Why the Lack of Support & Exodus from the Church

[Tis_Bearself]

Both Left and Right wing politics harbor non-Catholic policies, and that is making support of any Political Person more and more difficult for a Catholic with a conscience.

That’s for sure. I think rather than have threads like “How can you possibly not support all these Catholic politicians?”, a better thread would be, “How can a Catholic support any politician at all nowadays?” Almost every election, I have to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. There is almost never a candidate who I’m happy or excited about, and that includes Obama. I just thought he was a smooth talker, not a great bringer of Hope and Change.

 

[Axsenex]

Let it out… keep going…

 

[Reuben_J]

There is a saying that in some professions it is difficult to be righteous. Not that it is impossible, but more difficult than other professions.

Probably politic and being rich are two of them. Jesus specifically mentioned the latter.

Catholics should be against all sins, and abortion is obviously a sin.

High position comes with high responsibility. St James said something to the effect that teachers are judged twice.

So, I hope you understand why Catholics would be critical of those in high places that do not support Catholic values. The reason is because they can do greater harm than your obscure lapsed Catholics.

 

[Benadam]

if a candidate had a pro-choice position, but also was against the death penalty, wanted to fund worldwide charities to help children in danger of famine and disease, had a plan to end wars, etc. etc. they would still be against them because of the pro-choice position. They are single-issue voters, despite the USCCB instructions that you shouldn’t be. If you criticize their position, you are supporting abortion and intrinsic evil. End of argument.

There are a lot of things to consider when a Catholic politician votes pro-choice. There are decisions they have to make that can make a Catholic look pro-choice when they aren’t. That has been ruled out when it comes to the politicians singled out by the OP, I found your post biased and judgemental, You seem to lump anyone who makes the issue of abortion a priority into one. Anti-abortion voters are anti pope Francis we don’t listen to our bishops, I mean wow,

 

[Axsenex]

Let’s be honest why would they listen to the Republicans? They also never ends abortion totally with carrot & stick long game.

 

[Casilda]

Has the negative views of bishops added to the loss of Catholic commitment? Why do so many Catholics forsake the one true faith?

Because for many the church itself has forsaken the faith. The abrupt changes post V2 is what caused my own family’s exodus. They remained Catholic outside of the church, who they considered had been aposticized. Lots of them experienced the horror of their parishes being vandalized, altars torn down, statues removed, and faithful priests rejected and replaced by effeminate nincompoops who did not now how to preach.

 

[Mi_Rose]

To be Catholic is to be part of the Church.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

We ignore the socialist interpretation of those things because they are inherently materialistic and do a disservice to those who are not wise enough in their faith to ignore them.

Basically, everything in your post was wrong. You are wrong.

Glad to hear I’m totally wrong. I suggest you read the Gospels again. If you think social justice is somehow “inherently materialistic” then there are passages throughout the Gospels that are “inherently materialistic” whether it’s giving alms to Lazarus or the Beatitudes or the advice to sell everything and give the money to the poor. Jesus was very much concerned with the poor–and not just their salvation.

So all those Catholic orders who founded free hospitals, orphanages, food distribution centres, schools, etc. etc. were “Socialist”? You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that they were simply following the teachings of Jesus. “Do unto others…” right?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

There are a lot of things to consider when a Catholic politician votes pro-choice. There are decisions they have to make that can make a Catholic look pro-choice when they aren’t. That has been ruled out when it comes to the politicians singled out by the OP, I found your post biased and judgemental, You seem to lump anyone who makes the issue of abortion a priority into one. Anti-abortion voters are anti pope Francis we don’t listen to our bishops, I mean wow,

At the end of my original post I wrote “As for Catholics becoming ex-Catholics or lapsed Catholics, my own opinion is that they have almost no knowledge of what the Catholic church actually teaches.”

If you look at my posts–pick a thread, any thread–I quote the USCCB, the Catechism, and Vat. II documents. It’s not “my opinion” – I’m simply quoting or paraphrasing official Church teachings.

So once again, I would invite everyone to have a look at “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” by the USCCB http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/ It’s 36 pages, but it repays a careful reading. I hesitate–as always–in quoting bits and pieces, because the document is a unified whole. But let’s take a look at some of the things it has to say:

#29–“Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.”

In #30 it quotes the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “t must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.” (i.e.–position on abortion should not trump everything else)

#42–“As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not suffcient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (Note–“may” legitimately lead a voter…)

#45–“Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us to oppose torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants; to oppose racism; and to overcome poverty and suffering.”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2…

For those who rule out the possibility of voting for anyone who is not adamantly anti-abortion, read #35:
“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” (So if a candidate is pro-choice, can you vote for him/her? Certainly. But not because of a trivial thing–like he/she will cut your taxes. It has to be “other morally grave reasons” – like providing heatlh care, for example.)

As I said, the entire document should be required reading for any Catholic.

If you read the posts of anti-abortion advocates, both here and elsewhere on this site, you can see a single-minded focus on one issue–abortion. This is NOT the position of the Church.

Finally, I’ll make a point I have made many times and I know will attract the wrath of anti-abortionists. Abortion, to Catholics, is “an intrinsic evil” and should never be supported. Fine. I agree. But in the USA there is no established religion, and even counting Catholics-in-name-only Catholics are at most 1/3 of the population. There are other religious traditions (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. etc.) as well as a large population of atheists and agnostics. They all have differing views about when a fetus becomes a human being with human rights. While Catholics are free to try and convince these other people of the wisdom of their position, they should not impose their beliefs on others. (If you think you should, then simply flip the situation: How would you feel if Muslims outlawed the sale of alcohol or pork? What if the Mennonites came into power and outlawed cars? Ridiculous? No–it’s the same thing.)

There is a big different between being “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice.” If I am “pro-abortion” I am in favor of abortion. If I am “pro-choice” I may or may not be in favor of abortion. But what I am in favor of is recognizing that I should not impose my version of morality on everyone else.

 

[Kei]

What decides practicing vs not?
It seems to me you just want to support democrats, since if you look at your still Catholic and not Catholic list, it is skewed heavily.

I don’t know how you get this list, but for instance, what makes you say Melania Trump isn’t a practicing Catholic?

First Lady Melania Trump is a practicing Catholic - Living Faith - Home & Family - News - Catholic Online

While the Church is more than an anti abortion lobby group, aiding in an abortion IS an excommunicable offense. It’s sorta a big deal, especially with the millions dying to it.

In short I feel you are being politically motivated in this thread. I apologize if I am wrong, but that is what it looks like.

 

[goout]

If those leaving the Church do so due to ignorance, am I not partially to blame?

Please could I hear some views of why so many leave the Church?

They feel no compelling reason to be Catholic. That’s a broad topic. But it can be condensed further to “it’s just not that important to adhere to the Catholic Church”.

And yes part of that problem is us.

Do I give the Christian faith first place in my life, or do I practice politics in the name of faith?

Are the “least of these” first in my faith, or do I find reasons to justify things like abortion?

Would anyone looking at my faith see a consuming passion for Christ and his people, or do they see faith serving a political worldview?

If my politics comes first, why would anyone gravitate toward my beliefs? Faith is not worth having if it serves politics.

Hypocrisy scandalizes people.

 

[goout]

part 2…

For those who rule out the possibility of voting for anyone who is not adamantly anti-abortion, read #35:
“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” (So if a candidate is pro-choice, can you vote for him/her? Certainly. But not because of a trivial thing–like he/she will cut your taxes. It has to be “other morally grave reasons” – like providing heatlh care, for example.)

The provision of health care and other types of care are a Christian responsibility. But there is a hierarchy of evils.

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity.

Direct attacks on human life call for a prioritized response.
This is easily demonstrable. If a person is choking to death on the sidewalk, your responsibility is to save that life before feeding a hungry person, due to the immediacy and gravity of the issue.

This may not be comfortable for those who like politics over discipleship, but sometimes life sucks and you have to make hard decisions that are very messy and uncertain, that challenge your worldview and put you at odds with family and friends.
But we are not orphans, our faith does provide guidance.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Now I’m going back to the original question, which is a good one! Why are Catholics leaving the Church?

I think you would have to look at some comparative statistics: lapsed Catholics in the 1950s vs. the 1970s, for example.

Certainly Vatican II was a factor. And Vatican II was not held in isolation. It was just one of many changes in society–worldwide–that came out of the early 1960s. But once again, people virtually never go back to the original documents. To give a relatively trivial example, the use of bells at the Consecration. Probably even relatively well-informed Catholics would say that Vatican II eliminated them, or that bells somehow “violated the spirit of Vatican II.” Nonsense. https://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/sanctusbells.pdf Trent had made bells obligatory; Vatican II didn’t mention them. The Missal of 1970 made them optional.

It was the interpreters of Vatican II who took optional things and either promoted them (new music vs. Gregorian chant) or eliminated them (bells at the Sanctus). There is a long list. And it divided people–pro-bells vs. anti-bells.

“Index of Leading Catholic Indicators,” by Kenneth Jones gives a good statistical examination of the exodus of priests and nuns. Why? My own opinion is that before Vatican II people became priests or nuns primarily for religious reasons. Those reasons were challenged. They realized they could be good social workers, nurses, teachers, etc. without being in religious life. Secular reasons (even if good ones) took primacy over religious ones.

As far as ordinary Catholics go, I suspect few have anything beyond a grade school or grade school catechism class knowledge of Catholicism. Those who went to Catholic high schools were taught WHAT to believe, but not WHY. Why do we believe Jesus is divine? Why do we believe in the Trinity? Why do we accept Biblical verses that most scholars think were added by copyists? All sorts of questions–and they were left unanswered. No wonder so many just walked away!

And, returning to the question of abortion, how many Catholics have actually acquainted themselves with the beliefs of other religions concerning the question of when a fetus become a human being with rights? Or the whole philosophical question of “what is a human being?” I suspect very few.

Finally–although you could make a much, much longer list–there is a prominent group (you see them constantly in these threads) who are obsessed with “sin.” For example, you see threads about “Is X a sin?” “Can I commit a mortal sin if I XXX?” If these people were teaching religion or RCIA, I think you would be wondering why there were so FEW Catholics leaving the Church instead of how MANY!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Direct attacks on human life call for a prioritized response.

This is easily demonstrable. If a person is choking to death on the sidewalk, your responsibility is to save that life before feeding a hungry person, due to the immediacy and gravity of the issue.

I agree. But let’s say your have a politician (hypothetically, of course!) who says “I am pro life.” But in practical terms, what does that mean? Can this person do anything about it? Do they tour the country giving speeches focusing on the evils of abortion? If they do, I am unaware of it. They simply make a statement.

But then the hypothetical politician eliminates funding for CHIP, which provides health care to poor children. This has an immediate practical effect–suffering, and even death. Does the US have one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the developed–or even not-so-developed–world because of it’s abortion law or because of its abysmal health care?

 

[ChunkMonk]

If you think social justice is somehow “inherently materialistic” then there are passages throughout the Gospels that are “inherently materialistic” whether it’s giving alms to Lazarus or the Beatitudes or the advice to sell everything and give the money to the poor. Jesus was very much concerned with the poor–and not just their salvation.

No, he was pretty much concerned with salvation. In every command to give alms, to sell everything, to treat others well, to love the poor, the eventual result of damnation or salvation is the main focus. I do think your socialism is inherently materialistic and it reduces Christ to your personal political cudgel with which to browbeat others.

So all those Catholic orders who founded free hospitals, orphanages, food distribution centres, schools, etc. etc. were “Socialist”? You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that they were simply following the teachings of Jesus. “Do unto others…” right?

I never said anything of the sort. Those Catholic orders were not governments and so nothing they did has anything to do with socialism.

 

[NoelFitz]

Axsenex
You wrote views similar to what I have been trying to say.
I find this thread is getting better. Thoughtful, searching, tough views are being expressed.
Very often I find initial views are not considered but after some discussion deep, nuanced views are aired.
A priest in our parish has said that for every difficult problem there is usually a simple answer and it is wrong.
Thanks.

 

[NoelFitz]

Casilda,
you make a strong point. Maybe your views have truth for some.

 

[Benadam]

This is a document issued by the USCCB.
It is a statement directed at Catholic politicians.

Our religious leaders make abortion a priority as well. Note that the social issues you and Noel seem to think are more iimportant obviously aren’t

A document issued by USCCB

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...urch-teaching/catholics-in-political-life.cfm

Key statements

killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil

If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin

To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong.

The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law.

Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.

Catholics in Political Life

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will.

To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.

Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly. It is with pastoral solicitude for everyone involved in the political process that we will also counsel Catholic public officials that their acting consistently to support abortion on demand risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner. We will persist in this duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

0Scarlett_nidiyilii

A practicing Catholic is one who attends Mass.

Then I will restate the stale quote about going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going in a garage makes you a car.

Then I will tell you about my Protestant Auntie who loved Catholic Mass but never converted.

And about the Catholic and housebound little old man who never goes to mass because he is housebound.

And then there was Henry VIII who continued to consider himself Catholic even after he broke from the Church (at least for some time, anyway).

Methinks I want to see more than mere Mass attendance to call someone “practicing Catholic”.
Especially when they are attacking the Chuch they purport to love so much…