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.”
A Harris survey showed a broader trend towards secularization in America. From 2005 to 2009, belief in God was over 80% [82% in I think all of the surveys]. Those numbers are now down to 74% saying they believe in God. The other 26% are divided between atheism 12% and not sure [agnostic 14%] or an overall decline of 8%.
So it is clear that most of the Catholics how have left are moving to unaffiliated or outright atheism. In addition, what the Catholic Church is experiencing is going on in every other Christian community. The notion that some Protestant Churches are growing is nonsense, they are only getting members from other Protestant Groups whose numbers are declining. So the what you are getting are changes of address.
Again, there is a general decline in belief in God across the spectrum of American society. If you go back even 30 or so years ago, belief in God was probably 90%. The trend whether all here want to admit it or not is a movement towards atheistic secularism in this country. If you think the Catholic Church is the only one dealing with this, your leaving in a bubble.
I don’t know, I went to a friend to his Catholic mass on Christmas day. The church had two masses going at all times and several times throughout the day. It was full to the last seat.
I've had faithful Catholics tell me, some on FR and some to my face, that suffering is a gift to be offered up to God.
Why would you blame the person who is sick for being sick when the Catholic church teaches that it's a blessing?
That is no different than the Protestant pentecostals who teach that sickness is a result of sin in someone's life or a lack of faith.
You aren't going Prot on us now, are you?
VERY few.
But if I were looking for the "original" church, I would go to the Orthodox: the doctrine is essentially the same, but the hierarchical setup and the "style" of the RC is more medieval/Renaissance, while that of the Orthodox is pre-medieval.
“The only reason my family went to church is because my father dragged my mother and me/sibling down there. He actually liked church. Once he died, we stopped going. It’s a very depressing place.”
Wow! With me it is the opposite. At church I can hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the wisdom of the prophets, the beauty of the Psalms, etc. Outside of church I see a lot of arrogance resulting in misery.
All read in monotone surroundedby bland music and cookie cutter homilies. Your average Catholic Mass has all the joy of homeroom.
And your point is...?
Best post on the thread.
” The notion that some Protestant Churches are growing is nonsense, they are only getting members from other Protestant Groups whose numbers are declining. So the what you are getting are changes of address.”
Obviously, I can’t generalize to all churches, but I can tell you that the quote is absolutely false in regards to the assembly I attend - and others I am familiar with. I am witnessing an amazing influx of formerly unchurched converts, tattooed, pierced, turning to Christ, trusting Him, following Him in baptism and in changed lives. Virtually all are coming because someone who cared about them at work or through some other connection invited them to come.
Every time they schedule a baptism, there are 65 or more people who ask to follow Christ in baptism. They range in age from 10 to +80. I’ve witnessed hundreds and heard how they came to Christ and why they want to now follow Him publicly in believers’ baptism.
The church has grown by thousands since I began to fellowship there. They have planted 5 other churches where the same thing is happening. All glory to God.
Having written that, it is perfectly normal and acceptable and right that if a believer is in a Church that has strayed from truth, he or she SHOULD leave and find a new church to fellowship at and to follow Christ in the company of other committed believers. I’m sure that is happening too. It is also a wonderful thing.
That just isn’t true, while you can argue that Catholicism drives people from Christ or into Mormonism, or whatever you want to claim, the reality is that many of those who leave the Catholic denomination switch to another Christian denomination.
“This is also exactly what mormons teach.
“And your point is...?
...............
THAT was my point. If there is a reason, I’ll leave you to sort it out.
Likewise for the Catholic church. The only reason its numbers are stationary is because of illegal immigration.
While what you say is true as far as it goes, chapter 6 in Saint John, at least for the devout Catholic, takes precedence to the excellence of some really nice protestant messages, which are generally more motivating by miles.
But, the wonderful message is not the Precious Body and Precious Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
We are desperate for spirit filled priests speaking to the spirit filled scrpture readings that are heard every Sunday. Many give milk endlessly, like Ted with his first reader. :)
Not *very few*.
Very many.
There are many churches here in CNY and WNY that are chock-a-block full of converted Catholics.
There are hardly any converts more on fire for Christ once they find Him than a converted Catholic.
In some cases it is, but not all.
Why would you blame the person who is sick for being sick when the Catholic church teaches that it's a blessing?
That is no different than the Protestant pentecostals who teach that sickness is a result of sin in someone's life or a lack of faith.
Where did I say I blame you, I am simply making an observation. However it seems to have pricked your conscience, might be worthy of further consideration.
You aren't going Prot on us now, are you?
Been there done that got the T-shirt and was smart enough to give up my errant ways. The great thing is that I was smart enough to realize that I left due to poor Catechesis, and smart enough to realize I could come back.
A minor reason, not a major reason as you assert. Catholics historically anyway, leave and go no where else until they return, (or not).
While that may be changing somewhat in these days of Apostasy, that has not been the case, nor a “major reason”, historically speaking.
All this to see what was a simply the breaking of bread to be shared as part of a larger communal meal, turned into a precisely ordained elaborate ritual or play, in which the elements and consuming them are the focus and not the sharing the people as as body of Christ are to show in eating the bread together, as being unified with the selfless crucified Christ.
This is why Paul said that when the Corinthians came together therefore into one place to eat the Lord's supper, they really were not, (1 Corinthians 11:20)as they went ahead and eat independent of others, filling themselves while others went hungry, thus they shamed them that have not. (Vs. 21,22)
For as often as they ate this bread, and drink this cup, they were to shew, to proclaim, the Lord's death till he come. (1 Corinthians 11:26) But which they did not by ignoring others and focusing on meeting their own needs, effectively not recognizing the body of Christ as the church. Which is the focus in context.
And which meeting your own needs under the assumption a wafer and wine is the body of Christ, not taking part in communal meal which examples sharing in union with Christ, who bought the church with His own blood, is what it seems your focus is.
And the Poor Catechesis rap means the church they promote is a poor teacher, and or this is what she allows. Not because they actually get what Rome effectually conveys, which it does at every liberal Catholic's funeral, which is that as long as you die in her arms, she will help you attain glory. Only when such convert and become conservative evangelicals is real alarm shown. Competition you see.
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.