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

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.

I Timothy 1:3-11

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Most of the testimony here of the failed Catholics involve personal reasons, the rest involve the insistance on the authority to form one's own theology as one wishes and whenever one wishes.

You certainly have the right to your own opinions but you cannot read others hearts so you don't have a right to make your own facts. Seeking for the truth of the Gospel found in the Bible and discovering that the Roman Catholic Church does not teach what Scripture clearly states is not forming "ones own theology as one wishes". I'm sure it must give you small comfort to convince yourself of that, but as the Reformers sought to do - to RESTORE the church back to true gospel - it is much too late to convince those of us here that our experiences are invalid. God has already confirmed the truth by His Spirit within us.

As to your education on the differences between Israel and the Church, the following may help to make these points more clear.

http://www.biblebelievers.com/scofield/scofield_rightly01.html

"If the Roman Catholic Church really teaches your viewpoint, then I do not see how, in light of the Inquisitions, Crusades and other persecutions of "heretics", it can then - when such actions are no longer "legal" - warn everybody to "let the doctrinal issues take care of themselves" with a straight face."

I never said that the doctrinal issues would be dissolved or disappear. Neither did I say that ecumenicalism is a form of negotiation or capitulation or that the Church's doctrines were invalid, only that they are secondary to the two greatest commandments.

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.

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.

If we can get back that break through maybe we can continue to move toward Christian unity.

Jesus set the bar even higher that just outward keeping of the Law, demanding a right heart attitude. If the Mosaic Law didn't save because men couldn't keep it, what kind of Jesus do you preach who would make it even more impossible for men to be saved by works and then demand that we do it?

I think what Natural Law is trying to state is that the "law" - meaning the Mosaic laws of the Old Testament given to the Jews is NOT the "works" Jesus supposedly commands must be done to acquire His grace. The Catholic Church calls them "corporal works of mercy" AKA the beatitudes, etc. Of course, Paul also addresses this when he stated by Divine inspiration:

Titus 3:4-7
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The difference is that private interpretation is Scripturally forbidden.

Perhaps you could share with us where this is located in Scripture?

If you are referring to II Peter 1:19-21, let's look at that:

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

It is clear that this is speaking of the prophets whom God used to pen Holy Scripture not writing what they understood or privately interpreted, but spoke what God gave them by the move of the Holy Spirit. Got anything else?

I don't doubt for a minute that Catholics teach and believe that Jesus replaced the Law He gave Moses with other works designed to procure grace. But grace is not received by works or it would no longer be grace. What is earned for what we do is wages. When we get what we don't deserve, that is grace.

The whole concept is not only unscriptural, it is anti-Scriptural. It is directly contradicted by the clear teaching of Scripture.

Jesus Himself says that only believing is enough to save one.

John 5:21-24 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

God is not limited to words in a book.

You still on that mantra? LOL! It shows one with absolutely NO concept of the supernatural - you are purely on the natural level. I laugh whenever I see it - it's like having a big arrow pointing towards your words "I'm clueless to the ways of God"! Just the way the Vatican/RCC wants it.

Colossians 1:15
"Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before anything was created and is SUPREME over ALL creation.."

Col.1:16
"For by HIM all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL things were created by Him and for Him." (The WORD spoke it all into existence)

Col.1:17
"He is BEFORE all things, and in Him ALL things hold together".

John 1:1 "In the beginning was THE WORD, and THE WORD was with God, and THE WORD was God."

THE WORD that you discount as a book HOLDS the universe together. Jesus, GOD'S WORD REIGNS, always has and always will! Pushing the RCC man-made doctrine and tradition FAILS BIG TIME!

It's ALL about JESUS, THE WORD!

"You still on that mantra?"

A A mantra is a sound, syllable, word, or group of words repeated to effect a transformation. Here is mine:

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

Liturgy is man’s replacement for God’s commandments.

With all due respect, BALONEY! There is not one iota or smidgen of truth in your statement there, editor-surveyor.

The actual definition of "liturgy" is "a prescribed ritual for public worship". Virtually every Christian Church I've ever attended employ some form of prescribed ritual for their public worship services. For example, Baptists and Non-Denominational churches usually have services scheduled on a certain prescribed specific day and time every week, and follow a fairly strictly prescribed liturgical pattern, usually including prayers, Bible-readings, hymn-singing, sermon-preaching, taking up a collection, etc., and often in the same exact order every week.

"Holy Roller" Protestant churches usually include those Baptist elements, and add a lot of arm waving toward the sky and rhythmic swaying, much bellowing out of various "prophecies", people being "slain in the spirit" (falling down and lying completely still, or squirming and rolling around ecstatically on the floor), speaking in tongues (often saying things that always seem to sound something like "shimminy, shamminy, shimminy shoo, shibboleth, shabboleth shippity pooh..."), and so forth. Other Protestant denominations' public worship services usually resemble these liturgical formats to one degree or another. Some are more explicitly liturgical and structured than others, but most Christian denominations use some form of liturgy in their public worship services.

The actual truth is that the Catholic liturgy expresses great honor and respect for God's commandments. The liturgy is an adherence to, and celebration of God's commandments. Prior to many Catholic celebrations of the Mass in most Catholic Churches, the "Sacrament of Reconciliation" will often be offered. To participate in that healing Sacrament, individuals are supposed to first make a sincere examination of their conscience, and they most often start that examination by stepping through the "Ten Commandments" and the "Beatitudes" (and other moral directives of Jesus Christ).

(To see just a couple quick examples of how Catholics use God's commandments to examine their consciences before taking advantage of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, check out these web sites.)

Typical Examination of Conscience Using Ten Commandments

The Sacraments of Healing (using the Ten Commandments for an examination of conscience before confession)

In 1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (RSV-CE), Paul describes the words and actions of Jesus during the "Last Supper". Unless you can read these words and somehow believe that this sacred ritual was never to be repeated again, or that it was not to follow the pattern of words and actions taught them by the Lord, you have to admit that this is a formula for a "prescribed ritual for public worship" directly given by Jesus to his apostles. In other words, it was, without a doubt, a form of formal liturgy, given by Jesus himself. If Jesus promotes a form of liturgy, is that somehow replacing "God's commandments"? (Here are those texts.)

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

1 Corinthians 11:23-29 (RSV-CE)

Remember, Paul is describing and recommending this formal liturgy long after the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ, and after Paul's dramatic public encounter with the risen Jesus. Remember also that, long prior to all that, YHWH set up specific liturgical forms of worship for the Children of Israel, as extensively documented in the Old Testament. Also, Jesus and his family participated in the liturgical forms of worship prevalent in the Holy Land in their days there, and Jesus was also known to read from the Sacred Scriptures in the Synagogue during their public liturgical celebrations.

So, I would strongly recommend you distance your astute self from your comment with prudent but unfettered haste. Your comment sounds interesting, but lacks any truth or merit.

You do realize that the SAME Holy Spirit inspired the writers of those Psalms, right?

Catholics believe the Holy Spirit inspired all of the writings that make up "the Bible". (Are you aware that Catholic priests and religious and many lay people regularly pray the "Liturgy of the Hours", aka "The Divine Office", which largely consists of praying, singing, or chanting the various Psalms several times every day, to consecrate various hours of the day?)

While all Old Testament writings are inspired and unquestionably useful, many commands and directives in the Old Testament no longer apply directly to Christians today (not just the animal sacrifices). For example, some people were commanded to militarily invade and conquer the "Promised Land", then inhabit that land, and others were explicitly commanded to NOT enter that same promised land. Most Christians today do not feel directed by those same commands to either settle in that promised land, or to stay out of that promised land, simply because of those early Biblical commands. Those ancient directives may still be instructive in various ways, but they (and many other directives given back then, not just those concerning the animal sacrifices) no longer directly apply to Christians today in a literal way.

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?

"Do me a favor if you answer this reply: don’t nitpick but deal with the basic issue."

Well, firebrand, I think we should each decide for ourselves what to post here and how to post it (within the Robinson guidelines of course), not dictate to other posters here what or how they should or should not post. With a friendly smile, I gently urge you to take care of your own posts, and I'll try to take care of mine. :-) That said, I really don't think I ever "nitpick". I just see a point I want to reply to, and do my best (with all my limitations) to address that point, sometimes using simple illustrations to try to get my own point across.

I probably shouldn't assume here, but I am going to assume anyway that you would draw the line SOMEWHERE (as to what kind of dancing you would approve of for a Christian worship service). (For example, if you do a Google search on "stripping for Christ", you will see a bunch of web sites about that type of activity, which was featured in some other news story I once saw somewhere else. I would certainly not open those links that come up on Google, nor would I recommend that anyone else open them either, but I am just pointing out that such things do exist.) I don't think you would find that kind of "worship dancing" appropriate, would you?

Now, at a church I formerly attended, we once had a misguided priest who had a large group of attractive and young but very physically mature women doing some kind of dance in the front of the Church during Mass, wearing less than fully modest clothing. To many of the men in the congregation that day, it was more of a temptation to "lust in the heart" than an innocuous form of "dancing praise". To my mind, that kind of dancing was completely inappropriate for any kind of Christian worship service.

* * * * * * *

"There is a tendency among Catholics to move toward more and more rigid formularies in their religion—adopting a whole new language for instance—and it is my considered opinion that in trying to be perfect to some kind of letter, they are building barriers to the spirit of the law and distancing themselves from the blessed simplicity of a living relationship with Jesus."

The "whole new language" is simply an effort to bring the United States up to speed with the language used by the rest of the Catholic world (based on more accurate translations of the Latin prayers of consecration). If you were getting an inheritance from a Lithuanian uncle written in Lithuanian, you would want the interpreter to be accurate, and give you the equivalent of $50,000 as stated in the will, rather than have their interpretation be nebulous and inaccurate, and give you "about 50 bucks", wouldn't you? I think the new, more accurate translation of the prayers of consecration are also more solemn and beautiful, and I welcome them.

I also see following God's rules not as some kind of bothersome restriction of my freedom, but rather as the only genuine kind of freedom there really is. Look at it this way -- if an auto manufacturer tells you to only fill up the gas tank with gas, and you decide that you prefer the smell of maple syrup to gas, or you think it will be cleaner if you fill the tank with water, or something like that, you will be free to do that, but you will not be free to get anywhere. You will be sitting there with your nice-smelling maple syrup, or clean water, but you will not be free to go anywhere - your car won't run very well or for very long, following such short-sighted rule-breaking.

God knows far better than you or I do what is best for us, and ALL his rules reflect that. And Jesus solemnly promised to build his Church, and he kept that solemn promise. He also had a long-term future purpose for building that Church, and his purpose is being served by his Church, whether you agree with it or not. A toddler may want to run out and play in the street, and might think it is more fun, but mom and dad know better. If they make a rule for the toddler to not play in the street, it will be much better for that toddler to obey that restriction in the long run. Likewise, God knows what is best for us, whether we believe that or not, and God solemnly promised to be with his Church always. God does not lie.

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.