Posted on 12/28/2013 3:59:04 PM PST by NYer
According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening.
Over the past 50 years or so, a profound change, other than that effected by Vatican II, has taken place in the Catholic Church. It might be described as the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” The Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, has identified four major challenges facing the Church today. First on his list is the exodus of young adults from the Church. According to recent demographic surveys, it seems there are presently 30 million people in the U.S. who identify themselves as “former Catholics.” That figure is both surprising, and, for Catholics, disheartening. It represents a little less than 10 percent of the total population of this country. It also means that had those persons remained Catholic, approximately one in three Americans would be identified as Catholic. Only two religious groups represent a larger percentage of the U.S. population: Protestants (cumulatively) and current Catholics.
This phenomenon is disheartening not only for bishops and priests, but also for faithful Catholics generally. Many older Catholics are saddened at the sight of their children and grandchildren abandoning the Church.
Questions naturally arise. What has caused such a massive defection? How might one account for this phenomenon? It hardly seems possible that any single factor could explain a phenomenon of such magnitude. Various reasons for people leaving the Church are well-known. Many of them have been operative from the earliest times of Christianity. In his first letter to Timothy, St. Paul reminds him that “The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines …” (1 Tm 4:1-7). In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul speaks of dissensions and divisions among the faithful (1 Cor 1:10-16).
From the first centuries up to modern times, there have been doctrinal differences (heresies) which led to great numbers separating themselves from the Roman Catholic Church. Many others have left the Church for what can be described as practical reasons, rather than doctrinal differences.
Among the latter, there are many who separated themselves from the Church because of marriage problems. There are those who left because they became greatly dissatisfied with inadequate preaching, uninviting liturgy, and minimal hospitality in their parishes. It seems worth noting that expecting church attendance and public worship to be therapeutically satisfying often leads to disappointment and eventual alienation.
Not a few have left the Church because of real or perceived mistreatment by bishops or pastors. Reactions have a way of becoming overreactions. An overreaction to clericalism and paternalism in the Church resulted in autonomy becoming absolute. Evelyn Underhill offered a helpful analogy in this regard. She likened the Church to the Post Office. Both provide an essential service, but it is always possible to find an incompetent and annoying clerk behind the counter. Persons who expect all representatives of the Church to live up to the ideals proposed by the Church will typically become disillusioned and leave. Persons with such expectations would have left the Church of the Holy Apostles.
Most recently, a cause for many leaving the Church is the scandal of clergy sexual abuse. This has been a stumbling block not only for those directly affected, but for Catholics generally. Because of the questionable role played by a number of bishops, their moral authority is diminished. The time when bishops could command is past. Now, they can only hope to persuade and invite. Loyalty to bishops had been widely identified with loyalty to the Church. As the former loyalty diminished, so did the latter.
Clearly there are times when the Church is more of an obstacle than a help to faith. At Vatican II, the Council Fathers pointed out that the Church is always in danger of concealing, rather than revealing, the authentic features of Christ. Often enough, members of the Church’s leadership have been guilty of a sin typical of many religious teachers—namely, being more concerned about preservation of their authority than about the truth.
While specific reasons can be cited, it is helpful to recognize several underlying attitudes that are operative. (1) There is an anti-dogmatic spirit which is suspicious of the Church’s emphasis on fidelity to traditional teachings. (2) There is the widespread belief that one can be free to ignore, deny, or minimize one or more received doctrines without feeling compelled to break with the Church. (3) There is also the belief that, guided by their own conscience, regardless of how that matches—or fails to match—generally accepted Catholic teaching, persons can develop their own understanding of what it means to be Catholic. Someone has coined a phrase that describes persons with those attitudes, calling them “cafeteria Catholics,” i.e., those who pick and choose what to accept of official Catholic teaching and ignore the rest.
Two questions arise in the face of the phenomenon of “vanishing Catholics.” One question is of a more theological and ecclesial level: are those departed to be considered heretics or schismatics? A second question arises at the practical level: how can those who have left be reunited with the Church? Regarding the first question, it is worth noting that, while speaking of dissension and division among the faithful, and of separation from the community of believers, the New Testament does not make a distinction between heresy and schism. Since the definition of the Pope’s primacy of jurisdiction, it is difficult to see how there can be a schism that is not a heresy.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2089), heresy “is the obstinate, post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is, likewise, an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” Schism is “the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff, or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” The Theological Dictionary, compiled by Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, defines heresy as “primarily an error in matters of faith. The heretic takes a truth out of the organic whole, which is the faith, and because he looks at it in isolation, misunderstands it, or else denies a dogma.” “Schism occurs when a baptized person refuses to be subject to the Pope, or to live in communion with the members of the Church, who are subject to the Pope.”
In any case, given the variety of reasons for people leaving the Church, the degree of separation, and especially assuming good will on the part of those leaving, it is difficult to classify them as heretics or schismatics. Church authorities have the right and the duty to take measures against heresy and schism when those become evident. Clear denial of a dogma cannot be tolerated. But between this and a purely private, material heresy, there are many shades. Not every challenge to accepted theology is heretical. There are many partial non-identifications that endanger faith and unity but do not rise to the level of schism. Nor does every act of disobedience to human laws in the Church imply schism.
While speculative questions about heresy and schism are significant and need to be addressed, they pale in comparison to the practical question of how those departed can be reunited with the Church. That question is as complex as are the reasons for people leaving the Church. That question is further complicated when one addresses the question of the underlying attitudes that are operative.
Obviously, the Church must work at removing any obstacles to reunion. With Vatican II, that work was begun. The Council recognized the Church is semper reformanda, always needing to be reformed. The actual return of individuals requires something more than an adjustment in Church practices or new programs. It is a matter of God touching the individual with his grace.
A final question that can prove troubling is how the massive defection from the Church is to be reconciled with God’s providence. This is simply one of many instances in which we are challenged to believe in an omnipotent God, who is also a loving, provident Father. Providence is not an occasional, intrusive, manipulative presence, but one that is with us both in tragedy and in joy, in the joy that consists not so much in the absence of suffering, as in the awareness of God’s presence. To find the strength to experience calmly the difficulties and trials that come into our lives is a tremendous challenge. If, however, we are able to do that, every event can be “providential.” In a sermon on the feast of the Ascension, Pope Leo the Great said: “For those who abandon themselves to God’s providential love, faith does not fail, hope is not shaken, and charity does not grow cold.”
There can be a very subtle, almost imperceptible temptation to think we know better than God how things should be. We can be like the naive little girl, who, in her prayers, told God that if she were in God’s place, she would make the world better. And God replied: “That is exactly what you should be doing.”
In John 6: Jesus didn’t say “Hey, folks, step right up for one time only eat my flesh and drink my blood.” NO. He meant it was on “forever” offer.
Accept no imitations. The Mass stands OUTSIDE of time.
I tried to explain this to a number of our separated brethren several months ago and got the prot version of covering their ears and repeating "I can't hear you la la la.
Catholics and Orthodox have the most personal relationship with Jesus through the consumption of the Eucharist. No other group can have that relationship.
does not require priest or others to intercede in order to make the “magic” happen.
Jesus passed on His authority to the Apostles and only them, they in turn passed it on to other worthy men. So yes it does require a priest.
At that point, the question becomes what percentage of Catholics leave for what reason(s). And that gets harder because of overlapping reasons.
For a few years now, I’ve been of the opinion that the church needs to compile the equivalent of the Domesday Book.
Rarely is such an effort tried, but when it is, the result is a vital snapshot of the world, or part thereof, and proves an invaluable research tool. William the Conquerer’s Domesday Book is still cited in research after almost 1000 years.
Lincoln’s Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton’s order preserving all Civil War records is a godsend to genealogists, demographics research, statistics, and American history. The period before and after are far more nebulous, but for that brief time, there is clarity.
Were the Catholic church to do such a survey, they would spend the next few hundred years troubleshooting and performing repair, and be much healthier for it.
Did I say the person was ME? No. That was YOUR call.
Thanks for admitting you meant what was obvious.
The Spirit gives the life. Eating Jesus doesn't help. The flesh is of no help at all.
Couldn't be much plainer.
What you fail to comprehend is that one best can exude love, wisdom, and holiness NOT by partaking in acts that do nothing to teach love, wisdom, and holiness, BUT RATHER by studying what the Lord actually had to say. It also comes having the discipline to perform RIGOROUS discernment that what you are doing, saying, or espousing actually leads people away from sin, instead of towards it.I would have to disagree with you in part. In our Adoration Chapel (depicted), every single pew carries a hard covered Bible, and people do read them. That being said, Jesus is actually present at Adoration (do you believe this?), so while you can read about Him through Holy Scripture, you can also talk one-on-one regarding His published Word, too. Who better to conduct a Bible Study? I send you back to commentary #34 http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3106141/posts?page=34#34 and please read all of what Mother Teresa wrote (by clicking on the image). Do you respect her as to what she espoused on the Eucharist/Adoration during her lifetime?
It can also lead one to treat women better, as one must focus on the grace of Mary, and hence of all women.That was beautiful (I mean really beautiful), but then you went on to say:
But I also know first hand that the rosary does absolutely nothing to inform one that espousing socialist politics, supporting lawbreaking by illegal aliens, and ignoring the horror of abortion are leading people to sin.This stopped me in my tracks. ("One day, through the Rosary and the Scapular, Our Lady will save the world." --Saint Dominic) I've been praying the rosary (at Adoration Chapels, and just about everywhere else; grocery stores, parks, during walks, in elevators, at stoplights, in waiting rooms, on the highway, before sleeping, and of course, on my website) for the end of abortion for decades (no one knows any better than I do the horror of what abortion does to not just the baby, but the mother as well). There are millions of us who know (and pray)! It IS the rosary, along with Adoration (see my tagline) that will end abortion forever. Could it be that you need to focus less on the sins -- [lack of] "RIGOROUS discernment" -- of others that seems to be distracting you, so that you are focused only on that which is good, and pure, and holy, yourself.
But, unless we have Jesus, we cannot give Him; that is why we need the Eucharist. Spend as much time as possible in front of the Blessed Sacrament and He will fill you with His strength and His power. Tell Him, 'Come to our hearts Lord and stay with us.' Then you will become the instruments of His love, peace and joy. --God bless you, Mother Teresa
I have had other FR Catholics admit that there is something seriously wrong in the dioceses in NYS, WNY in particular, although I wouldn’t be surprised in the least to find NYC in that mix.
I will pray that Jesus comes into your heart and makes you a Christian.
This brings to mind what God warned He would do.
Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD God, that *I* will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD.
God also had Ezekiel write about those spiritually dead bones.
To say what I think about the present state of the church of Rome would be considered ‘judgmental’ and only some are entitled to that activity.
Ironic, isn't it?
Actually, genuine believers have Christ live in their hearts through faith, making them new creatures in Christ, not by eating Him.
That just goes in one end and out the other.
Ephesians 3:14-19 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.
2 Corinthians 5: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
Matthew 15:16-17 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?
He already did when I invited Him in and it wasn't by eating Him.
Anyone can "do this in remembrance of Him" and we do "communion/Lord's Supper". Making a claim of transubstantiation (where any priest can evoke the miracle/transformation at will) just supports having priests to look up to/depend on - that worked really well for those who followed the Pharisees, didn't it?
He and the Holy Spirit tasked the apostles with carrying the Word - they were not long-term "empowered" to be the only purveyors of the Gospel - else, they and their line (really convenient for dynastic-worshipers) would be the only ones who can carry the word. If you need active intervention by a priest to attain salvation, why do we need God? Jesus walked among us to make it a personal relationship. Baptism is a conscious and overt act to show that you believe - it isn't a magical "makes you holy" event. Communion is gathering in His name and remembering Him and what He did for us - it doesn't require a miracle - He stands without daily miracles. Priests cannot save us - He saved those who would believe in Him and invite Him into their hearts as Lord and savior. Anyone who depends on other men for their salvation might as well worship Baal.
Grace freed us from the rituals to try to demonstrate our worthiness. Those who wanted to continue some of the old practices like circumcision and eating Kosher foods to remain "pure" were chastised for falling from Grace. Religion puts more of these "prove you're good" activities requirements that He removed.
Many try to say the He said this or that (what He did say when telling folks how things were stayed in accordance with the law that all, even He lived under until His death/resurrection and did not follow us into the New Covenant. He came to fulfill the law by living under it without sinning and then being sacrificed so that we not pay the death penalty for our sins. Loving Him/God and each other became the new fulfillment of the commandments because where there is love, there is no harm and that is the essence of the intent of the original commandments.
You can depend on priests to insure your salvation - Jesus gave me a direct line to God without need for intercession by living mortals or dead mortals who have been awarded the posthumous title of "saint". Once we have been saved, we become 100% pure and worthy (despite or sinful natures) and saints in God's eyes. He told us that is how it would be and He didn't add the caveats that we had to follow/obey modern day pharisees in order to achieve it. Does "I will forgive their wickedness and recognize their sins no more" - ring a tune?
Bingo.
With Vatican II, the Church hoped to make Catholicism more palatable to the non-Catholics. Unfortunately, with its false ecumenism, religious liberty and changed liturgy just to name a few, Vatican II diluted Catholicism. Over the years, many Catholics saw no real need to remain Catholic.
I see no evidence of that. I will continue to pray that you do come to know Him in His fullness.
You have been told the truth and choose to disregard it. I will pray for you.
Are you saying that you never made your First Communion? That doesn’t jive with tidbits of your story on other threads.
That is actually no wonder to me, having once been where you are. See things the New Testament church did not have, but Rome does
I don’t see how the Catholic Church could be surpassed in the readings from the Bible, the homilies, the community support, etc.
As re Bible reading, it has been calculated that even going to mass daily would only give you 12.7% of the Bible over the two year reading cycle. (http://catholic-resources.org/Lectionary/Statistics.htm) Much of the Bible reading in Mass is repetitious.
In the SBC church down the street, most or an entire chapter is read before the preaching even begins, and more during the sermon, which begins after the worship, prayers, etc. which is longer than the typical Mass. And in fact i would estimate about as much prayer is offered and Scripture reading is done before the preaching even begins than in an entire Mass.
And which is preceded by adult Sunday School, going thru Revelation, and on Wed. night a through the Bible study goes on, from beginning to end.
And the preaching is powerful proclamation of the word of God, usually about 45 minutes, in contrast to the typical 10 minute dull sermonette RCs are subject to, and which i know well of as a former weekly RC. Thus you have such a disproportionately large media market of evangelical preaching (and not just the Hinn stuff), versus Catholic sermons.
As for community support, RCs do very little of that or other examples of commitment, compared to evangelicals in proportion to their numbers. And Catholic nonprofit organizations, incldg. Catholic Charities, get a lot of money from the Feds.
The Obama administration has actually increased funding for Catholic nonprofit organizations and programs. In fact, more than $1.5 billion went to Catholic organizations over the past two years. - http://www.networklobby.org/news-media/federal-funding-catholic-organizations
56 percent of Evangelicals currently say they're strongly affiliated with their religion, while only 35 percent of Catholics say the same, and 4% lower than mainline Protestants (devoutness of Mainline Protestants [distinct from evangelicals] fell to roughly 30 percent in the late 1970s to late 1980s before gradually climbing to 39 percent in 2010) http://www.science20.com/print/972444
Bible Reading: the highest was 75%, by those going to a Pentecostal/Foursquare church who reported they had read the Bible during the past week (besides at church), while the lowest was among Catholics at 23% ^
Volunteer church work (during past 7 days): Assemblies of God were highest at 30%, with the lowest going to Catholics at 12%. ^
Donating Money (during the last month): Church of Christ churches were the highest at 29%, with Catholics being the lowest at 12% ^
American evangelicals gave four times as much money, per person, to churches as did all other church donors in 2001. 88 percent of evangelicals and 73 percent of all Protestants donated to churches. John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle, The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will? 16th ed. (Champaign, Ill.: Empty Tomb, 2006),12. http://www.generousgiving.org/stats#
A Catholic survey reports that 4 percent of US Catholics described themselves as “very” involved in parish or religious activities other than attending Mass, and 11% as “somewhat involved, and 64% as “not involved at all.” Among weekly (or more) attendees (approx 22% of adult Catholics), 13% were very” involved, 29% “somewhat involved and 25% not involved at all.” http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/devotionpractice.pdf
25% of Evangelical Christians and 20% of other Protestants and 7% of Catholics said the read the Bible on a daily basis. 44% of Catholics said they rarely or never read the Bible, along with only 7% of Evangelical Christians and 13% of other Protestants. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/december_2008/catholics_protestants_practice_faith_in_different_ways
91% of Evangelical Christians and 63% of other Protestants and 25% of Catholics consider themselves to be born again; ^
44% of Evangelical Christians reflect at least daily on the meaning of Scripture in their lives. 36% of other Protestants and 22% of Catholics do the same; ^
52% of Evangelical Christians have had a meaningful discussion about their faith with a non-Christian during the past month. 28% of other Protestants and 18% of Catholics also have held such a discussion. ^
68% of Evangelical Christians attend a regular Bible Study or participate in some other small-group activity. 47% of other Protestants take part in small groups related to their faith, along with 24% of Catholics. ^
More .
Thus while you may not be able to "see how the Catholic Church could be surpassed in the readings from the Bible, the homilies, the community support, etc., the fact is it easily is. But your inordinate devotion and promotion of a particular church - versus preaching Christ as seen in Scripture - is consistent with the cultic nature of traditional Catholicism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.