Posted on 04/19/2012 11:58:25 AM PDT by 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.
Righteous anger - that evil is incapable of! You should know the difference. God hates evil and HIS own do, also! And anything not of HIM is evil - like man made doctrines.
KISS THE TRUTH, not the catechism or the koran.
Very good. And we can expect your rejection of the Reformation when?
KISS THE TRUTH, not the catechism or the koran.
Umm, imaginative imagery aside, we Catholics worship God, as opposed to the ruins of the Reformation or the rubble of the Restoration. When may we expect your rejection of those creations of satan? We welcome all souls into the Light of Almighty God.
When one kisses the Son he has kissed the truth.
Yeshua said to him, “I AM THE LIVING GOD, The Way and The Truth and The Life; no man comes to my Father but by me alone.”
John 14:6 (The aramaic bible in plain English)
But of course righteous anger! Some, however, see Christ as a cool uncle who says” hey as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else, everything you do is cool with me!”
“not the catechism”
By the way I’m not Catholic...but there are a few very righteous Catholic priests i have known and respected...if stuck with them on a deserted Island or back around 600 ad or so, I wouldn’t have had much choice now would I?
John said nothing of the sort. MAY KNOW is vastly different than MAY or MIGHT HAVE.
You, the language expert, surely know better.
Sorry mom, I am a day late and a penny short on this thread. My belated reply echo's yours.
FWIW I believe Natural Law 'comprehends' very well. It is simply the semi-professional Apologists way to muddy the water.
Thank Thomas Aquinas.
Hey, no problem. It is a good point and doesn’t hurt to reiterate it in case someone missed it the first time around.
And the Pope is the Bishop Of ????????????????
Not so. PROPHESY! There is a difference,
The diocese of Rome. There is a bishop heading every diocese. But surely you know this.
The city of Rome is not the diocese of Rome. And surely you know that too.
You know and I know that I know the distinction. Still, the Catholic Church is frequently identified with Rome especially prior to 1870 when they lost their last armed war.
Perhaps it would be better to eliminate all "official" identification with "Rome", "Roman" or the like.
For example:
CCC
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "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; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm The ROMAN Pontiff.
The frequent command to the early Christians, especially from Paul - repeatedly - is that they are required to believe what they are taught - both by the printed word and by the spoken word - by the Church.
The Pharisees received the reprimand from Jesus that they searched the Scriptures, yet did not understand them.
Paul spoke of the Bereans who used Scripture to see whether Paul’s words were true. But the emphasis is on the teachings of the Apostles and their designates - the Church. Nowhere does it say that it is sufficient to read Scripture to be a Christian believer.
It is profitable, to be sure. Yet the example of the Ethiopian eunuch shows us once again that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth”. Otherwise we have Luther’s every milkmaid creating new doctrines overnight at whim.
There is the Roman Catholic branch as distinct from, say the Melkites. Yet the Pope is the patriarch of the Latin branch, as opposed to the Constantinople branch, or the Russian Orthodox branch. Who identifies the Catholic Church as Rome? Catholics? Or antiCatholics? Or non Catholics without opinion? The Pontiff (bridge builder) is simply the first amongst equals of the bishops. The only real squabble we have is the definition of first amongst equals. I pray that that is settled in my lifetime.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm The ROMAN Pontiff.
Sure, and the diocese I was born and raised in is the diocese of Hamilton. The bishop is the bishop of Hamilton. The bishops of the early church started to be associated with a city or area in the first century. The patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is no different from the patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church.
Better the milkmaid than a group of power hungry men who claim Infallibility for themselves and the organization they control.
Don't count on it as long as your "first among equals" believes all other "equals" are, or must be, subject to him.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm The ROMAN Pontiff.
Sure, and the diocese I was born and raised in is the diocese of Hamilton. The bishop is the bishop of Hamilton. The bishops of the early church started to be associated with a city or area in the first century. The patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is no different from the patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church.
There are some who commonly refer to the Catholic Church (Latin variety) as "Rome". Your constant acknowledgement of "Rome" as synonomous with "Catholic Church" indicates you have no real misunderstanding of the term. Is it simply a case of Tilting at windmills?
We are the ones who were handed the Deposit of the Faith all the way back to the Apostles who were taught it by Jesus; thus we believe, backed by Scripture.
St. Paul did not teach personal interpretation - he taught that the Church is the authority which was given by Christ. Timothy did not teach from tracts; he taught orally and with the full authority given Church clergy.
Don't count on it as long as your "first among equals" believes all other "equals" are, or must be, subject to him.
It's too bad that the Orthodox were driven away from FR. We could ask them their viewpoints.
There are some who commonly refer to the Catholic Church (Latin variety) as "Rome". Your constant acknowledgement of "Rome" as synonomous with "Catholic Church" indicates you have no real misunderstanding of the term. Is it simply a case of Tilting at windmills?
No, it is a case of acknowledging idiots' viewpoints. Many people refer to bison as 'buffalo'. It does not make it so.
Have fun in your fantasy world.
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.