Why do Catholics leave, and what can be done about it?

cna ^ | April 19, 2012 | Father Robert Barron

[NYer]

I saw an advance copy of a survey by William J. Byron and Charles Zech, which will appear in the April 30th edition of “America” magazine. 

It was conducted at the request of David O’Connell, the bishop of Trenton, and its focus was very simple:  it endeavored to discover why Catholics have left the church.  No one denies that a rather substantive number of Catholics have taken their leave during the past 20 years, and Byron and Zech wanted to find out why.  They did so in the most direct way possible and asked those who had quit.

The answers they got were, in many ways, predictable.  Lots of people cited the church’s teachings on divorce and re-marriage, gay marriage, contraception, and the ordination of women.  These matters, of course, have been exhaustively discussed in the years following Vatican II, and I’d be willing to bet that anyone, even those vaguely connected to the Church, could rehearse the arguments on both sides of those issues.  But there just isn’t a lot that the church can do about them.  No bishop or pastor could make a policy adjustment and announce that divorced and re-married people can receive communion or that a gay couple can come to the altar to be married or a woman present herself for ordination.

What struck me about the survey, however, was that many of the issues that led people to leave the church are indeed matters that can be addressed.  Many of the respondents commented that they left because of “bad customer relations.”  One woman said that she felt “undervalued by the church” and found “no mentors.”  Many more said that their pastors were “arrogant, distant, aloof, and insensitive,” and still others said that their experiences over the phone with parish staffers were distinctly negative.  Now I fully understand that parish priests and lay ministers are on the front lines and hence are the ones who often have to say “no” when a parishioner asks for something that just can’t be granted.  Sometimes the recipient of that “no” can all too facilely accuse the one who says it as arrogant or indifferent.  Nevertheless, the survey can and should be a wake-up call to church leaders—both clerical and non-clerical—that simple kindness, compassion, and attention go a rather long way.  I distinctly remember the advice that my first pastor—a wonderful and pastorally skillful priest—gave to the parish secretary:  “for many people, you are the first contact they have with the Catholic Church; you exercise, therefore, an indispensable ministry.”  One respondent to the survey observed that whenever he asked a priest about a controversial issue, he “got rules, and not an invitation to sit down and talk.”  Unfair?  Perhaps.  But every priest, even when ultimately he has to say “no,” can do so in the context of a relationship predicated upon love and respect.

A second major concern that can and should be addressed is that of bad preaching.  Again and again, people said that they left the church because homilies were “boring, irrelevant, poorly prepared,” or “delivered in an impenetrable accent.”  Again, speaking as someone who is called upon to give sermons all the time, I realize how terribly difficult it is to preach, how it involves skill in public speaking, attention to the culture, expertise in biblical interpretation, and sensitivity to the needs and interests of an incredibly diverse audience.  That said, homilists can make a great leap forward by being attentive to one fact:  sermons become boring in the measure that they don’t propose something like answers to real questions.   All of the biblical exegesis and oratorical skill in the world will be met with a massive “so what?” if the preacher has not endeavored to correlate the “answers” he provides with the “questions” that beguile the hearts of the people to whom he speaks.  Practically every Gospel involves an encounter between Jesus and a person—Peter, Mary Magdalene, Nicodemus, Zacchaeus, etc.—who is questioning, wondering, suffering, or seeking.  An interesting homily identifies that longing and demonstrates, concretely, how Jesus fulfills it.  When the homily both reminds people how thirsty they are and provides water to quench the thirst, people will listen.

A third eminently correctable problem is one that I will admit I had never thought about before reading this survey.  Many of the respondents commented that, after they left the church, no one from the parish contacted them or reached out to them in any way.  Now again, I can anticipate and fully understand the objections from pastoral people:  many Catholic parishes are huge—upwards of three or four thousand families—and staffs are small.  Yet, just as major corporations, serving millions of people, attend carefully to lost customers, so Catholic parishes should prioritize an outreach to those who have drifted (or stormed) away.  A phone call, a note, an e-mail, a pastoral visit—anything that would say, “We’ve noticed you’re not coming to Mass anymore.  Can we help?  Can you tell us what, if anything, we’ve done wrong?  We’d love to see you back with us.”

The problem of Catholics leaving the church is, obviously, serious and complex, and anyone who would suggest an easy solution is naïve.  However, having listened to a representative sample of those who have left, parishes, priests, and church administrators might take some relatively simple and direct steps that would go a long way toward ameliorating the situation.
 

[Heart-Rest]

"It’s either/or, it can’t be both."

Where in Scripture does it say that?

Allow me: Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Seriously, boatbums, I know of NO Catholic who would in any way argue with that text. But what does it say? It is like saying your house is based on a foundation. The walls, floors, windows, doors, etc., are NOT the foundation, but they are part of the house, BASED ON that foundation. If all you have is the base or foundation, you do not have a house. To make a "house", you must accept the Grace God has given you, and then God expects YOU to do something with that Grace He freely gave you, that is, to freely cooperate with God and God's will in your own voluntary genuine response.

When Jesus says the following in Matthew 25:31-46, do you think he is judging these folks merely on "Grace", or is he judging them also on what they went on to freely choose to do with the Grace he freely provided them in an ongoing way in their future after receiving that Grace?

31 "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
40 And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
44 Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
45 Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Matthew 25:31-46 (RSV-CE)

I've heard some people claim that the response of Jesus to the repentant thief on the cross next to Jesus proves he (the thief) was not required to do anything with the base/foundation of faith and grace given him by God, but the truth is, he accepted that Grace, and he played a very small part, but helped to make a short but very eloquent statement, which the Holy Spirit saw fit to have included in the Holy Written Word of God, and it has provided input to countless Christian books and sermons ever since. Without realizing it, that thief also became a Christian songwriter during his brief time on the cross, composing the lyrics to a very popular current Christian hymn, "Jesus remember me, when you come into your kingdom...". This tiny, little (but lasting) action and short but eloquent witness and public testimony (he even preached a short sermon to his fellow criminal on the other cross from his own cross), were more than most of us will ever do, and he has been, and will be remembered here on earth far longer than most of us or our actions will. He accepted God's freely given Grace, and then, to the best of his ability, went on to do the will of God (involving works) in the very brief time he had left.

We certainly need God's Grace in order to be saved, and we certainly cannot save ourselves, (and no Catholics I know think they can) but we CAN LOSE ourselves and our salvation by our free choices and activities or inactivities, as Jesus plainly said.     Jesus did not lie.

The only way we know that we've truly accepted God's free gift of grace, and God's free gift of faith, and God's free gift of salvation, and that we truly know Jesus, is by keeping his commandments. If we don't keep his commandments but claim we know Jesus, we are lying. (See what the Bible says about it)

And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says "I know him" but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1 John 2:3-4

Think of that -- anyone who claims they know Jesus, but then disobeys his commandments, is a liar (according to the Bible), and you know who the father of all lies is, and whose side those liars are on, until they repent and start keeping those commandments and doing those works Jesus instructed all of us to do.

You can't just look at some selected texts in the Bible, and not all the others. You have to look at ALL of them, and it takes great discernment to perceive the whole picture. The Church founded by Jesus Christ performs the overseeing teaching authority function for that discernment best, with authority given from God, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the gates of hell shall never prevail against his Church, just as Jesus Christ solemnly promised.

(I have to relinquish the computer again right now. Will try to check back later or tomorrow for any reply.)

[editor-surveyor]

>> The actual definition of “liturgy” is “a prescribed ritual for public worship”. <<

.
Which is nowhere to be found in God’s word!

.
>> In 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (RSV-CE), Paul describes the words and actions of Jesus during the “Last Supper”. <<

And none of that is prescribed for anything public. It was to be done in one’s own home during the passover meal.

Why don’t ytpou try reading God’s word instead of human nonsense published by human corporations (mistakenly called churches).

Enjoy your balony sanswich. (as often as you wish, it still won’t please God)

[Natural Law]

"Why don’t ytpou try reading God’s word instead of human nonsense published by human corporations (mistakenly called churches)."

I don't know where your mind was poisoned, but you have to let go of that if you are ever going to live the beatific life God call you to.

Peace be with you.

[boatbums]

As I see it, too often non-Catholic individuals and institutions are not looking simply for a peaceful coexistence with the Church. They demand more than indifference, tolerance or acceptance on behalf of the Church. They demand an endorsement even to the point of demanding that Church doctrines change to accommodate their needs and see an unwillingness to compromise as threatening and hostile.

I never said I was looking for "peaceful coexistence" with the Catholic Church. To do so would be as if the Church retained its temporal power it exercised in the centuries past where the Pope was esteemed the same as King and I needed some semblance of "protection" from persecution. Those days are gone - thank God - and, as a former Catholic, I choose to participate on these threads to give a voice to those like me. I do not pretend that the institutional Church would EVER bend to change its false doctrines simply because Scripture says that will be the state in the end times. All I sincerely desire is that the Holy Spirit, using the occasion of these threads, will touch someone's heart and their spiritual eyes will be opened to the glorious truth of the gift of God which is salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ alone.

What I have trouble understanding is the preoccupation with the Catholic Church, especially by the former Catholics. They haunt Catholic topic threads and demand an endorsement of their exegesis and new and often home-spin doctrines from the active Catholics, and ridicule, often very incorrectly, what they believe to be Catholic doctrine and dogma. Unfortunately, like too many active Catholics, the former Catholics are poorly catechized and too often hate the Church for completely invalid reasons. Like some scorned ex lovers they are obsessed with their former beliefs and rejection. While the Christian world is under attack by secular humanists, atheists, radical Islam and the like they spend their every waking moment defending their decisions by biting at the ankles of their biggest champion.

Perhaps you should ask those within your fold who post so many "Catholic topic threads" why so many of them want to provoke a response from former Catholics by stating things that are anti-Protestant. I get it that it would be just peachy for you guys to say whatever you want about "Protestants" - whether true or not - and have no one challenge you, ever. Well, thank Jim Robinson, this site is NOT an arm of the Vatican and open discussion is encouraged. If such an atmosphere is too disturbing for you, there are the Caucus threads or outside Catholic-only sites you can flee to. No one forces you to read these.

Maybe if you changed your view that we only "haunt" these threads out of hate, obsession, anger or bitterness into the true motives we have offered multiple times, you could begin to appreciate the value it brings to these discussions. Just as former Mormons participate on the LDS threads because they have that connection, why not choose to accept that we have that same kind of calling on threads that are Catholic based. After all, it is the Gospel that we are endorsing and not one "religion" over another and what we defend is Holy Scripture against man-made constructs that counter God's word.

[boatbums]

What I have trouble understanding is the preoccupation with the Catholic Church, especially by the former Catholics. They haunt Catholic topic threads and demand an endorsement of their exegesis and new and often home-spin doctrines from the active Catholics, and ridicule, often very incorrectly, what they believe to be Catholic doctrine and dogma. Unfortunately, like too many active Catholics, the former Catholics are poorly catechized and too often hate the Church for completely invalid reasons. Like some scorned ex lovers they are obsessed with their former beliefs and rejection. While the Christian world is under attack by secular humanists, atheists, radical Islam and the like they spend their every waking moment defending their decisions by biting at the ankles of their biggest champion.

One more thing I wanted to add. This thread's title is "Why do Catholics leave, and what can be done about it?". Now, to me, that is an open invitation to people like me - a Catholic who left - and, if the poster was looking for serious and genuine answers to the question posed, why then are we being criticized for providing those answers? Was there a preconceived idea about the "why?" and anyone who offered something outside that answer is deemed only responding out of anger and bitterness or for "personal" reasons? If that's the case, then the choice is clear - stop posting threads that may get you answers you may not like or deal with it and accept that there ARE legitimate reasons for some people.

[Natural Law]

"Now, to me, that is an open invitation to people like me - a Catholic who left - and, if the poster was looking for serious and genuine answers to the question posed...

Which is why I begged the question, but please tell me that you don't believe that the participation by the usual suspects in this thread is an isolated response to the prompt.

I posed the question because of my involvement in RCIA I am on the other side of the issue, working with those who are entering or returning to the Church. Their experiences are so radically different than the bitter tirades and urban legends I see daily on these threads.

[boatbums]

Regarding your various references to Bible texts about "faith", do you believe those references refer to a "living faith", or to a "faith that is dead"? Do you know that a New Testament Christian writer inspired by the Holy Spirit said that faith without works is dead?

Regarding your words prior to this paragraph, yes, I am well aware that we are under a new covenant with God, one of grace and not of the law. Much of the Old Testament laws and ordinances were given to Israel and, though they STILL needed faith to be redeemed, their relationship and earthly life with Almighty God hinged upon their obedience and submission to His rules. The Old Testament is STILL relevant in many ways to us today because it describes the nature of God and His ways and He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow - He changes not.

WRT "faith" being a living faith versus a dead faith...the faith that saves is the kind of faith that is demonstrated by actions. REAL faith is such that, like love, it always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Genuine faith not only acquires the gift of eternal life, but it also gives us the Holy Spirit who indwells us until the day we arrive in Heaven. The indwelling Spirit creates within us a new spirit nature that the works that God has prepared for us to do can be done through His power. That is how James described we can tell if another's faith is real or not - by their "works" or actions.

But it should NEVER be misconstrued that our works or deeds are what earns or merits God's gift of eternal life. That is ONLY by grace through faith and not by works - so that no one can boast. We do nothing that can deserve heaven with Almighty God because we all have sinned and miss the mark of God's perfection. The payment for sin is death - NOT good works, deeds, penance, money, etc. - and the blood of Jesus Christ is what has made that payment in our place.

[boatbums]

Which is why I begged the question, but please tell me that you don't believe that the participation by the usual suspects in this thread is an isolated response to the prompt. I posed the question because of my involvement in RCIA I am on the other side of the issue, working with those who are entering or returning to the Church. Their experiences are so radically different than the bitter tirades and urban legends I see daily on these threads.

I can only speak for myself, sorry. I can not see into other's hearts any better than you can so our only choice is to take people at their word when they respond on these threads. As you know, there are a few that I have bumped heads with as well, so, I do not expect that everyone thinks like me in all things. What I CAN do is try to treat each person with respect and try to be as gentle as I can. I, too, have had to learn this lesson the hard way and the adage upon attracting flies to honey vs. vinegar is a valid one.

I would suggest that those you are relating to in RCIA classes are, as you said, those new or returning to the Catholic Church. If you had known them when those that left first left, perhaps some of them would also have had "bitter tirades" and/or "urban legends" to give as their reasons. But they are returning for reasons as well. Not all people - though I sincerely hope you don't think this - leave for these reasons. I have shared my testimony about why I did and I stand by it. Though it happened over forty years ago, I STILL know I made the right decision and the Lord affirms it every day.

Though I know some Traditionalist Catholics do not agree with Vatican II, I think the part about accepting the truth that people CAN have a legitimate Christian experience apart from Roman Catholicism is a good start. I have said many times that I don't deny genuine Christians are part of the RCC. It would be a huge, positive step if some here adopted that kind of understanding, as well.

[johngrace]

http://eternalsecurity.us/

[MarkBsnr]

I do not debate with those who post lies about me on FR.

Nice way of finessing the RF posting guidelines.

It is not about finessing. I do not debate with those who post lies about me on FR.

[Iscool]

I don’t debate with posters who claim I lie.

I have never ask you to participate in a debate with me...So get over it...

I don't know if you lie or not...I really don't care...I don't recollect ever accusing you of lying...Perhaps I did...

If I did, it was merited...I don't  make false accusations...

If you want to discuss scripture, fine with me...But you are wasting a lot of bandwidth constantly posting these false personal accusations...

Quit making it personal...

[Iscool]

In the beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with God and the LOGOS was God....

I never get tired of hearing or saying that. Do you?

There must be some point to this exercise but I don't get it...

If the Logos was in the beginning, then the Logos was with Theos...

Why are you using a Greek word for Word and using an English word for God??? And why are you using one Greek word while the rest of them are in English???

[Natural Law]

"Why are you using a Greek word for Word and using an English word for God???"

Logos does not mean "Word". It means so very, very much more than words.

[MarkBsnr]

I do not debate with those who post lies about me on FR.

[Natural Law]

"Those days are gone - thank God - and, as a former Catholic, I choose to participate on these threads to give a voice to those like me.

Why? If you have a clear conscience why bother yourself with the opinions of those you believe are still in error? If you didn't somehow still mentally measure yourself against the Church why not shake off the dust from your sandals?

I have seen both Catholics and non-Catholics state that these forums are a place to debate. They are not. Debates have winners and losers. The truth was established before the beginning of time and nothing anyone on these threads can do will change it. All that can be done is to deny and hide or proclaim and illuminate the truth. The truth will always win out and when the truth wins, everybody wins. All I hope to achieve is to make sure that the teachings of the Church are clearly articulated and explained when challenged or misstated.

[boatbums]

Why? If you have a clear conscience why bother yourself with the opinions of those you believe are still in error? If you didn't somehow still mentally measure yourself against the Church why not shake off the dust from your sandals?

My participating on Religion Forum threads is evidence that my "conscience" isn't clear? That may be your opinion but it is not factual. Again, you cannot know anyone else's heart, so you might want to quit trying to do so. I measure myself by the Word of God and, since I cannot know the effect my posts may have on those reading them, I will continue to do so as the Lord leads me.

I have seen both Catholics and non-Catholics state that these forums are a place to debate. They are not. Debates have winners and losers. The truth was established before the beginning of time and nothing anyone on these threads can do will change it. All that can be done is to deny and hide or proclaim and illuminate the truth. The truth will always win out and when the truth wins, everybody wins. All I hope to achieve is to make sure that the teachings of the Church are clearly articulated and explained when challenged or misstated.

To you they may not be "debates" in the classical sense, but they come as close to them as an online forum can, in my opinion. The truth DOES win, and it wins when those who sincerely seek to know it have it illuminated to their hearts by the Holy Spirit. No matter your reasons for also participating on these forums, you seem to believe that YOU are right - since you claim your Church is the ONLY true one - so there will usually be those who disagree and aren't afraid to state why. Again, if you find that difficult to deal with, no one HAS to have your presence here.

In an earlier post, you mentioned "urban legends" and "myths" that you contend you are here to dispel. As I pondered your choice of words last night, it occurred to me that quite a bit of Roman Catholicism IS based upon legends and myths. Take a gander at some of the proclaimed histories of Church "saints" sometime - they'll broaden your definitions of myths and legends!

Finally, I have no need to explain my motives to you and I'll take your advice about "shaking the dust off my sandals" with the same consideration I have about the reasons given for not "haunting" the Catholic threads. In other words, I'll ignore them.

[Mrs. Don-o]

[Sirius Lee]

LOL! Wilder - you just made me snort ice cream out of my nose. Ow oww...

[Mrs. Don-o]

Heh.

[mdmathis6]

Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father. It’s impossible for Jesus to be angry. Only satan would want others to think it’s possible. Anyone who confesses JESUS is The Word and The Word alone reigns surely, that’s enough for satan to be angst all the time. Because how can he deceive those who believe The Word ALONE reigns, he can’t so he tries with with his doctrines of demons and tradition.

Psalm 2

1Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

5Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

10Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

The Son can indeed get angry and men can perish even at a place when the Son is only mildly vexed. The Son is longsuffering as is the Father. The Son in anger drave the money changers out of the temple with a whip of corded rope...they were fortunate that he didn’t out and out kill them! Thus we learn that Christ is merciful even in his just wrath!

KISS THE SON!