Vanishing Catholics

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.”

Under the Catholic model, in which the stewards of Scripture are to be submitted to, and those it rejects are to be rejected, the church itself would be rendered invalid, as it began by following an Itinerant Preacher in dissent from those who were the stewards of Scripture, and who sat in the seat of Moses.

Well, I would say that this is a bit of a loaded statement, with much taken as absolutely true without any real support. But, insofar as you speak of "the stewards of Scripture" I fear you may be following yet another modernist error which is not actually what the Church is about. The true historic model of the Catholic faith is not about individual men interpreting the bible and presenting that as definitive, which your statement seems to imply. What matters is the Spirit speaking through the Church throughout history and all time, and that means that we look not to a pope, or even Sts. Augustine or Jerome or Abmbrose. Rather, we look for what has been accepted as true for all that time, and that means listening to the entire Church in history. Or at least that is how it is supposed to be.

Individuals can err, including even great saints. If some interpretation from some important person, even a pope, contradicts what has been held from the beginning then guess what? It is not the true Catholic teaching, but just another novel innovation to be avoided. However, this is not true anymore. Now it is what the individual people say that has authority rather than accepted dogmas and doctrines which come down as part of the treasury of the faith. If the right person says it, it doesn't matter if it comports with 2000 years of teaching; it is automatically true no matter what. Everything that we have always known must now be reinterpreted to fit with the new ideas. The same is true for councils, and rather than looking to whether they are orthodox to determine their ecumenical nature, we now find them being called such and therefore being accepted as true just because of the label. That is why nobody knows what real heresy is anymore. What was heresy a thousand years ago is what a pope is preaching today, and that is accepted as absolutely true because of who is saying it.

The "social" activities were rather limited.

I fear you have misunderstood me. I was speaking of social reasons, not social events. People continue to go to churches after they have stopped living the faith fully for many reasons, and most of them stem from relationships with people rather than a connection to the actual ceremonial of the church or doctrinal reasons.

Now, I cannot speak to your church as I am not familiar with it, but it sounds like you go there for exactly the reasons I am saying so many have drifted away from their local Latin parish. It has become disconnected from the historic tradition of the Church, and in turn rather lukewarm faith-wise. All of our local parishes here in this town are happy-clappy rock band churches, which is their response to the lukewarmness, but of course it doesn't work at all. The many local protestant rock music churches do it much, much better, and all the Catholics who would be inspired by solemn and reverent Masses are shamed for not thinking it is right.

Personally, I feel none of it anymore. It is tiresome and boring frankly. And I know many people who feel the same way, some in our parish, some in our past parish, and many in no parish anymore. Sure, the parking lots are full, but most of those people give no thought to whether what is being done is good or bad. They accept it without thought, and participate without much either to be honest. I say this because my children are in the local parish school, and I talk to the parents all the time, and they echo these sentiments to me everyday. Oh, they keep going, but not because it is a powerful faith motivator in their life, but out of a sense of inertia. And because their kids are in the school, or their wife is, or their mother is, or their mother in law is, or some other kind of thing. Many go because they are required to if they are to receive any subsidies for their kids' tuition. How is that for a reason to go to Mass?

I have posted what I posted, take your polemics somewhere else. Not interested in it.

I am loosely referring to conservative RCs, which typically disown the liberals Rome treats as members. I will change the abbreviation to CRCs

I am and was not a fan of Kennedy’ politics but most of the excommunicable offenses are directed at Bishops and Priests.

Then that would further render as spurious the relegation of liberal RCs laity as being self excoms.

Not sure what you are talking about. Nothing spurious at all. There are clear offenses which result in excommunication according to Catholic Canon law. I cited them in an earlier thread. In addition, mortal sin would obviously separate one from the Church and Christ as well.

The Canon clearly states ‘Procured an abortion” is that the same thing as “supports liberal judges who promote abortion rights”

Obviously, if you legalize the killing of Jews then you are culpable for their deaths.

First off, I don’t think Kennedy legalized anything. That was done by 9 Supreme Court Justices in 1973, most of which at the time were not Catholic by a 7 - 2 vote. If you are going to make that argument, then George Bush is responsible for thousands of deaths for the Iraq War as Sadamm Husein did not attack the US. It was not a legitimate war, the same can be said for Vietnam. Neither country attacked the United States.

Did he apostate from the faith, i.e. leave the Church

According to the CRCs, yes, but in reality no, he left a former manifestation of the Roman institution, but not the modern one.

Babble. Their is one Catholic Church in communion with Rome, period. Is anyone claiming Kennedy was a saint. No.

did he cause Catholics to leave the Church [formal schism].

Likewise no, because you can be a Teddy K Catholic and be a member.

The Catholic Church is not a political club, which apparently you associate Christianity with some political ideology. That is heretical nonsense. I disagreed with Kennedy’s politics, but I have no right to say he is not a Catholic. He was not a good one, no doubt, but that is not for me to say.

Supporting abortion rights is sinful but is it a latae sententaie offense?

Yes, according to the CRCs, obviously Rome does not treat them as such. Even quite public ones.

Rome doesn’t publicly excommunicate Adulterers or people who are in irregular marriages. Excommunications are not used against laity, and that has been the case throughout history. Bishops and Priests, yes.

There are lots of things that are sinful that don’t incur automatic excommunication. Lust, anger, greed, gossip, not going to Mass on Sunday.

If impenitent it may be considered such. Agree, if someone sins seriously, they by there actions have excommunicated themselves, but there is not formal Church process that publicly says you are excommunicated.

Have we ever seen a lay Catholic excommunicated back in those days.

Your argument is not with me, but the CRCs who disallow liberals as really being members, despite how their church treats them.

Well I am not arguing with anyone. I have only presented what excommunication is and what it is not.

So I will err on the side of Mercy and presume that Teddy did in fact make a good Sacrament of COnfession before he died, with a good Act of Contrition

That mercy will not help him, and is erring by making a great presumption, as the evidence only says points to impenitence.

Ok, how do you know God’s Mercy will not help him. You are making some pretty strong claims and are playing God. I have no reason to suspect that Cardinal O’Malley was not aware [privately] that Kennedy did repent of his sins before he died otherwise there would have been no Funeral Liturgy. To presume the opposite is to defame Cardinal O’Malley’s character [Bear false witness] without any such evidence. So, I refuse to go down that route and play God.

and that he received the Annointing of the Sick and Viaticum [His Last Eucharist] and that God’s Grace found away to rescue Ole Teddy from himself,

That would not save him anyway. The Annointing of the Sick in Scripture (Ja. 5) was for healing, nor as a precursor of death, and done by elders, not priests , which elders are never called, except as part of the general priesthood of all believers.

Nor was anyone ever born again and saved by taking part in the Lord’s supper, but by contrite repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save him as a damned+destitute sinner, by the sinless shed blood of Christ.

This is now your Theological opinion and are in obvious conflict with Catholic Doctrine. I reject your theological positions on this matter, and you reject mine. The constant Theological writings of the Fathers support the Catholic view against yours. The list is exhaustive so you stick to your individualistic view

I would conjecture Ole Teddy had or is still having a stop over in Purgatory!!! before he can enjoy the full Beatific Vision.

That is more error, as all the verses which clearly speak of a N.T. believer’s postmortem condition (Luke 23:43; Acts 7:59; 1Cor. 15:52; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil. 1:23; 1 Th 4:17; 1Jn. 3:2) show it is with the Lord, in whose presence there is fulness of joy (Ps. 16:11). And the postmortem only suffering actually taught for believers is that of 1 Cor. 3, the suffering of loss of rewards (and the Lord’s grievous disapproval) due to the nature of the material by which they built the church. But which a soul is saved in spite of, not because of. And yet which does not occur until the Lord’s return. See more here

Moreover, while God does chastise believers as needed for sins, and works to perfect saints, this whole work is not done by postmortem suffering, or even just by suffering, but by facing the afflictions and temptation of this life. Thus the Lord Himself came down from Heaven to take on the nature of the seed of Abraham, and be made “perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10), that of being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” (Hebrews 4:15) “For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18).

Scriptural quotes put together by you to support and erroneous theology. Has absolutely nothing to do with the questions at hand.

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.