reconversion.

I must admit that there was a part of your post that sounded as if you had been cruel to a few people in your life, and as if you never really felt sorry for doing that…I was battered and abused as a child, and also met several children who had been abused, so I tend to react pretty strongly to any perceptions of cruelty, whether ro humans or to animals.

I’m sorry if I gave you both barrels after you had repented of the cruelty.

Meanwhile…I’m sorry that I didn’t post this next thought earlier - Say on Sunday…Instead of my response to you.

**There is an innocent woman, Terri Schiavo, who is starving to death in Florida, right now. This is as a result of an unjust decision by a Florida Circuit Court Judge, Judge George Greer, which was upheld today by a Federal Court Judge, Judge Whittemore.

The conditions under which Terri are starving to death are little different than those that those of the people who starved to death in Josef Mengele’s starvation chamber in Auschwitz.

Please, take a break from this Thread, and from all the other polemic threads to pray for the life of this INNOCENT WOMAN who is dying so that her husband can throw her away like some old rag or like an old used up slave in the Old South!

And, please, pray that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns the train of unjust decisions that have brought us to where we are!

Thank You.**

Blessings and Peace, Michael

 

[otm]

deb1:

my husband had a conversation with his boss today. The man explained that he left the church because he was troubled by the fact that the Pope is considered infallable. Sad, but my husband is not even considering becoming Catholic and has very little real knowledge. Ironically, the man has converted to Baptist. The denomination that I am leaving for Catholisim.

And I suspect that he did not have trouble with what the Church teaches about the Pope and infallibility, but what he thought the Church teaches.

 

[otm]

Steve Andersen:

it seems like we’re making things a little complicated here

don’t people leave a faith simply becasue they no longer believe in it?

Not necessarily. Some leave because they never really believed - they were cultural Catholics; others leave because they thought they believed, but they had little understanding, and someone came along with a good sales pitch for another church; some let anger override any belief they might have had.

One can have all the intellectual understanding in the world, and no faith.

One can have faith, but little understanding; they are easily swayed by other ideas.

One can have great faith, and little intellectual sophistication; any number of saints fit that category.

One can have great faith with intellectual sophistication; any number of other saints fit that category.

I don’t know of any declared saints who had great intellectual sophistication and little faith.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Have any of you read Karl Keating’s Frontispiece in the recent issue of “This Rock”? Sorry, i couldn’t find a link. He discusses how those who more serious Catholics may have had greater difficulty than lukewarm types with the problems (I believe he mentioned the priest scandals, specifically) in the church as of late.

 

[MariaG]

posted by** oudave**

Hi
It has been my experience when talking to Catholics that have converted that the reason for leaving the church is that they started reading the Bible. When my wife started reading the Bible the one question she ask was how come they never taught me that in Catholic school. We have 11 former Catholics in our church and most feel the same way. My wifes family are all Catholic and were never encouraged to read scripture.
In Him and Him Only, Dave.

That’s funny. I came to the Catholic Church *because *of Bible study. Real Presence. Confession. Not by Faith Alone. Everything in the Bible supports the Catholic interpretation. So much so, I could no longer ignore what the Lord was calling me to.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Church_Militant]

MariaG:

That’s funny. I came to the Catholic Church *because *of Bible study. Real Presence. Confession. Not by Faith Alone. Everything in the Bible supports the Catholic interpretation. So much so, I could no longer ignore what the Lord was calling me to.

God Bless,
Maria

Me too…Must have something to do with whether someone comes along and feeds you a-C propaganda along the way.

 

[GoodSamaritan]

Ditto. I’m a ‘revert’ who, once I began reading Scripture, had NO choice but to come back to the Catholic faith. It’s a Catholic book written by Catholic men FOR Catholic faithful–nuff said.

 

[mark_a]

Madaglan:

Also, you have to keep in mind that Jesus does allow for divorce in the sole case of marital infidelity. So a church that teaches limited divorce has a Scriptural basis.

I know I’m running a little behind here, but I stated the same thing on another thread, and boy did I get corrected. I came away with:

• no divorce. Period. Ever.
• annulments only after careful consideration by the Church as to whether the marriage was ever valid. i.e. spouse is incapable of fidelity, is a homosexual, etc.
• separation may be permitted for some cases such as abuse, etc.
• If “marital relations” occur between separated spouses (with each other), it is presumed that a reconciliation with the couple has taken place and the separation is no longer valid.

So- can some one tweak this for me? Man!!! This is difficult.

 

[petra]

mark a:

I know I’m running a little behind here, but I stated the same thing on another thread, and boy did I get corrected. I came away with:

• no divorce. Period. Ever.
• annulments only after careful consideration by the Church as to whether the marriage was ever valid. i.e. spouse is incapable of fidelity, is a homosexual, etc.
• separation may be permitted for some cases such as abuse, etc.
• If “marital relations” occur between separated spouses (with each other), it is presumed that a reconciliation with the couple has taken place and the separation is no longer valid.

So- can some one tweak this for me? Man!!! This is difficult.

To respond to the main point of this discussion, I believe many people leave the Catholic Church because they find God’s love and grace in Protestant churches. In the Catholic Church, they learned that Christ’s work is the starting point, but Catholics need to finish the job. This includes complying with rules set up by the Church’s authority to bind and loose, and which do not even apply to non-Catholic Christians. They learned that their relationship with God is so fragile and conditional that it seems as if God is eager to exclude as many as possible. The relationsip feels more like a business contract than a familial relationship between father and child.

Many Catholics that become Protestants leave the Church because they learn that they cannot work their way to heaven (it’s not even possible–that was what the Law has shown us!) and come to trust in the complete and efficacious work of Christ on the cross as a payment for their sins. Their relationship with God becomes, experientially, more like a real relationship between father and child or between married spouses. There is commitment, security, and the ability to grow in intimacy. The greatest parallel is the analogy of father and child. We expect an earthly father to have more forebearance and patience than the child, who is in formation. Does a child cease to be the father’s child if he or she fails to come home for dinner one night? Of course not. Why would God give us the analogy of He being our Father if we cannot use these earthly relationships to teach us about our relationship with Him?

I am responding to your post, Mark, because of your comments about the Church’s teaching on the endurance of marriage, which I agree with. But why would God require someone to endure marital abuse (that doesn’t quite rise to the need to separate for safety) for a lifetime, when missing a single Sunday mass without an approved excuse is enough for God to cast us out of a relationship with Him? Neither in the model of parent/child relationships or in marriage do we see a toggling of on/off like we do in the Catholic concept of our relationship with God. Yes, God is Holy and our sins offend Him. In fact, we cannot be in relationship with Him if we have sin on us. That is exactly why Christ made His precious sacrifice. To pay the penalty for our sins that we can come into the Holy of Holies and have a secure, enduring relationship with Him. The view that we so easily fall out of grace is to spit upon the indescribable sacrifice that Jesus made.

 

[Steve_Andersen]

otm:

Not necessarily. Some leave because they never really believed - they were cultural Catholics; others leave because they thought they believed, but they had little understanding, and someone came along with a good sales pitch for another church; some let anger override any belief they might have had…

isn’t that just what I said?

they don’t believe