Why do people leave the Faith. What are we doing wrong?

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t know how many Atheists you know personally, but I must say…the hundreds that I’ve met are not “lost” at all and have a very good conscience.
They are not following “anything and everything”.

If we’re going to use anecdotal evidence, I can say the exact OPPOSITE about certain atheists.

In fact, my inbox here on CAF has some examples and “very good conscience” isn’t what I would use to describe it.

Would you like me to forward you some of the messages?

I will warn you that some of the responses I’ve gotten on here over the last couple of years are pretty nasty!

Then again, persecution comes with the job description of being Catholic.

 

[millstreet]

Yes, that’s what I said…no change happening in the Catholic church–ever. That is why many leave, they tell me.

I don’t know how many Atheists you know personally, but I must say…the hundreds that I’ve met are not “lost” at all and have a very good conscience.
They are not following “anything and everything”.

Can you describe more what you mean by this…and describe an Atheist that you know who is like this? I’ve never come across this.

I can, and maybe this is a geographic or demographic thing. I would describe the Atheists around here as aggressive and antagonistic. One said to me, in fact, that her entire life’s mission was to “scrub God from every pore of American society”. (I asked her why, if she was convinced she was raising such free-thinking kids, she was so afraid to expose them to religion. I never got an answer.)

These people are joined at the “liberal hip”. Following “anything and everything” means, by my definition anyway, that tolerance is the same as acceptance, i.e., for me to tolerate homosexual behavior as a part of society that’s not likely to go away, I also have to accept that it’s morally right. I also have to believe that abortion is okay if a woman no longer wants the baby, even if she made the choice to have sex fully aware of the possibilities. Basically, it’s choice without responsibility. Every behavior is okay because hey, people do it, so we should accept it. The fundamental difference, it seems to me, is that they do not differentiate between “present” and “right”, and can’t handle people who do.

I have little sympathy for, but a lot of understanding of, people who leave the Church because it does not change. There are certain things in life that are right or wrong no matter what are society’s current whims and trends. Unfortunately, they can be hard to accept, because they may be at odds with those whims, and they may run counter to what we WANT to do. This is what makes Catholic values so relevant, they keep us centered on right and wrong, and protect us from letting our own desires harm us and those around us. I do not think, no matter how well-balanced the atheists you know are, that they possess the ability to distinguish. Everything is relative to them. You cannot build or maintain a healthy, functioning social system when “right” is based on whatever we feel like at any given time, instead of some higher order.

I say I understand this because I am returning from moral relativism, by the way. I like to think of myself as a “recovering liberal”. I am just grateful my eyes were opened to the deceptive, insidious social disaster that is the liberal cult. But that’s beside the point.

I suggest to you that if people leave the Church because they don’t accept its teachings, they either (a) actually know in their hearts that they’re correct, but can’t admit it to themselves because it’s against the grain of social trends and the implications are really, really hard (me), or (b) they just have a different set of values about right and wrong. If it’s the latter and they’re steadfast, fine. If it’s the former or the latter and they vary with society, however, this is a lack of critical thinking and it’s both intellectually and personally dishonest. Unfortunately we are headed down a road where personal responsibility is not considered a fundamental social value, which exacerbates the problem. If you don’t have to take responsibility for your own personal beliefs, they can be relative.

I also don’t think people understand the rationale behind a lot of doctrine. I certainly didn’t. I just knew what it was, and other, non-Catholic people told me why it was wrong. Had I gone to a priest and gotten an explanation, I still may not have bought it at the time, but it’s not because I didn’t believe it, it’s because I wasn’t ready to accept that I had to stand up and live my beliefs, and there was no other alternative.

 

[nickybr38]

Nitpicking. Not showing love. Obsessing over the rules (traditions, rubrics) and forgetting that WE are not the ones who are meant to correct these things. We should lead by example, not with an iron fist.

I haven’t left the Faith, and I won’t, but I can understand why some would. Modern Catholics are either too lax or too fired up and there is little room for ‘comfort’ between those two extremes.

PS: Now someone is going to come along and pick apart every word I’ve said to demonstrate exactly what I mean. Not enough love, too much nitpicking.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t understand it when people say many leave the church “in order to sin”.

People leave the Church or put it on the back-burner all the time in order to selfish.

I mean…they can stay in the church and sin, too. I know a lot of people in the Catholic church who are in perpetual sin mode and it’s not as though staying makes them “sin” any less.

That’s kind of getting away from the topic. Any Catholic on here will tell you they are a sinner, so…

What is actually happening, I’d say, is that people are able to study religions more closely in the last decade with information being easier to access on the internet. They are doing their own research and deciding they do not agree with the doctrines.
This is what they tell me, anyhow.

Concurrently, there also seems to be a an Agnostic/Atheist revolution simmering and churning, as if the masses are ready and ripe for a new way of thinking regarding spirituality. I think a tipping point will happen soon.

That’s largely a myth.

Without liberal secularism/atheism permeating public education and Western media, the philosophy would be dire straits. If you’re talking about America, the people who are having kids are religious social conservatives. The Mormon and Muslims population in this country will increase as will that of Catholic conservatives.

In the West even the bases of left-wing political parties that champion more or less what you describe wouldn’t be anywhere without huge swaths of religious persons. In the USA African-Americans are not a tipping point ready to adopt atheism and Hispanics are very Christian. In Europe, Canada and Australia Islam is growing, and the US its adherents will double by 2030.

Also, just look at how secular poiltical activists treat minorities and minority religions. It’s much different from how they treat white Christians. For instance, has a gay rights activist ever targeted an African-American florist, or a Muslim bakery? In fact, DG, the secular left races around stampeding ahead of CAIR and the Muslim Council of Britain to defend Islam.

There’s hardly a thread on here that goes where a criticism of Islam isn’t rebuffed by a liberal or secularist.

So how exactly is there going to be a huge “tipping point” with all of this going on?

People in the church might think others leave “to sin”, but that kind of perception really is a cop-out and an easy way of not facing what is actually happening.
In reality, they are leaving to live by a belief system they believe in, that they think and feel is more right.

I really don’t see a lot of thinking going into that decision, DG. A lot of times its based on selfish impulses that people want to satisfy or because it’s easier.

Saying they leave only “to sin” is quite a simple, pejorative way of looking at it.

Maybe, but really sinning and personal selfishness are two peas in the same pod. You are correct that the internet provides more options readily available to people. I’ve always said that in 1985, not too many people were scouring libraries in the religion section looking for a change.

But I think too, DG, you need to realize that not everyone who leaves the Church is trying to reconcile some cosmological philosophy or is struggling with legitimate doubt. Some are, and I’ve seen it on here, but really, there’s another to this.

A lot of times, it’s as simple as “I have gay friends/family members who MIGHT want to get married, and I’ll throw my Faith under the bus to look good in front of them so I won’t risk getting called a homophobe.”

 

[millstreet]

We should lead by example, not with an iron fist.
Modern Catholics are either too lax or too fired up and there is little room for ‘comfort’ between those two extremes.

Two very good points. To add to them:

“Evangelizing” is often interpreted by others as “shoving it down [their] throats”. Even if people want to know more, they are often turned off by this. I 100% agree that we should lead and demonstrate the power of our faith by example, not by being authoritarian.

It took me having someone enter my life who showed me, by the way she lived and acted, how Catholicism could be “accessible” or “applicable” to my life without having to become “extreme”. I needed to see that “room” you’re talking about (and am glad I found it).

 

[WilT]

I can, and maybe this is a geographic or demographic thing. I would describe the Atheists around here as aggressive and antagonistic. One said to me, in fact, that her entire life’s mission was to “scrub God from every pore of American society”.

These people are joined at the “liberal hip”. Following “anything and everything” means, by my definition anyway, that tolerance is the same as acceptance, i.e., for me to tolerate homosexual behavior as a part of society that’s not likely to go away, I also have to accept that it’s morally right. I also have to believe that abortion is okay if a woman no longer wants the baby, even if she made the choice to have sex fully aware of the possibilities. Basically, it’s choice without responsibility. Every behavior is okay because hey, people do it, so we should accept it. The fundamental difference, it seems to me, is that they do not differentiate between “present” and “right”, and can’t handle people who do.

I have little sympathy for, but a lot of understanding of, people who leave the Church because it does not change. There are certain things in life that are right or wrong no matter what are society’s current whims and trends. Unfortunately, they can be hard to accept, because they may be at odds with those whims, and they may run counter to what we WANT to do. This is what makes Catholic values so relevant, they keep us centered on right and wrong, and protect us from letting our own desires harm us and those around us. I do not think, no matter how well-balanced the atheists you know are, that they possess the ability to distinguish. Everything is relative to them. You cannot build or maintain a healthy, functioning social system when “right” is based on whatever we feel like at any given time, instead of some higher order.

I suggest to you that if people leave the Church because they don’t accept its teachings, they either (a) actually know in their hearts that they’re correct, but can’t admit it to themselves because it’s against the grain of social trends and the implications are really, really hard (me), or (b) they just have a different set of values about right and wrong. If it’s the latter and they’re steadfast, fine. If it’s the former or the latter and they vary with society, however, this is a lack of critical thinking and it’s both intellectually and personally dishonest…

millstreet!

 

[WilT]

Yes, that’s what I said…no change happening in the Catholic church–ever. That is why many leave, they tell me.

I don’t know how many Atheists you know personally, but I must say…the hundreds that I’ve met are not “lost” at all and have a very good conscience.
They are not following “anything and everything”.

Can you describe more what you mean by this…and describe an Atheist that you know who is like this? I’ve never come across this.

.

first of all DaddyGirl, are you an Atheist yourself? You have down “Off-the-record ‘discerning’” As for your religion. What is that? What are you discerning?. Once we get a true response then we can continue on.

 

[NiceMarmot]

What is sad is that you didn’t understand my post.

Well, I got it.
Agreed 100%
Suffice to say that people leave the faith because they were not taught the faith, and have not seen the faith practiced with authenticity.

 

[millstreet]

I’d like to add that another reason people leave the faith is that they simply do not put God first in their lives. They believe in God, but they believe - consciously or not - that they can sort of acknowledge Him and they’ll be fine. This group of people, which I think is probably very large, at least is full of candidates to return, should members come to the conclusion at some point that they will be much better off emphasizing Him rather than just kind of maybe believing in Him in principle but not really doing anything about it. This reason has nothing to do with Catholicism necessarily, but the role God plays in general.

 

[EasterJoy]

Nitpicking. Not showing love. Obsessing over the rules (traditions, rubrics) and forgetting that WE are not the ones who are meant to correct these things. We should lead by example, not with an iron fist.

I haven’t left the Faith, and I won’t, but I can understand why some would. Modern Catholics are either too lax or too fired up and there is little room for ‘comfort’ between those two extremes.

PS: Now someone is going to come along and pick apart every word I’ve said to demonstrate exactly what I mean. Not enough love, too much nitpicking.

Yes, I see what you mean. There is a balance to be struck in living the faith, and the Church is divided, as if the devil is trying to drive all of us into one ditch and the rest into the other ditch, and as few as possible on the road. (Although to be fair, I doubt that either side is as far to their side as those on the other side of the dotted line fear. The devil is nothing if not a propagandist.)

I think this is exactly what Pope Francis is trying to teach: that is, the true nature of mercy that does not condemn and yet is not so lenient that it fails to invite and challenge the sinner to conversion of heart. This is what he is saying when he keeps repeating mercy, mercy, mercy. It is a true kindness that has the soul’s best interest at heart, that feels the feelings of the soul of the sinner has become lost, that thirsts for the true conversion of the person with the thirst of Christ. It sees both where the person is and the greatest of heart that God intends to rebuild in the person. He rightly sees this as the whole point of the Pascal Mystery. He talked about it in an interview with Antonio Spadaro, S.J:

*“I see clearly that the thing the church needs most today is the ability to heal wounds and to warm the hearts of the faithful; it needs nearness, proximity. I see the church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds… And you have to start from the ground up.

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all. The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them really takes responsibility for the person. The rigorist washes his hands so that he leaves it to the commandment. The loose minister washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin’ or something like that. In pastoral ministry we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds."*

 

[WilT]

After giving the question a thought I feel the reason people leave the Faith is that God is not important in their lives. They see their lives as solely constructed by their own will power and sweat and give no thought of God anywhere. They live their lives in the world and they cannot see any other life for them or their children.

Another group that leaves the Church are those that don’t like structure and stability. They don’t like to follow rules and see the benefits to them, for others and the Church at large. They like instability because they enjoy attempting to change and modify everything. They want to be the ones to create and not follow. Very self centered individuals with no real interest in the Truth.

these 2 individuals probably will take the longest to return to the Faith

 

[EasterJoy]

After giving the question a thought I feel the reason people leave the Faith is that God is not important in their lives. They see their lives as solely constructed by their own will power and sweat and give no thought of God anywhere. They live their lives in the world and they cannot see any other life for them or their children.

Another group that leaves the Church are those that don’t like structure and stability. They don’t like to follow rules and see the benefits to them, for others and the Church at large. They like instability because they enjoy attempting to change and modify everything. They want to be the ones to create and not follow. Very self centered individuals with no real interest in the Truth.

these 2 individuals probably will take the longest to return to the Faith

I thought your thread was asking what those in the Church ought to do (or ought not do) in order to seek out the lost and protect the sheep from the wolves?

Even if your assessment is correct–and I think we can all admit to having too little interest in the Truth when it calls us to a degree of conversion we are unwilling to make–it begs the question of what those who are still in the Church ought to do or ought to resist doing. What everyone else does is not under our direct control, after all.

 

[WilT]

Even if your assessment is correct–and I think we can all admit to having too little interest in the Truth when it calls us to a degree of conversion we are unwilling to make–it begs the question of what those who are still in the Church ought to do or ought to resist doing. What everyone else does is not under our direct control, after all.

True, but if we are not bringing the Word of God to them, the message, then they will never see or want to return to the Church. We are also missing to communicate the Fear of God properly to them either by homilies, invitation, or Christian Witness.

 

[EasterJoy]

True, but if we are not bringing the Word of God to them, the message, then they will never see or want to return to the Church. We are also missing to communicate the Fear of God properly to them either by homilies, invitation, or Christian Witness.

“Properly” is the operative word. The two ends of the spectrum are either plain old white knuckle fear and the other end is obliviousness of concerning the loss that is suffered when we are blind to God.

 

[mommy_k]

In a nutshell-people leave because they are not able to recognise the lies, deceits and strategies of the devil. Some people are concerned more with their outer lives then their inner lives.

In this day and age, people want what’s best for themselves right now-and they do not have deep enough spiritual roots to hold them in place in regard to worship and faith. They never cultivated a deep relationship with Jesus.

They seek what God can do for them-but not what they can do for God. So when a dry period happens, they turn away, either becoming lax or leaving. They don’t realize that God’s hands are always open.

 

[alexandratm]

The thing is with this thread, you have a lot of Catholics posting why they think people have left the church. But in reality, these are all assumptions, some of which may be wildly off base.

Perhaps I’m more sensitive to this issue, because of my grandmother’s own struggles (as I posted upthread, she left for decades after the death of one of her children before eventually returning). I don’t think it’s fair to assume that people are selfish or self-centered, or want to just have fun without being told that they are sinning, or that God is not important to them. Sure, that may be the case for some. But I think it does others a disservice to paint all people who leave with the same dismissive brush. And if we are dismissive, or think we know more about why someone who has left than that own person, then we lose the opportunity to love them, to extend charity to them, and to perhaps bring them back into the fold.

 

[PaulinVA]

Since we are all speculating, I will put in my two cents.

The Church, in many ways, is a product. Some might bristle at that, but essentially the Church is selling a belief system. Adherents hope to indoctrinate their children into the belief system. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not.

The “face” of the Church are the ordained clergy. The Church is not “the people”. It is “the clergy”. They make all of the rules, they conduct the services, are responsible for the finances, the PR, everything. They are evaluated by people as to whether the belief system is worth following.

So, if Mass is not interesting, if decisions are made that people disagree with, whatever, depending on the level of indoctrination, people leave. Many can focus on one decision, one interaction, that caused them to leave.

 

[EasterJoy]

Since we are all speculating, I will put in my two cents.

The Church, in many ways, is a product. Some might bristle at that, but essentially the Church is selling a belief system. Adherents hope to indoctrinate their children into the belief system. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not.

The “face” of the Church are the ordained clergy. The Church is not “the people”. It is “the clergy”. They make all of the rules, they conduct the services, are responsible for the finances, the PR, everything. They are evaluated by people as to whether the belief system is worth following.

So, if Mass is not interesting, if decisions are made that people disagree with, whatever, depending on the level of indoctrination, people leave. Many can focus on one decision, one interaction, that caused them to leave.

The attitude among some Catholics that the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is a product is a insidious one, not only very wrong-headed but very damaging even if held by those who never leave the pews. There is no way that the clergy can make up for a laity that has this attitude, and the laity are ill-served by clergy who have this attitude. It effectively infantilizes the laity, for one thing, but that is just the start.

The Church is the whole of the Body of Christ, and by no means just the clergy. Read Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church promulgated as a result of Vatican II; it is all there.

 

[PaulinVA]

The attitude among some Catholics that the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is a product is a insidious one, not only very wrong-headed but very damaging even if held by those who never leave the pews. There is no way that the clergy can make up for a laity that has this attitude, and the laity are ill-served by clergy who have this attitude. It effectively infantilizes the laity, for one thing, but that is just the start.

I totally disagree, obviously. I don’t think that I am wrong headed and I don’t think that attitude is damaging at all. I understand the mystical part of the body of Christ. However, there is also a practical, reality-based aspect to the Church.

If you attend a parish that is poorly run, poorly led, with uninspired music and banal homilies, what do you call it? People stop attending because there is nothing there. Some go to other parishes, some just drift away. I understand the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but, practically speaking, bad Masses wear on people. Church services are indeed products, and people decide which one they want to attend.

I am a faithful Catholic, as my posts here over the years attest to. But, I am also discouraged by the number of “former Catholics” who seem to be found everywhere. To put the burden solely on them glosses over real problems.

 

[EasterJoy]

I totally disagree, obviously. I don’t think that I am wrong headed and I don’t think that attitude is damaging at all. I understand the mystical part of the body of Christ. However, there is also a practical, reality-based aspect to the Church.

If you attend a parish that is poorly run, poorly led, with uninspired music and banal homilies, what do you call it? People stop attending because there is nothing there. Some go to other parishes, some just drift away. I understand the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, but, practically speaking, bad Masses wear on people. Church services are indeed products, and people decide which one they want to attend.

I am a faithful Catholic, as my posts here over the years attest to. But, I am also discouraged by the number of “former Catholics” who seem to be found everywhere. To put the burden solely on them glosses over real problems.

If Mass is a “product” provided by clergy for which the laity takes no responsibility, in what sense is that worship, though? The best performance of the world’s greatest sacred music wouldn’t be worship, but a concert. There is nothing wrong with concerts, but the participation of an audience and a congregation is fundamentally different.