The number of practicing Catholics continues to dwindle in the west. What is unique is that they no longer even consider themselves Catholic when they cease to practice the faith, "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" notwithstanding.
Germany and its spiraling out of control liberal Catholicism is seeing phenomenal numbers of Catholics telling the state they are no longer Catholic. That's how it works in Germany as practicing religious people pay a church tax to the state that then gives money to the Church. Clergy in Germany are well paid. Heck, I'd go to an almost non existent parish for that kind of pay!
Why are Catholics leaving the Church or at least the practice of the Faith with Mass attendance being the measure?
Quite simply, they don't believe what the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God.
They leave for a variety of reasons. My personal opinion and it truly is a very humble opinion is that the post-Vatican II Church simply can't stand up to the cafeteria of secularism and its derision of religion in general and Catholicism in particular. The Church has bent over backwards to accommodate modern trends and the signs of the times and to what effect? My humble opinion is a Church in disarray not really knowing what it believes and trying to refashion it in ways that even the architects of the reinvented or re-imagined church can't figure out. Confusion reigns and a pontiff that seems to delight in the mess the Church has become and is.
Let's face it, many Catholics leave the church over sexual issues, be it fornication, adultery, artificial contraception or the full array of LGBTQ issues or divorce and remarriage, to gay marriage and polygamy of whatever sex.
Even accommodating these people with openness and accompainement isn't bringing them back.
I am not sure how many are leaving today because of the manner in which the liturgy is celebrated. But I know that if I restored the EF Mass to all the Masses in my parish I would lose more than half of my parishioners who are attending in the COVID-19 age. They don't want an all Latin Mass although an EF Mass in the vernacular might keep most.
And COVID-19 has shown many Catholics that they really don't need the discipline of fulfilling the Sunday obligation. They can sleep in or do something else they like better. In my diocese the obligation to attend is suspended now at least through July if not beyond.
What did Pope Benedict say about a "smaller but purer Church?"
Maybe orthodoxy, tradition and a strong sense of Catholic identity, beginning with the Magisterium down to the poor laity in the pews is the way to go even if the majority of Catholics don't want that and will leave over it.
What say you?
38 comments:
"Why are Catholics leaving the Church or at least the practice of the Faith with Mass attendance being the measure? Quite simply, they don't believe what the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God."
I think that is an oversimplification.
Some have come to the point of not believing in God altogether - I suspect very few.
Some have particular objections to specific teaching - they don't reject all that the Church believes, teaches, and proclaims.
Catholics who have left the Church and are now unaffiliated religiously note three areas of doctrine that gave them pause: abortion, homosexulaity, and birth control. Catholics who have become Protestants cite the same issues, but with far less frequency than the unaffiliated.
Some have changed religions for convenience after marriage to a Christian of another denomination. They never rejected Catholic teachings, they simply wanted to worship as a family.
And then there is the overarching reality of radical individualism in American and Western culture. No one wants to be "told" anything. Tell someone "You can't park in the fire lane" or "Your child is peeing on the floor in the frozen foods section" or "This is private property and you can't grow your marijuana here" and you will be met with explosive, if unwarranted, indignance.
Catholicism will be in the future much more a chosen path. The automatic adherance by chiuldren to the religion of the parents is, in many place, gone. In some ways this is a good thing - a conscious choice to be part of the Church is better than unthinking continuance of practice. It presents us with challenges, but then, the Church has, from day one, had challenges to overcome.
Father McDonald,
As someone trained in the Faith partly before Vatican Disaster II and during Vatican Disaster II, I will offer a clue. The Church STOPPED teaching the Faith almost overnight! Out with the Baltimore Catechism, etc. and in with LOVE. No longer were children trained in the Faith, learning about the sacraments or essentials of the Faith, but just love. NEWSFLASH: Protestants love, Jews love, heck, even Atheists love. So if that is the sum and substance of the message, people shrug and eventually walk away. We were no longer told why it was important to have a sacramental life and since the Catholic Faith is built around a sacramental system, if you do not teach about the sacraments and how they are vital to your spiritual health, don't be surprised if people no longer show up. Also, many Catholics simply became tired of the message, pre-Vatican Church, bad, post-Vatican Church, good. The natural question then becomes, was the pre-Vatican Church lying to us? Was all of that effort for naught? Stupid catechesis is at the root of the Church's current malaise. The pre-Vatican Church may have had its flaws, but it is head and shoulders superior to the drivel that replaced it. Amen
The vernacular was introduce to entice more non-Catholics and to keep lukewarm baptized Catholics. It did not work. One could argue and one does, it simply increased the rate of apostasy in the clergy, religious, and of course the laity.
A FR. Mike White is Virginia Richmond diocese is in a loosing battle with his bishop.His crime is he dared to publicly (in his blog) voice his outrage over misshandling of the McCarrick affair.
The Church has left the people just as much as the people are leaving it.
The TLM is popular because assisting at one gives us authentic Catholic worship of the Trinity. The NO represents liquid modernity. In it authentic Catholic doctrine/truth dissolves. No evidence of faith remains. The people leave.
"My humble opinion is a Church in disarray not really knowing what it believes and trying to refashion it in ways that even the architects of the reinvented or re-imagined church can't figure out. Confusion reigns and a pontiff that seems to delight in the mess the Church has become and is."
100% agree. Also, and to me, the degradation of the liturgy and the physical environment in which it is celebrated has played a significant role. COVID has provided unprecedented access into the U.S. church via live streaming. I'm surprised (but, at the same time not) and shocked at the sheer number of hideous churches that dot the landscape. We now have multiple generations that have never seen a beautiful church with beautiful actions taking place within. It's no wonder people vote with their feet when the former "most beautiful thing this side of heaven" looks this ugly in confusing buildings with sack-like vestments with ridiculous and non-historical droopy collars with corny music presented by the corny and usually aging guitar group. Equally painful is enduring mass with a teen worship/praise type of ensemble (I'm convinced most of the participants are involved only at the insistence of their parents). Young people aren't easily fooled and when the grownups don't seem to take it seriously or, are excessively melodramatic in an almost cartoon-like atmosphere, why would they take it seriously? Young people have mostly if not wholly rejected what was presented to them. Sad.
It would be very interesting to hear feedback from younger Catholics in the context of this blog's combox. I suspect, however, that the demographic of followers here mirrors church attendance perfectly - mostly 45 and older.
As for the mass itself, a wholesale return to the TLM would be alienating. We're too far removed from the regular use of Latin for it to be re-embraced by other than a niche group. In the Byzantine Ruthenian Church as well as the Byzantine Orthodox churches, the vernacular has been embraced in a mostly successfully way (e.g. not sacrificing the liturgy because of the language). In our church, Slavonic is lightly used to remind people of our church's roots. The Roman Church would do well to embrace the same regarding the celebration of the holy sacrifice. I believe the Council, that so many of those who are left near deify, said as much.
Father Kavanaugh's last paragraph hits the nail on the head. Catholicism will now become a "chosen" path and I see that as a positive. Cradle Catholics will be few and far between.
I'm in agreement with ByzRC. The young have found what little the Church has presented to them lacking. A few years ago when substitute teaching at a middle school, I overheard a couple boys talking - one must have been going through Confirmation classes - and the subject turned to Catholicism. They felt it wasn't a bad religion per se, but that it "just doesn't have very much to it." Another time, I experienced two girls talking. One girl was trying to explain how the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ, but ended the conversation by admitting that even though it is what the Church teaches "no one *really* believes that."
I was talking to a coworker about the music in the Latin Mass. She was raised Catholic and had majored in music. She found it fascinating to know people still used things like the introit and gradual. After talking about music, I explained things like kneeling for communion and she gave me a cock-eyed look and finally said: "So Latin Mass people are...serious?" I was kind of surprised by the comment and replied "Oh yes, they're quite serious" since I didn't really get what she meant. The coworker explained that they sort of treated it like a joke growing up, nudging each other and giggling after communion and saying things like "oh good, 'God' s back in His box, we can stop kneeling now."
Why would you devote your life to something when even its strongest advocates don't seem to take it seriously?
Anonymous at 12:22,
That is rather sad because it’s hard to find the chosen path if not shown the way. However that said, the only vitality in the American Catholic Church today are the EF parishes or parishes that offer one. My parish started out with a monthly EF and now it’s weekly because more people began showing up for the EF than OF. And the EF crowd is mainly younger families with children.
Bee here:
I noticed in my own life the effects of bad choices are often not apparent immediately after making them. How many instances are there where our choices lead us to consequences that are destructive, but we choose them anyway? How many times do we not see the connection between the harm that has been done and the choice we made? A common example may be choice of diet. Too much junk food, too much food at all, can, over time, lead to dire health consequences. Not enough or right kinds of exercise can do the same. But it's not the first time, or second time, or any short term neglect to do the right thing that seems to bring about the consequences. It's the day in and day out lifestyle choices that bring about the consequences.
To see people fall away from religion is kind of like watching someone take up smoking, or bad eating habits. Warnings often don't work because consequences seem remote. It's the same with loss of faith and practice of Catholic morality. The consequences seem remote, and perhaps warnings seem overblown. Instead of seeing, geez, smoking causes cancer, or COPD, or heart disease and leads to an earlier and painful death, they light up and go on. Instead of seeing, geez, leaving practice of the Catholic faith causes moral laxity and degradation of the quality of my life and the lives of those around me, they accept that as a trade off of living more pleasurably now and worrying about the consequences later. Of course when "later" comes they probably don't even see the connection between those choices and unpleasant or disastrous consequences. Or they deny responsibility. How much are we seeing today blaming "social structures" for the consequences of really bad choices people make, instead of the choice itself?
How many, even today, are making the connection between the inroads being made in our society of Marxist demands, of moral laxity in every area, from contraception to abortion to gender fluidity to homosexual acts to the unraveling of the family and the really bad consequences of those choices, with the loss of faith and practice of Christianity? How many view these events as simply secular matters, and even logical (an good) progressions of the foundational ideas underlying our Constitution? How many actually fear the kind of totalitarian rule we see in Communist (China) and Socialist (Venezuela) countries? They don't. Those things seem remote and unlikely. Because the changes tend to be incremental, just like bad diet and lack of exercise, the warnings of the ultimate end are dismissed as hysterical rants.
I have often wondered why people converted to Christianity in ancient times. What was it about the message they heard, compared to their former beliefs and way of life, that made them think conversion was the way to go? What did Christianity offer them that they didn't have? I imagine the answer, (besides the idea that the tribal leader or emperor converted so all the people did too,) is that the discipline of faith brought about a better result than what they were currently living. It brought about order. It brought about stability. It brought about peace. It offered a moral path to deal with suffering. It brought hope.
(continued in next post)
Bee here:
(continued from previous post)
Most of us reading here don't experience what life is like in the inner city, where lawlessness, murder, destruction, and lack of justice is the every day experience. But that situation is a microcosm of what happens when faith goes out the window and morality is tossed aside, and man lives out of his fallen nature. Maybe it's not until the human race as a whole reaches the ultimate consequences of faithlessness that will people once again see the need for Catholicism and the practice of a moral code that outlaws certain behavior. Until then they are opting for ideas that permit them to follow the pursuit of pleasure, thinking there won't be bad consequences. In that kind of world, a religion that prescribes a life of denial and sacrifice doesn't get much of a hearing.
Maybe it's a situation a lot like alcoholism or drug addiction. Until a person (or society) hits rock bottom they will not see a need to change.
Matt 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
God bless.
Bee
Bee -
I believe the principal driver of conversions, particularly the mass conversions of past millennia was hope. People living unbelievable lives in unbelievable conditions welcomed hope in whatever form it took.
There is no evidence that "going more liberal" makes a denomination more attractive. The Episcopal Church has tried that---first, in favor of liberalizing abortion laws in the late 1960s and early 1970s, then the ordination of women, revisions to their Book of Common Prayer and blessings of "same-sex" marriages. The Results? Loss of about half their total membership since peaking at 3.6 million in the mid 1960s. Methodists, Presbyterians and Lutherans can point to losses as well (though not quite as drastic as the Episcopalians). But even the Southern Baptists have had little growth in recent years. Seems like a lot of people these days have become "nones" or joined non-denominational "community' churches (like Joel Osteen). But seems like a lot of those community churches have become of the "feel good" type, self-esteem, be happy, without the hard truths. You know, like sin and Hell.
I wonder what brought Mike Pence to go the evangelical route after being born Catholic? He was speaking (or preaching) at the Dallas First Baptist Church yesterday, whose pastor is a rabid Trump backer. One account has something to the effect that Pence "became a Christian" after some Christian concert he attended years ago. Of course Baptists don't believe in infant baptism (they believe baptism comes after a public confession of Christ as your personal savior), so I guess technically one is a heathen until baptized maybe in the teen years. But as Catholics we believe baptism is essential to salvation, but I wonder what Baptists believe as to whether, say, a child too young to assent to Christ as Lord goes to heaven or Hell if they die young, before getting "saved>"?
To TJM
It is rather sad in a sense, but if they were just going through the motions that means in fact what the OF mass was giving them was not showing them " the way" in the first place. If you take Bees point that it takes hitting " rock bottom " and I believe that to be a valid point, not only is a person making a free choice to come " home" but even presented with the OF I believe they will " see" things in a new and deeper way. They will be able to discern the difference and take from it what is good and leave the rest behind. I'm not sure I am expressing what I want to say clearly, but I think you might get the drift of it anyway.
“ they don't believe what the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God.” can be rephrased to they WERE TAUGHT NOT TO believe what the Catholic Church TEACHES and proclaims. As much as the Church preaches so do the Secularist’s and covertly anti-Catholic. It is easier to go with the flow and Catholicism flows against the current progressive doctrine. Today Catholicism has a cost. That cost is often isolation, loss of professional advances, and ridicule. There is a strong resistance to Catholics and som of their fiercest adversaries are former Catholics. Try being the Catholic that goes to church at events dominated by the swinging liberal divorced opinionated crowd. Backhanded compliments and snickering comments abound.
Fr Kavanaugh draws attention to three areas of Catholic teaching that impelled some to leave the Church and become unaffiliated: abortion, homosexuality and birth control.
The immorality of the first two was recognized by all Christian denominations, non-Christian religions and society as a whole, which criminalized them. It wasn't a specifically Catholic doctrine. As for birth control, although many were dismayed by Humanae Vitae, they were told by the bishops to follow their consciences, and Paul VI ordered US bishops not to discipline priests who preached against what was his own explicit teaching. Contracepting couples who attended Mass usually carried on doing so.
Vatican II coincided with a generational shift which saw 'obligation' replaced by 'choice'. It wasn't individualism, radical or otherwise - sixties youth were as conformist as youth always is - but they did not conform to the mores of their parents. It also appeared that the churches were more than willing to embrace the new modernity. In the Catholic Church a liturgy which had taken two thousand years to develop was recast, from top to bottom, in a matter of months. All the old certainties were not just swept away, they were actively disparaged by the very men who might have been expected to defend them.
My original point, is probably the one most on target. The problem was not the culture but that the Church STOPPED teaching the Faith almost overnight to counter the popular culture. How I was trained for my First Holy Communion and Confirmation, was radically different from how my younger siblings were trained. They never heard the word transubstantiation or Real Presence. Sadly, we went from the sacred banquet to the "happy meal" approach.
If people walked away from the Church's teachings on human sexuality and the prohibition on infanticide (euphemistically called "abortion) it is because the Church stopped teaching on these issues in any substantive way, if at all. I have not heard a sermon in the last 50 years or more that touches on any of these, because either the malformed clergy do not believe what the Church teaches about them or they are afraid of challenging the secular culture because they want to be liked. When the Catholic Church stopped being counter-cultural (Latin, habits, real teaching), it became very weak. A sentient person would begin to ask, "is there no there, there?"
A recent edition of my diocesan paper had a letter from a retired priest who wrote to make a distinction between the meaning of homily and preaching. According to his understanding a priest has to give a homily at Mass which must be about the readings of the Mass. And since most readings are from the Bible and since abortion and same sex marriage are.not mentioned in the Bible he will not give a homily about current cultural norms on these issues. Did the bishop's Editor miss this priest's selective misunderstanding of moral theology or was it a deliberate message from the chancery? I do not know but in this diocese, and I suspect in many others too, bishops and their clergy regularly fail to proclaim Church teachings about what is expected of all of us on how to live our lives concerning these types of issues. God will not forget such betrayals.
John,
That old dude is a coward and is trying desperately to avoid "speaking truth to power." He is about as useless as a used piece of toilet paper like many of the current bishops and priests, although there are courageous exceptions who are not lauded and loved by the MSM
'The Homily ... should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass ...' (GIRM 65). I once heard the estimable Fr Hunwicke preach on the two words 'sursum corda'.
In 1967 the law in England was changed to decriminalize homosexual activity 'between consenting adults in private'. In the same year abortion was allowed for strict medical reasons (Parliament was assured that it would not lead to abortion on demand). At the time I was sixteen and attending Mass in my home parish. Many in the congregation were young children and it would not have been appropriate to preach about sodomy or the killing of unborn children.
John I am inclined to agree with you with you but a question because I am still divided.
There was a huge uproar when same sex marriage was legalized. That Sunday I expected to hear something that would at least reinforce Church teaching on the matter, given that most I knew were upset and disgusted. When something this disturbing, however political is the "elephant in the room" would you think that basic reinforcing of Church teaching during the homily would be appropriate?
Someone mentioned that it would be untoward to preach about abortion and sodomy at Sunday Mass. That is a curious comment since public school teachers in the US preach and promote both in the classrooms every day at the grade school level. I recall reading not too long ago that in one San Francisco school they brought a cross dresser to promote transgenderism during story hour for kindergartners. So the children are well aware of these topics from the official secular creed being taught.
You just made an iron clad case for home schooling.
I am glad my children were raised when schools still had a modicum of sanity. I see the latest pronouncement from the DNC is that the 4th of July celebrates White Supremacy. That should go over well with the sane part of the electorate. However, if it picks up currency in liberal circles, it will be part of the school curriculum in the Fall.
ðŸ˜
A combination of general affluence and a culture outside the Church that encourages individualism and narcissism re the major reasons for the falling away of Catholics from the faith.
Bee here:
To TJM's comment about public school curriculum: I just heard on the news yesterday that come September, LBQT history (!) will be taught in public schools here in Chicago.
God bless.
Bee
Because, of course, there is NO LGBT history...
Riiiiiight......
TJM - I’d bet that it’s people like you and the type of commenters on this blog that put young people off the Church. I know it’s true because many many many of them have told me so.Do is all a favour and join the SSPX.
In fairness it should be noted that we are having a reasonable discussion on this thread....the comment seems out of place.
LGBT history, Black history, etc. How is this balkanization, this pandering to and encouragement of tribalism, any better than radical individualism?
"Catholics in the Old South" is a book about the history of a particular group of people in a particular part of the country.
Is that "balkanization"?
"How the Irish Saved Civilisation" is a book about the impact of a particular nationality on the spread of Christianity through Europe.
Is that "balkanization"?
Teaching the history of one particular group is not an exercise in encouraging tribalism, nor is it an expression of radical individualism.
Bee here:
Why is it okay to teach LBQT history (I'm guessing in a favorable way) and not the history of the Confederate States of America in a favorable way, celebrating and promoting the heroes and accomplishments of the south, especially in the Civil War?
God bless.
Bee
Great question.....probably because the radical groups protesting the Confederate South can't see past their own issues to see the hero's and accomplishments. Or should I say don't want to see...
TJM,the "Vatican Disaster II? This implies that there was a "Vatican Disaster I. Some would agree that that ultramontinist Council was problematic too. Look at the current pontiff.
The EF mainly in the vernacular? Not a bad idea. It might draw some back to the Church. Latinists and TLM idealogues would pitch a fit but the salvation of souls always is the prime purpose of the Church.
Anonymous @ 8:59 am
The books you mentioned are not being taught anywhere that I'm aware of.
LQBTQ, Black and Transgender history are endemic in academia today.
Back in the 1990s I was the head of the history department in an English high school. The teachers had a 'study day' in which we were lectured by so-called experts in the then fashionable topics of 'equality and diversity'. The fact that the two are mutually incompatible had obviously escaped their notice, but I was in no mood to argue the point.
However, when I was asked whether I taught about 'gay' people in history I was tempted to say that in most cases the sexual predilections of historical figures rarely influenced their actions. Instead, I pointed out that all my students knew about Edward II who was overly influenced by male favourites and subsequently deposed and murdered by being buggered with a red-hot poker in 1327.
That shut her up.
Lolololol!!! 😂
Why are Catholics leaving in great numbers?
Many of the reasons have already been stated so well, maybe even what I am about to post.
Catholics are leaving because we no longer have a deep relationship with our Lord through daily prayer, praying for sinners, especially the Rosary, frequent Eucharist, frequent Confession, weekly fasting as our Lady, the Blessed Mother, has time and again urged us to do in so many of the Apparitions in the last hundred years and even in what is believed to be her final Apparition to mankind in Medjugorje.
We are not doing it because we as Church are not telling people this is what we MUST do. The Church is saying you can believe it or not, it is private revelation. We are not even pointing to the Saints as example because this is what so many of them have also done. We do not know we are called to be saints. And so when the devil attacks, we become such easy prey!!! Souls are lost because they don’t know the truth and the believe the lies of the evil one.
Post a Comment