Why the Lack of Support & Exodus from the Church

[steve-b]

As an Irish Catholic my perceptions may be wrong, but it seems that many practicing Catholics in public life are not supported and respected (e.g. Tim Kaine, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden)

Well, mixing Religion and politics

Let’s take just Biden. http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm The other 2 are pretty much the same as Joe. A Cino, Catholic in name only

NoelFitz:

while non-practicing ones are (e.g. Mike Pence, Neil Gorsuch, Sarah Palin, Melania Trump, Jerome Powell). If it is because Catholics reject Catholic teaching, why is this so?

This group takes the opposite positions on the major issues,(in that link above) of the 1st 3 people mentioned.

NoelFitz:

It has been noted that if considered a religion the third most numerous religion in the US is non-practicing Catholics, terms such as ‘ex-Catholic’ and ‘lapsed-Catholics’ are derogatory. Why is there such a flood, especially of young educated white males, but also females? Why do the clergy, especially senior ones, appear to attack prominent Catholics, rather than support them?

see the following quote from St Augustine

NoelFitz:

The Catholic Church is more than an anti-abortion lobby group. Jesus Christ is important, as is peace, justice, support for marginalized, love of God and neighbor. It seems the Church does not constantly condemn divorce or contraception. It appears it can live with divorce, using the fiction of annulment, and the 50th anniversary of Humanae vitae will be mainly ignored, as most Catholics have rejected contraception.

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

‘The Lord called the world a “field” and all the faithful who draw near to him “wheat.” All through the field, and around the threshing-floor, there is both wheat and chaff. But the greater part is chaff; the lesser part is wheat, for which is prepared a barn not a fire. . . The good also are many, but in comparison with the wicked the good are few. Many are the grains of wheat, but compared with the chaff, the grains are few.’

St. Augustine,

Note: the chaff get burned up

 

[Benadam]

Yes,I’m sure, perhaps it should be explicit if it is only implicit in his effort to protect the rights to live

 

[ktmeyer]

Obviously. Any good Catholic should want those outlawed.

No, not every good Catholic wants to live in a theocracy.

 

[Benadam]

@Erikaspirit, I accidentally posted this in part to Noel. I was writing to you. Just in case you saw it already.

You mentioned something in a recent post that brought to mind something I think is important and worth communicating. Values and beliefs

When do beliefs and values become too much

Imagine a society with a diverse population that share in common, long held beliefs and values.Beliefs and values that formed their law, that were able to maintain order, and provided peace and justice for all the citizens of this society. Then in just a few decades, those values and beliefs long held and respected by society are rejected by many and they feel they are unjustly imposed. This can happen when a large influx of people enter into into society. with behavior and customs at odds with your own. It’s doubtfull new laws would need to be formed. Or from people who have adopted an alternate view which changed what they value and don’t believe what has always been considered good is really good.This is what I believe happened but that alternate view didn’t come from a higher place.

When we speak of tolerance of others and what they believe and value, we are usually referencing customs and habits.

Diversity doesn’t as a general rule require new laws to be formed to protect citizens from the others behavior or require that behavior typical for specific group be criminalized. Tolerance doesn’t require that immoral behavior is treated as a good.that deserves respect and acceptance

The new value and beliefs that are usurping the established values not because of a deeper understanding of what the law is or its good is nor to what is subjected to it, but rather to satisfy desires for goods the current laws forbid.That’s why the appeal to nonexistent rights for those goods another is the appeal to the right to not have the values of others imposed on me. How did marriage get redefined? Funny, by the people who chant" its wrong to impose YOUR values" @While I’m I enshrine mine into laqw. The’ll change as soon as they are done with that. Remember " I have a ‘right’ TO MARRY. WOW…something that requires a license no less. that was the mantra chanted into the national conversation year after year until the perception of what marriage was changed in the popular mind. The values and beliefs that have emerged recently mostly values goods that serve LGBQ community and Hollywood. These new values didn’t emerge out of deeper understanding of the good objectively or subjectively,but a projection of an image the LGBQ community as victims of conservative values and traditional moralsthat force them to live in an enviroment of oppression that denies rights. Wallah marriage becomes a right the state should make sure is available for all Lost in the popular mind is what marriage means to the state.Lost is the fact that it is a priviledge the state has an interest in . A friendship the state has no real interest in.is treated as if it does even thoughit provides no future citizens , no maternal environment, just a couple friends who get together to behave sexually,

 

[HarryStotle]

No, not every good Catholic wants to live in a theocracy.

Actually, I would suppose the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom or God would be the very definition of a theocracy, so, yeah, pretty much every good Catholic should want to live in a theocracy, but not just any theocracy, only one, the one with Christ as King.

 

[ktmeyer]

Actually, I would suppose the Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom or God would be the very definition of a theocracy, so, yeah, pretty much every good Catholic should want to live in a theocracy, but not just any theocracy, only one, the one with Christ as King.

LOL, fair enough. I will rephrase. Not everyone wants the USA to be a theocracy.

 

[HarryStotle]

And everyone has a right to their own beliefs. And I have no right to inflict my beliefs on others, nor do they have a right to inflict their beliefs on me.

So why are you inflicting your belief – that others do not have a right to their inflict beliefs – on others?

Why is your belief, about NO ONE having rights to inflict beliefs, the belief that is being inflicted on EVERYONE by default? Seems just a little self-defeating, and self-serving.

What makes you think you have a right to say others have “no right” to inflict their beliefs on others? Don’t they have a right, according to your own grounding principle, to inflict their beliefs if they believe they have that right? After all, no one, NOT EVEN YOU, has a right to inflict YOUR beliefs about what rights others enjoy upon those others.

You little tyrant you!

Besides, if “… everyone has a right to their own beliefs…” and someone believes they can kill others at random, I am pretty certain you will want to inflict your “belief” that murdering others “just because” they want to is wrong and you will insist that belief is one that ought to be imposed upon others, especially any person who believes they are right to kill others whenever they want.

I am certain you will amend your “And I have no right to inflict my beliefs on others, nor do they have a right to inflict their beliefs on me,” when certain unwanted “beliefs” are espoused by those others.

 

[NoelFitz]

I am pleased so many contribute to this thread, but the focus is being lost. It is the exodus from the Church and its lack of support from fellow-Catholics.

In recent times Catholic’s played a huge role in US public life, e.g Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Joe Biden and Tim Kaine, yet they are not supported sufficiently. Five of the last six speakers of the House and two thirds of the Supreme Court members were Catholic.
The old anti-Catholicism is not so apparent.

Can we return to the original focus on the exodus of Catholics and the lack of support from fellow-Catholics for Catholics in public life?

Loyalty is important. Can we not rejoice that Catholics contribute so much to public life?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Loyalty is important. Can we not rejoice that Catholics contribute so much to public life?

Ypu’re not going to like this but:

I have more in common, religiously, morally, and culturally with a conservative Protestant than a liberal Catholic.

 

[Reuben_J]

Catholics are not homogenuous in political preferences. Politicians, whether they are Catholics or otherwise, represent a wide political spectrum. Besides, politicians are more often than not, are untrustworthy. Of course, not all of them, but sometimes they are the anti-thesis of their religious background, and when that is so, it cause more harm than good for their religions.

Politic is a complicated thing. Sometimes when the clergy and even the Pope enter the political fray by being partisan, they would be exposed to flak from those in the opposition.

 

[Benadam]

It is the exodus from the Church and its lack of support from fellow-Catholics.

Noel, I trully believe the lack of support is only directed at the the lack of faith displayed and that it is a display in the most visible way possible. Love requires that they are called out.

That pride is displayed in many many of us catholics in our personal sphere’s of enfluence

I would say the exodus is caused by the lack of faith and the scandal it causes. catholics who don’t live their faith so their practice of the faith amounts to lip service.

That is how the Church becomes indistinguishable from the wotld

 

[Axsenex]

You know President JFK is my favorite but many people especially Baby Boomers preferred St. Reagan.

 

[steve-b]

I am pleased so many contribute to this thread, but the focus is being lost. It is the exodus from the Church and its lack of support from fellow-Catholics.

In recent times Catholic’s played a huge role in US public life, e.g Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Joe Biden and Tim Kaine,

the problem is, Catholics need to act like Catholics. If they don’t act like Catholics, then “Catholic” becomes a name only. Kinda like someone who says they have faith but no actions to prove it… A said faith is a dead faith. Just like someone who calls them self Catholic but don’t act Catholic. Catholicism is dead in them

NoelFitz:

yet they are not supported sufficiently. Five of the last six speakers of the House and two thirds of the Supreme Court members were Catholic.
The old anti-Catholicism is not so apparent.

Isn’t it obvious? if they (the “Catholic” )didn’t act nor project Catholic, then what is there in THEM for a non Catholic to be anti Catholic about, since that individual doesn’t act "Catholic?

NoelFitz:

Can we return to the original focus on the exodus of Catholics and the lack of support from fellow-Catholics for Catholics in public life?

Loyalty is important. Can we not rejoice that Catholics contribute so much to public life?

No way can I be loyal to a fake. I don’t care that they “call” them self “Catholic”.

I gave an example

You didn’t open this link http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm . it’s directly to the point.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

OK, Noel, back to your topic.

I’m big on polls. We don’t need to speculate about what people think, we can look at a poll. In 2015 Pew Research Center did a poll about Catholics-- http://www.pewforum.org/2015/09/02/u-s-catholics-open-to-non-traditional-families/ is the full report, which can be downloaded as a PDF. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/02/key-findings-about-american-catholics/ is just the key findings. I think anyone who wants to discuss this topic (why do people leave the Church? Why don’t Catholic politicians get more support from Catholics?) needs to read this.

Among other things, the poll shows that 52% of those raised Catholic have left the Church at some point. That is a huge number. Someone should be analyzing that to understand why.

The Pew poll also shows that the differences about various subjects (contraception, divorce, abortion, etc. etc.) between those who attend church at least weekly and those who don’t are significant, but are not overwhelming chasms. All Catholics, whether practicing or not, believe the same things, in general. But they may not be what the Church wants them to believe.

So what contributed to people leaving the Church?

Vatican II – not necessarily the final reports, but they way they were interpreted and publicized. “Anything goes” was the basic message. And that’s the message Catholics got. As I said before “religion” in the large sense was replaced by “I can do good outside the priesthood / convent / …” and lay people said the same. In other words, a general loss of religious motivation.

Humanae Vitae – I’ll bet that fewer than 1% of Catholics have ever read it. And yet it’s the basis of most people’s disagreement with the Church. Nor have I ever heard it, or the broader topic of contraception, even mentioned in a sermon. Dead silence. This is not the way to run a PR campaign!!!

Child abuse scandals. Again, never mentioned in a sermon. I’ve never seen anything about it in the church bulletin, even an insert. Dead silence. Again. What apologies there have been have been half-hearted. As for me, I long ago ceased giving any money to the US church at all. I support Catholic schools for girls in India. I don’t think I’m alone. Several people I know have simply stopped going to church because of it.

Formation of cliques and power elites in parishes. In our parish, you don’t get elected to the parish council unless your resume (which is published!!!) is filled with various committees, volunteer work, etc. This results in the same people doing the same things for 50 years. So the chances of new people volunteering, etc. are diminished. And then they wonder why they don’t get volunteers!!!

 

[Erikaspirit16]

part 2–

Popes – They get noticed. Some (Paul VI…) are considered authoritarian. Others (Francis…) too left wing. While some admire Francis, some consider him, well, less than admirable. As I’ve said before, he’s never said anything new or different, but he doesn’t bother to give any footnotes or explanations. So he is misinterpreted – and he should realize that he IS being (and will be) misinterpreted. He needs a better press secretary. Some Catholics certainly interpret Francis’s comments as license to leave the Church, do what they want, etc.

As for those Catholics in office, if you think back to the 17 Republicans running for president in 2016, a fair number of them were Catholics. Biden is Catholic. Kaine is Catholic. But the fact that you are Catholic doesn’t mean you have the same political beliefs (just read this thread…). The fact that Ecumenicals are now comfortable with Catholics in power should give Catholics a bit of a wake-up call. Why is that? And would it benefit Catholics in office to have any official support? I would think that would be counter-productive.

 

[steve-b]

Re: Post 95 Why the Lack of Support & Exodus from the Church - #95 by Erikaspirit16

1. Re: the Pew poll
2. Re: the application of Vat II
3. Re: the left in the Church over the last 50 yrs

Georgetown did a poll also, http://cara.georgetown.edu/frequentl...ch-statistics/ on Sunday Mass attendance. 78% of Catholics are at best C & E Catholics (Christmas & Easter Catholics) if even that. Meaning only 22 % of Catholics attend Mass faithfully. What then do the 78% do for their faith? They are objectively in Mortal sin. If they receive the Eucharist without reconciliation, then they heap sacrilege on top of their mortal sin.

Vatican II was NOT implemented well. No one I know argues with that. “Ecumenical speak” took center stage. Lefty’s left people with the impression, everyone is just fine where they are… no need to be Catholic, which is false. But that’s the message THEY left .

Inbetween all the “ecumenical speak” What seems to get ignored is paragraph #14 from LG

1. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.”(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own."

Finally,

As scripture says of the left
“a wise man’s heart goes to the right, a fools heart to the left” [Ecc 10:2] Ecc10:2 RSVCE - A wise man’s heart inclines him - Bible Gateway

 

[Axsenex]

Only 1%? They must be very special after all

 

[Lara]

It is a question of science and common sense. Life begins at conception. That’s a fact. There isn’t a woman alive who doesn’t recognize abortion as the ending of a life. They discover they’re pregnant. They know what that means, if they wait and do nothing, they will have a baby. They don’t want to have the baby. They kill the developing fetus. They might use all kinds of bogus logic to justify it to themselves, but you don’t have to make allowances for foggy thinking as being culturally inspired.

One doesn’t “inflict” one’s views. Rather one professes one’s views, and shores up support for them.

 

[mkoopman]

Must be the enemy working this out. Who did Satan pay off in the church triumphant? With what kind of bribe?
It is a beautiful and clear document shown to be prophetic despite the critics, Satan’s advocates.

 

[Axsenex]

Sometimes I think my fellow Catholics got too far with their language usage & it make potential newcomers go like