Why Do People Leave The Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tradcatmel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Buckeyejoe:


#2 reason is too many luke warm Catholics.

Do you mean that the folks who leave are lukewarm?

Or that the folks who leave are somehow driven out by lukewarmers?

The first seems understandable. People leave if it doesn’t mean much to them

The second reason is …disturbing. Why would folks let the attitudes of others dictate their faith?
 
40.png
Buckeyejoe:


#2 reason is too many luke warm Catholics.

Do you mean that the folks who leave are lukewarm?

Or that the folks who leave are somehow driven out by lukewarmers?

The first seems understandable. People leave if it doesn’t mean much to them

The second reason is …disturbing. Why would folks let the attitudes of others dictate their faith?
 
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spouses (with each other), it is presumed that a reconciliation with the couple has taken place and the separation is no longer valid.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.
It is difficult, particularly for the one of stronger faith, as the other may simply up and leave, or file for divorce.

I just saw the statistics from the Church for a recent year, giving the number of marriages, applications for annullment, and applications granted. The numbers would lead one to believe that there are a large number of divorces in which there is no petiton filed, leaving one with the presumption that divoce may be the point where one, or both parties effectively leave the chruch. I say effectively, as some will remarry without a declaration of nullity, and act as if they are still fully participating Catholics. That is, they do not have the intellectual honesty to admit they have parted company with the Church.

As to the presumption that the separation is no longer valid, my experience is that only an extremely small number of married Catholics would apply to the Church process of getting a Church sanctioned separation; they are more likely to apply for a legal separation, and that usually is turned into a divorce by the other party.

Most Catholics have little understanding of the Church’s position on the morality of a divorce case. The Church understands that the State has the right to make determinations (binding) over legal issues such as division of property, custody, child and spousal support, but has no control over the sacramental aspect of the marriage. Thus, if you fo through a civil divorce, you are stuck with the determination of the State court as to the issues in their jurisdiction, but the Church regards you as married until that spouse dies, you reconcile (which would probably require a remarriage as far as the State is concerned), you die, or one of the two parties applies for an annullment and that is granted.

Note that if it is granted, the Church can require one or both parties to, for example, obtain counsleing before it will allow a remarriage, or it can allow one to remarry and forbid the other.

Hope that helps.
 
Steve Andersen:
isn’t that just what I said?

they don’t believe
Not exactly. Some don’t believe. Others believe, but their belief is weak, and easily overcome. That is not the same as not believing. This is the area that the issue of scandal is directed to; one who gives scandal and causes a weak believer to lose faith is morally liable, and has caused a great harm (in other words, a great sin).
 
hmmmm :confused:

no belief, little belief, weak belief, lacking belief

call me obtuse but I really don’t see the difference

any way you slice it, it just doesn’t matter to some people

so they leave

or maybe it might be clearer to say it matters less at some point

shrug
 
Thanks for the well reasoned, thoughtful reply.
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.
My comments came off as my disagreeing with the Church. Not quite so. I, once again, didn’t know the rules. I was probably told during Church pre-marriage counciling, but don’t remember it, which really means I was probably thinking “I’ll do whatever I want”.

While I personally do think that adultery should be reason enough to divorce or annullment, I would, never the less, obey the Church’s rules.
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?
To me, that’s like asking “why does one need to feel remorse for a single occurance of (inflicting) marital abuse?”

The answer- because it’s offensive to one who loves me. Similarly, missing Mass may not be on the same scale as murder, but it offends God and we don’t need to pretend it didn’t happen or that God is over-reacting when we don’t acknowledge this sin.
The view that we so easily fall out of grace is to spit upon the indescribable sacrifice that Jesus made.
Agreed.

And the opposite side of the coin is to think that offending God really doesn’t matter because Jesus already paid the price for my salvation. To me, that’s even more disrespectful than thinking I’m “unfit to untie his sandle”.
 
Steve Andersen:
hmmmm :confused:

no belief, little belief, weak belief, lacking belief

call me obtuse but I really don’t see the difference

any way you slice it, it just doesn’t matter to some people

so they leave

or maybe it might be clearer to say it matters less at some point

shrug
The point I am trying to make is that those who don’t believe are more likely to leave, for little or no reason.

Those who are weak may not leave, but are likely to place scandal or personal offense above belief; they are more likely to return than one with no belief.
Those who don’t believe, yes, it doesn’t matter, and they will generally have no conscience picking at them. But those with weak belief have that nag in the back of their minds. That, given the right circumstances, opens the door to return.

You can work with one with weak belief; it is nigh imposible to work with one with no belief.

Sorry, I’m not trying to beat a dead horse; I’ve just known too many who have left because Father So and So, or Sister What’s Her Name, or an in-law, or out-law, seriously offended or wounded them. And it does no good to take these people head on about belief, or try to lay guilt on them; what they need is a compassionate ear, someone who cares more than the person who hurt them. Listen, and they will open up. Fail to listen, and you just get lumped together with whoever didn’t care about them before.

It makes a lot of difference.
 
mark a:
Thanks for the well reasoned, thoughtful reply.

My comments came off as my disagreeing with the Church. Not quite so. I, once again, didn’t know the rules. I was probably told during Church pre-marriage counciling, but don’t remember it, which really means I was probably thinking “I’ll do whatever I want”.

While I personally do think that adultery should be reason enough to divorce or annullment, I would, never the less, obey the Church’s rules.

To me, that’s like asking “why does one need to feel remorse for a single occurance of (inflicting) marital abuse?”

The answer- because it’s offensive to one who loves me. Similarly, missing Mass may not be on the same scale as murder, but it offends God and we don’t need to pretend it didn’t happen or that God is over-reacting when we don’t acknowledge this sin.

Agreed.

And the opposite side of the coin is to think that offending God really doesn’t matter because Jesus already paid the price for my salvation. To me, that’s even more disrespectful than thinking I’m “unfit to untie his sandle”.
Agreed also. I’m certainly not suggesting it doesn’t matter or that it is not sin. The question is whether missing Mass rises to the level of mortal sin.
 
I have a lot of friends that have left due to the priest abuse scandal. They feel that by supporting the church, they’re supporting pedophiles.
 
I am 56 years old and was catholic for 51 of those years. I had been a very involved catholic and at one point became a Monk for a time. Today I am Wesleyan and am convinved I have found my church home. I am more Wesleyan after 5 years than I was catholic after 51 years. I could no longer be part of a denomination which teaches things not based on scripture. For example, I do not nor have I ever believed in purgatory. To date, I have found no scriptural reference telling us there is indeed a place called purgatory. To teach that innocent little babies would never be in heaven if they died prior to baptism is not right. Baptism is NOT required to enter the kingdom of heaven.The whole issue of " buying" one’s way into heaven via indulgences does not seem correct to me. The infallibility of the Pope I also question as I also question the transubstantiation process. I am of the opinion that the Communion meal was left to us by Christ as a means of coming together to share a meal and to remember Him who is our ultimate reason for coming together. The first time I shared communion in my new church with my fellow Wesleyans, I was moved to tears as for the first time in my life I truely shared communion as it was intended to be shared. I truly beleive that God Himself directed my footsteps towards this new denomination and that He wants me right where I am at this moment in time. Proff of this is how richly blessed my life has been since the change. Iwould welcome any comments or any scriptural passges explaining purgatory, limbo, indulgences and the infallibility of the Pope. Thank you Monk 1
 
I am 56 years old and was catholic for 51 of those years. I had been a very involved catholic and at one point became a Monk for a time. Today I am Wesleyan and am convinved I have found my church home. I am more Wesleyan after 5 years than I was catholic after 51 years. I could no longer be part of a denomination which teaches things not based on scripture. For example, I do not nor have I ever believed in purgatory. To date, I have found no scriptural reference telling us there is indeed a place called purgatory. To teach that innocent little babies would never be in heaven if they died prior to baptism is not right. Baptism is NOT required to enter the kingdom of heaven.The whole issue of " buying" one’s way into heaven via indulgences does not seem correct to me. The infallibility of the Pope I also question as I also question the transubstantiation process. I am of the opinion that the Communion meal was left to us by Christ as a means of coming together to share a meal and to remember Him who is our ultimate reason for coming together. The first time I shared communion in my new church with my fellow Wesleyans, I was moved to tears as for the first time in my life I truely shared communion as it was intended to be shared. I truly beleive that God Himself directed my footsteps towards this new denomination and that He wants me right where I am at this moment in time. Proff of this is how richly blessed my life has been since the change. Iwould welcome any comments or any scriptural passges explaining purgatory, limbo, indulgences and the infallibility of the Pope. Thank you Monk 1
It would have been better for you to start a new thread dealing with this, rather than to revive one that had been “dead” since 2005. I wish they’d shut down old threads, so this doesn’t happen.

If you really want to know so badly, do your own research. There are many, many websites and books that have conversion stories and biblical defenses of the Catholic faith. Read the conversion stories of Scott Hahn and Tim Staples. I’m sure you can find archives of the Journey Home (a show on EWTN featuring people who convert to the Catholic faith) online somewhere. Read the many conversion stories given in the Surprised by the Truth books- and any other conversion story/appologetics book you can find in Catholic bookstores. If you are really interested in defenses of the Catholic Faith, I assure you- you can find them- but you’d be better off doing more than posting a question for a bunch of amateurs on an online forum to find answers you yourself could find- if you really cared to look.
 
I am sorry for having brought back to life an old issue. I must say I had no idea how this worked and so just proceeded to share my story. Yes, these out dated threads should be deleted I agree. This would prevent people like me from making this type of mystake. Sorry! Monk1
 
People leave the catholic faith - because they do not KNOW it.
Yep. That’s why I left. Then I studied it and returned last October. (Man, thirty years outside…it was a long confession…but he was very gracious!!).

God bless you,
 
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…
I am a lapsed Catholic and an Agnostic. I cannot speak for everyone who has left, but I can speak for myself.
  1. Lack of connectedness. I never felt very connected to anyone in the Church (including God).
  2. Questions without answers. Perhaps some questions have no answers, but I found that people were very sensitive to me asking questions which they could not answer. I could either just shut-up and recite or leave.
  3. Shifting morality. There seems to be a duality in the Church that completely baffles me. A simultaneous appreciation of the shifting nature of Morals (the Church no longer go for the Psalm 137 thing with babies and rocks), and a lack of recognition that this continues to be the case(what you are told is immutable truth, never-mind the times we changed the rules in the past).
  4. Lack of reason to stay. While I found that the Church was often a good source of moral encouragement. I did not see it as vital to me being a good person.
The list could go on and on. In the end it wasn’t a decision that was made in a day, a week, a month, or even a year. It was made in a thousand little ways each time that the Catholic Church failed me.

I may end up back in the Church some day, but if I do I will never again be able to do so quietly.
 
I am a lapsed Catholic and an Agnostic. I cannot speak for everyone who has left, but I can speak for myself.
  1. Lack of connectedness. I never felt very connected to anyone in the Church (including God).
  2. Questions without answers. Perhaps some questions have no answers, but I found that people were very sensitive to me asking questions which they could not answer. I could either just shut-up and recite or leave.
  3. Shifting morality. There seems to be a duality in the Church that completely baffles me. A simultaneous appreciation of the shifting nature of Morals (the Church no longer go for the Psalm 137 thing with babies and rocks), and a lack of recognition that this continues to be the case(what you are told is immutable truth, never-mind the times we changed the rules in the past).
  4. Lack of reason to stay. While I found that the Church was often a good source of moral encouragement. I did not see it as vital to me being a good person.
The list could go on and on. In the end it wasn’t a decision that was made in a day, a week, a month, or even a year. It was made in a thousand little ways each time that the Catholic Church failed me.

I may end up back in the Church some day, but if I do I will never again be able to do so quietly.
Welcome to Catholic Answers forums!

Why not post some of your “questions without answers”, and we’ll do our best to address them?
 
I am 56 years old and was catholic for 51 of those years. I had been a very involved catholic and at one point became a Monk for a time. Today I am Wesleyan and am convinved I have found my church home. I am more Wesleyan after 5 years than I was catholic after 51 years. I could no longer be part of a denomination which teaches things not based on scripture. For example, I do not nor have I ever believed in purgatory. To date, I have found no scriptural reference telling us there is indeed a place called purgatory.
The Doctrine of Purgatory Proved from Scripture

2 Maccabees 12:42-46
Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; or if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

Even those Christians who deny that Maccabees 1 & 2 belong are inspired and belong in the canon of the Old Testament must admit that this passage reveals that the Jews believed that that the living may pray for the dead and make sacrifices for them in order that they might be freed from the sins they had committed. It was with this cultural understanding as a backdrop that the following New Testament verses come into focus.

Matthew 12:32
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.


Does this not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Obviously, there is no sin to forgive in heaven, and sin is not forgiven in hell because it’s too late and judgment is permanent. Therefore, the “world to come” where sin can still be forgiven must be a third, distinct place.

Luke 12:42-48
The Lord answered, "Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers. "That servant who knows his master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

Notice that there are not two but three categories of servants in this parable: 1) the “wise and faithful manager” who is rewarded (heaven); 2) the unfaithful servant who knows his master’s will but does not do it and who is “cut to pieces and assigned a place with the unbelievers (hell)l; and 3) the one “who does not know and does things deserving punishment.” This final servant is beaten with “few blows” (purgatory).

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

1 Peter 1:7
These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.
 
To teach that innocent little babies would never be in heaven if they died prior to baptism is not right.
The Catholic Church does not teach this and never has.
Baptism is NOT required to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Yes, it is.

The Necessity of Water Baptism Proved from Scripture

The NT writers did indicate that baptism is necessary for salvation per the following verses of scripture.

MARK 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

ACTS 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

TITUS 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

1 PETER 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
 
The whole issue of " buying" one’s way into heaven via indulgences does not seem correct to me.
Good, because indulgences have nothing to do with “buying one’s way into heaven”. You might want to read the following article:

**A PRIMER ON INDULGENCES **
By James Akin
catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp

Here is a second, shorter article reproduced in its entirety:

**MYTHS ABOUT INDULGENCES **
By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1sb2.asp
***Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences. *****
**
This is a common misunderstanding, one that anti-Catholic commentators take advantage of, relying on the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics. But the charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one’s eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).

***Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed. ***

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”

***Myth 3: A person can “buy forgiveness” with indulgences. ***

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven” (Indulgentarium Doctrina norm 1). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

***Myth 4: Indulgences were invented to money for the Church. ***

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

***Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days. ***

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case.

***Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences. ***

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, “in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions” (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

***Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences. ***

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms-indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.” *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top