Why do so many Catholics...

[Kulindahr]

Also for a lot of people in my parish, tho less for me, the reason to leave was partly driven by a 'take-over' in the late 70's/ early 80's by the Charismatic movement in the churches of my area. They tended towards the huggy-kissy "youth-oriented" ministry similar to alot of the evangelical protestant churches, like the Church of Christ. Many people found the wanton destruction of a long, rich history of Church ritual and liturgy for the sake of Christian rock and being groped by the priest a bit hard to take and left. The general opinion was that the wrong bits, like the Mass, were changed and the stuff like forbidding contraception, which should have been dropped , were retained!

The Charismatic thing had diverse effects. At a Lutheran church I was associated with briefly, the "Spirit-filled" types rediscovered the liturgy, and the priest was persuaded to stop skimming and start using the whole thing, and then more, as they started discovering the Early Church Fathers. Talk about pageantry! and they could explain every bit of it as symbolism of God's great acts!

 

[Kulindahr]

It does if he's an imaginary friend.

Belief in the existence of God is necessarily subjective in the sense that the truth of the belief can't be proved objectively to third parties and that the belief might prove to be objectively true, if God exists, or false, if he doesn't.

It follows that knowledge of God can be the same for someone who decides at some point that God doesn't exist or might not exist as it is for someone who decides to continue in his belief.

Indeed, doesn't God sometimes choose non-believers to know him best?

If you're talking knowledge about God, okay -- and too many priests were all worried that you knew your "facts". But knowledge of God -- the difference between "I know X about God" and "I know God" -- is a different matter.

 

[sparky95]

The Charismatic thing had diverse effects. At a Lutheran church I was associated with briefly, the "Spirit-filled" types rediscovered the liturgy, and the priest was persuaded to stop skimming and start using the whole thing, and then more, as they started discovering the Early Church Fathers. Talk about pageantry! and they could explain every bit of it as symbolism of God's great acts!

True, and that was exactly the problem. We were not religous nuts like the Charismatics. We went to church on Sunday, behaved as resonable people, didn't worry to much about small sins like gambling and tried to live a good life. We liked the old rituals. Then a bunch of "True Believers" marched in, scrapped our liturgy, told us we were basicly Pharisees because we didn't act like the Church Fathers. They tried to make the Church the only important part of our lives. All else was to be second to faith and we were to be Christs soldiers, coverting others to our faith. They stole our Church, then wondered why everyone left. I don't think the Charismatics really had much faith, it seem to be more about controling the flock and turning them into replicas of themselves.

 

[Spensed]

Sorry hit post key by mistake.

 

[Spensed]

If you're talking knowledge about God, okay -- and too many priests were all worried that you knew your "facts". But knowledge of God -- the difference between "I know X about God" and "I know God" -- is a different matter.

I was talking only about knowing God.

I just think it's a mistake to suppose that atheists, who used to believe in and/or know God, were somehow deficient in their belief or knowledge and that's why they became atheists. That might be true for some people. But many ardent believers sometimes just lose belief.

Faith is a gift from God that he sometimes recalls.

 

[Kulindahr]

True, and that was exactly the problem. We were not religous nuts like the Charismatics. We went to church on Sunday, behaved as resonable people, didn't worry to much about small sins like gambling and tried to live a good life. We liked the old rituals. Then a bunch of "True Believers" marched in, scrapped our liturgy, told us we were basicly Pharisees because we didn't act like the Church Fathers. They tried to make the Church the only important part of our lives. All else was to be second to faith and we were to be Christs soldiers, coverting others to our faith. They stole our Church, then wondered why everyone left. I don't think the Charismatics really had much faith, it seem to be more about controling the flock and turning them into replicas of themselves.

But these guys didn't scrap the liturgy, they revived it.
How anyone can get throwing out the liturgy out of any of the Early Church Fathers is a total mystery to me.
But I've seen the "replica" thing, people insisting you don't have faith unless you do everything just like they do. It's the worst side of the charismatic movement -- and the worst side of the RC church.

 

[ashonfire]

yep, lapsed catholic here..

i just never bought the whole god thing, even when i was a kid that believed astroboy was real i didn't believe in god.

 

[confusedboy23]

I'm still a Catholic but that doesn't mean I agree with everything the church tells me. I think all that matters is my sprirituality, my relationship with God.

 

[irydion]

I think that the notion in the title is wrong, perhaps apart from USA.
In Europe, where laicisation is a serious problem, catholicism is doing WAY WAY better than protestantism. The most atheist states in Europe are of protestant tradition; the most religious - of catholic (and orthodox vide Romania, and muslim vide Turkey) tradition
I wouldn't be suprised if it was the other way in USA; catholics are naturally more tied with Europe, therefore more vulnerable to european influences. Also, all these sex abuse scandals in last years... etc

 

[Roland00]

Two things I would say, though I am an atheist without having been a Catholic I have a degree in theology from a Catholic University:
The first is the emphasis on hierarchy "we believe such and such not so much because the bible says it is so but because it is tradition and approved by popes as apostolic successors and the vicar of Christ." I think this is really the dominant reason, people looking to discern the will of god for their lives become a bit disheartened when they realize just how much politics and hypocrisy come along with being Catholic.
The second reason, the one that applies more to academics is that Catholicism despite its disdain for modernity has in fact been a little more willing to approach science than say a fundamentalist tradition. In doing so they have kind of let atheism in the back door. By discussing science on science's terms and trying to cultivate a natural theology which supports revelation they have created a "god of the gaps" type situation that just keeps getting smaller and smaller. This coincidentally leads to a bigger and bigger dependance on the first problem: the hierarchical dogmatism which becomes less and less satisfying but they more than any others realize that biblical revelation came at a specific time and a specific place and while it is all the word of God it is not all relevant to the same degree...the CAtholic must be looking at the world "the first revelation" to be determining the will of god and weighing this against apostolic tradition. I think dissapointed catholics realize that this is pretty much what atheists do..just without the God part.

I am not saying that Catholics are really doing anything wrong, it seems to work for lots of people...and it does build a community that is very strong.

I would add to that. It has to do with both points 1 and 2.

1) causes people to look more at the origins of the tradition, and in the process we learn that a lot of it has to do with superstition, or it is reacting to a culture which is very different than our own. You don't just learn "scripture" you learn the history and the culture that is also behind the "scripture" and in the process, wonder if its God writing the "scripture" or it is man reacting to a culture he likes/dislikes and then attributes it to god. A lot of protestant faiths on the other hand are more "mystical" people accept it because the bible says so, without researching the bible itself.

2) Besides embracing science the church has also embrached archelogy and similar fields to learn more about the bible and the vast amount of cultures the 50+ books of the bible are written about. Archeology has disproven some aspects of the bible/interpretations of the bible (such as the flood, much of genesis, and much of exodus). This point fuels the other two points by creating doubt.

------------------------------------

The final point I would add to this is the Catholic belief of "doubt," certain things according to the church can't be explained, they know this. God is beyond our comprehension he is infinite, we don't need to understand the trinity god is one and three, Jesus is in every holy communion. The philosophy of doubt+the embracing of science and archeology has allowed critical thinking to thrive. The catholic view of doubt is supposed to stop such critical thinking, but in reality it probably does the opposite.

Spensend2 also makes some good points

------------------------------------

One last thing, Catholicism preaches the hiearchy style of belief, while Protestantism preaches a personal connection with God. Rejecting the idea of a hiearchy is alot easier than rejecting yourself, even if you aren't rejecting yourself, if that makes sense.

 

[Roland00]

I think that the notion in the title is wrong, perhaps apart from USA.
In Europe, where laicisation is a serious problem, catholicism is doing WAY WAY better than protestantism. The most atheist states in Europe are of protestant tradition; the most religious - of catholic (and orthodox vide Romania, and muslim vide Turkey) tradition
I wouldn't be suprised if it was the other way in USA; catholics are naturally more tied with Europe, therefore more vulnerable to european influences. Also, all these sex abuse scandals in last years... etc

Does that have to do with Proestantism vs Catholicism or does that have to do with income and whether your government is liberal. The more a nation is "industralized" the less "religious observance" you often see.

 

[kallipolis]

I should imagine that RolandOO's logic would imply that the United States is not an industrialised country.

 

[robs]

I'm Catholic. I really think it all has to do with the priest of the parish. I used to go to a church that the priest was really conservative in his views. I got tired of it and started going to the other Catholic church in my town. I love it there. The priest is pretty liberal when it comes to some things. Unfortunately he will be leaving for a new assignment. Hopefully the new priest will be great! So, yeah I think changing your ways has to do with what parish and priest you have. I was told by a college professor that I/my age group will see the Catholic Churches in America here leave Roman rule. We will end up like England. I dunno though.

 

[Kulindahr]

2) Besides embracing science the church has also embrached archelogy and similar fields to learn more about the bible and the vast amount of cultures the 50+ books of the bible are written about. Archeology has disproven some aspects of the bible/interpretations of the bible (such as the flood, much of genesis, and much of exodus).

Crushing of one's private interpretations by something new often results in jumping from one sort of narrow-mindedness to another, sadly enough. Genesis and Exodus as written still stand; it is the silliness (e.g. creation one fine morning in 4004 B.C.) that is being kicked over.

Such a move can easily lead from "blind faith" improperly labeled "Christianity" into an equally blind faith called "atheism".

------------------------------------

One last thing, Catholicism preaches the hiearchy style of belief, while Protestantism preaches a personal connection with God. Rejecting the idea of a hiearchy is alot easier than rejecting yourself, even if you aren't rejecting yourself, if that makes sense.

That's an over-simplification, really. As an actual "son of the Reformation", I like to point out that actual Protestantism was a return to the early-church balance between hierarchy and personal; it was the Radical Reformation which turned every Christian into his(her) own Pope.

 

[Roland00]

That's an over-simplification, really. As an actual "son of the Reformation", I like to point out that actual Protestantism was a return to the early-church balance between hierarchy and personal; it was the Radical Reformation which turned every Christian into his(her) own Pope.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know. Regardless such thought is still ingrained in alot of protestantism of today. And even if you don't take it to that extreme and it is just decentralized thinkers it encourages one not to reject the whole system in its entirety and just the interpretation.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm Catholic. I really think it all has to do with the priest of the parish. I used to go to a church that the priest was really conservative in his views. I got tired of it and started going to the other Catholic church in my town. I love it there. The priest is pretty liberal when it comes to some things. Unfortunately he will be leaving for a new assignment. Hopefully the new priest will be great! So, yeah I think changing your ways has to do with what parish and priest you have. I was told by a college professor that I/my age group will see the Catholic Churches in America here leave Roman rule. We will end up like England. I dunno though.

I dunno either, but....

I've agreed for a long time with a professor/priest/pastor (traditional Lutheran) that it's ridiculous for one man to think he can possibly be "shepherd" to people on six continents, and equally ridiculous for people on six continents to look to one man as their "shepherd". He thought that Roman Catholics in North America ought to have their own Patriarch, more or less equal to the Pope. Practically, I think, it might not work well for Mexico to be part of that, but it might. Then, of course, South America would have its own Patriarch, as would Africa.... He wanted to leave the Pope as "first among equals", and have the College of Cardinals, but the Patriarchs would name Cardinals from their continents.

Not exactly on topic... though I've seen a few guys leave the R.C.C. because it was so huge and they didn't like the monstrous hierarchy.

 

[Marcus10]

What is it about the Roman Church that drives people to atheism?

Although I still consider myself Catholic, I don't believe (as in I actively disbelieve) much of what I was taught to believe.

The Roman Catholic Church has a very rich history......which includes The Crusades and The Inquisition, witch burnings and book burnings and every other kind of persecution........so I certainly understand why a person would see the Church as a manifestation of human ignorance and corruption.

 

[TaigaStar]

The Roman Catholic Church has a very rich history......which includes The Crusades and The Inquisition, witch burnings and book burnings and every other kind of persecution........so I certainly understand why a person would see the Church as a manifestation of human ignorance and corruption.

The same argument, however, could also be applied to Judaism and Islam, and Greco-Roman paganism, to name a few. Looking from both a religious and a historical viewpoint, almost every religion has used its beliefs as a means to justify the violent tendencies of the people running them. I don't deny the Church does have flaws, but your own choice of words can also be used to defend the entire religious community as well: human ignorance and corruption. We, as humans, are certainly not flawless. This is a given. Keeping this in mind, how can a flawed race maintain a code of beliefs without making severe mistakes?

 

[RicanDAB]

I was raised Catholic and have 12 years of Catholic school education as well. Although I don't attend church on Sundays regularly these days, it's not because I would be atheist. That I am definitely not, my faith in God and his existence is strong. I simply have a problem with the way the Catholic doctrine denounces my being gay, and among other things like female clergy and the celibacy or marriage of clergy.

I personally have thought about following the Episcopalian faith, as I have felt more comfortable there, but have not actively pursued practice as of yet.

 

[Marcus10]

The same argument, however, could also be applied to Judaism and Islam, and Greco-Roman paganism, to name a few. Looking from both a religious and a historical viewpoint, almost every religion has used its beliefs as a means to justify the violent tendencies of the people running them. I don't deny the Church does have flaws, but your own choice of words can also be used to defend the entire religious community as well: human ignorance and corruption. We, as humans, are certainly not flawless. This is a given. Keeping this in mind, how can a flawed race maintain a code of beliefs without making severe mistakes?

I realized after posting that I wasn't as clear as I would have liked to be.
As I indicated, I do still consider myself a Catholic, despite the history of my faith.
But I was also fortunate to be pretty well-read in history, so I've been able to think of, say, The Inquisition in the framework of historical context. Back to the original poster's question, though, my point is that I think it must be a real challenge for an otherwise devout Catholic if they should suddenly learn all about the Church's more shameful activities all in one fell swoop.