Why do so many Catholics...

[Kulindahr]

You can however measure the age of a star by looking at the spectra of the light it emits (the more helium for a given size the older the star).

The Narnia stories may have lots of research - but none of of it is scientific.

And what does that have to do with the topic here?
That was my point -- in fact I stated it quite plainly.

BTW, there's scientific knowledge in Narnia, since that seems to matter to you.

 

[AsianDream]

And what does that have to do with the topic here?
That was my point -- in fact I stated it quite plainly.

BTW, there's scientific knowledge in Narnia, since that seems to matter to you.

Sorry for joining your drift "off-topic" - I was just expanding on your comment that

"you can't check the age of a star by using titration of some chemical reagent."

I do think the Catholic doctrine of "Hell" is one of the main reasons many people abandon the religion.

C. S. Lewis matters to me no more than J. K. Rowling. Both are excellent successful authors of children's books - with a very similar "magical" background.

I would agree that probably both writers are irrelevant to any discussion of religion - though I don't think either of their writings have much scientific content.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sorry for joining your drift "off-topic" - I was just expanding on your comment that

"you can't check the age of a star by using titration of some chemical reagent."

I do think the Catholic doctrine of "Hell" is one of the main reasons many people abandon the religion.

C. S. Lewis matters to me no more than J. K. Rowling. Both are excellent successful authors of children's books - with a very similar "magical" background.

I would agree that probably both writers are irrelevant to any discussion of religion - though I don't think either of their writings have much scientific content.

That's like saying neither Einstein doesn't matter to you any more than the kid sitting in juvie for the fifth time -- both screwed up in basic math.

You clearly missed the point of my statement about the age of stars. That wasn't an isolated musing; it was part of an argument that you also apparently missed, or you wouldn't have called my post off-topic.


Oh -- you are obviously ignorant of the writings of Lewis and of Rowling, if you can say "with a very similar 'magical' background.

 

[Spensed]

Oh -- you are obviously ignorant of the writings of Lewis and of Rowling, if you can say "with a very similar 'magical' background.

Or maybe to a non-beliver or religious skeptic, Rowling's magic just isn't that different from Lewis' fantasies or faith-based writings.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ah.
You've read and studied both?

 

[Spensed]

^ Not everything, but enough to appreciate that people of faith can have a very different opinion of C.S. Lewis than those without.

It's just not surprising to me that non-believers or religious skeptics see similarities between Lewis and Rowling.

Nor should it be to you. LOL.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's not surprising to me that shallow thinkers see similarities.

 

[jspk]

rebellion. put too much effort in showing "being a catholic". i was never an atheist but there were times i'm just anger at the church and felt i don't need to practice anymore. too many rituals and not focusing on the cores; ...hypocrisy. eg. we need to say additional prayers before the collection; put our money in an envelop, go up to the front to put in the basket to show 'stewardship'.

speaking of collection, there are double collections every week now, even triple from time to time.

 

[Spensed]

It's not surprising to me that shallow thinkers see similarities.

Or fail to see similarities all too obvious to others. LOL.

To get back to the topic, sanctimony and the inability of the "faithful" to understand different beliefs, opinions and honest doubt are other reasons why so many Catholics lapse.

 

[Kulindahr]

rebellion. put too much effort in showing "being a catholic". i was never an atheist but there were times i'm just anger at the church and felt i don't need to practice anymore. too many rituals and not focusing on the cores; ...hypocrisy. eg. we need to say additional prayers before the collection; put our money in an envelop, go up to the front to put in the basket to show 'stewardship'.

speaking of collection, there are double collections every week now, even triple from time to time.

I kind of feel the same way about a lot of the new liturgy items meant to symbolize or demonstrate "participation" or some such thing. While I can follow the theological reasoning to all of it, I don't see on the practical side what the point is, in general.

 

[thewiz]

My problem with a lot of the "new" liturgy is that it seems to be reverting back to the pre-Vatican II. I don't mind participation but I think it has to be from the heart and from the spirit; you can't forcibly script it and expect the people to get anything from it.

I go to a charismatic black catholic church in DC and I love it because while they follow church teaching, they also allow the spirit to flow.... it doesn't seem like everything is forced. Plus the pastor is a very good homilist. I think that is also one very serious problem with the Catholic Church -- few priests are skilled in giving homilies (or, in my protestant terms -- preachin')

I think that spills out into a lot of other Catholic issues; if the priest can't touch the human side of you, how do you expect to transcend the mystery of the Mass and touch the hand of God? Too many priests, I think, use the "mystery" as a crutch for the fact that they have very bad understanding of what they are doing (or are afraid to find out). Just some random, rambling thoughts!

 

[condor221]

Try the Old Catholic Church, Catholic, but not Roman. Their clergy does not have to be celebate for example. Check out a book I read, called, "The Gay Face of God," by Archbishop Simpson, for an eye opener on alternatives to Rome.

 

[Kulindahr]

condor, that's interesting stuff!

here's a link, for the curious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church

 

[ejbonk]

The "Official" Roman Catholic Church is not exactly what might be considered "tolerant". What is commanded by The Pope, and subsequent Administration, is to be taken as "gospel". There are more "Thou Shalt Not"s, with rather grave consequences if you do! The slightest transgressions, though considered "forgivable", through confession, atonement, etc., are viewed with a gravity that usually outweighs common sense.

And this is the "true" nature of a "Loving God", a "Caring Father"??

I'm not even going to start to getting into the hypocracy of a devoted life of Poverty (have you seen the Vatican?), or the purity of celebacy (What alter boys and/or young girls?).

The more transparent the actual practices of "The Church" becomes, as opposed to what is expected of it's followers, raises more doubt as to it's claim of being the accurate representation of "God on Earth". And "The Faithful" end up questioning their very Faith!








I think it's the whole.
'If you have sinful thought you will burn in hell forever,and this is the same punishment that amass murder gets too."
This type of BS is most likely the cause for the catholic to athist thing.
And yes,I'm Catholic.So,I just do the basics Church once year. Confession Once a Year and Communnion once a year. I believe in God. The Pope is full of S*#@.As,are most of the priest,nuns,brothers,and lay administers.

Ejbonk

 

[LaloGS]

I once met a Catholic Englishman traveling here in Colombia. He told me he went to the church that overlooks the city of Bogotá and was surprised that priests were hearing confessions that day. He said he hadn't confessed in over 20 years, and didn't speak any Spanish, and told the priest so, and the priest indicated he didn't speak English, but to go ahead and confess. So the Englishman proceeded to confess every thing he could think of he felt might be a sin for the past 20 years of his life, and when he finished the priest absolved him and told him to say 15 hail Marys.

What does that mean?

 

[thewiz]

Actually, the sacrament of reconciliation is supposed to be cleansing in a number of ways; unfortunately I don't think it is always communicated.

People pay large sums of money all the time to talk to professionals about their problems. Telling what has or is bothering someone is cathardic in many ways. Reconcilliation is supposed to be that and also follow Jesus' command to the disciples that "if you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven..."

Prior to the new covenant, once a year the Jewish people would gather together for a day of atonement. The sins would be confessed and placed upon a goat that would be sent out in the wilderness to die (which would be the original scapegoat). The confession of sins was designed to free the people for the things they committed or omitted during the prior year.

Reconcilliation is designed to be available 24/7 365 days a year. The priest is only to "hear" the confession of the person and absolve "in the name of Jesus the Christ." I know technically the situation you described with your friend and the language barrier fulfills the concept of reconcilliation. Your friend was confessing his sins and omissions not to the priest but to God through Jesus the Christ and, presumably, he could understand. There was really no need for the priest to understand as he is to be a conduit and then absolve. But like many other beautiful rituals, I think priests tend to view reconcilliation as a check-out line sometimes. I've had good experiences with reconcilliation; I've had some pretty bad.

The worst was at a Jesuit church here in DC. I don't think I was even done with my confession when the priest ran through the absolution, gave me three Hail Mary's and pretty much closed the door. I felt like a number and really didn't have any affect. On the other hand, I've gone to a priest and sat face-to-face for nearly a half-hour talking about things that troubled me or were troubling me. When I left, I felt clean, whole, and renewed. I believe the latter is supposed to be the desire; I don't think it happens to many....

 

[Kulindahr]

I once met a Catholic Englishman traveling here in Colombia. He told me he went to the church that overlooks the city of Bogotá and was surprised that priests were hearing confessions that day. He said he hadn't confessed in over 20 years, and didn't speak any Spanish, and told the priest so, and the priest indicated he didn't speak English, but to go ahead and confess. So the Englishman proceeded to confess every thing he could think of he felt might be a sin for the past 20 years of his life, and when he finished the priest absolved him and told him to say 15 hail Marys.

What does that mean?

It could mean the priest was confident the man was confessing as he should, and listened to his tone to decide the grievousness of what he was confessing.
Or it could mean that the priest was chunking out absolution and penance like a machine -- exactly the sort of thing that got Martin Luther upset back four+ hundred years ago.

I'm not going to try to work through what Roman doctrine would say about the absolution. But as a general practice, in pastoral terms the lesson would be that forgiveness is a kind of magical thing, unconnected to understanding and comprehension, which is bad.
Of greater concern is that the purpose of penance is to aid the person in mending his ways. If the priest can't understand the confession, that's not possible at all. So whatever the status of the absolution, the penance is invalid (unless you want to start positing miracles).

 

[Kulindahr]

But like many other beautiful rituals, I think priests tend to view reconcilliation as a check-out line sometimes. I've had good experiences with reconcilliation; I've had some pretty bad.

Some priests do; many people do. People treating it that way makes many priests callous... I think ir becomes a self-feeding cycle.

The worst was at a Jesuit church here in DC. I don't think I was even done with my confession when the priest ran through the absolution, gave me three Hail Mary's and pretty much closed the door. I felt like a number and really didn't have any affect. On the other hand, I've gone to a priest and sat face-to-face for nearly a half-hour talking about things that troubled me or were troubling me. When I left, I felt clean, whole, and renewed. I believe the latter is supposed to be the desire; I don't think it happens to many....

I would have pounded on the door, and made a nuisance of myself until the priest actually paid attention!
If I were a bishop, I would require every priest in my diocese to explain the penance given. That would require them to actually listen! and would convey to the person that penance has a purpose.

The priest where I went to college asked, "Box, chair, or walk?" when someone came to his office for confession. That was the old confessional, sitting in his office, or walking & talking. It wasn't uncommon at all to see him striding along sidewalk or park, matching his pace to a parishioner (usually a university student), any afternoon of the week.

 

[Endlight]

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!

It is my practising Catholic view that you are as close as can be to the reason so many have left my Church. I see it every day.

I would also add, that in time, many order of priests have either soften their message or radicalised it. My parish has a Dominican order, and they preach to the brain so to speak. Nothing is forced, just rationalized. On the other hand some of my family are still in the fire and brimestone era. I attend mass there and I chuckle throughout the sermons. The church is also 70% empty , on a good day.

 

[thewiz]

^ That is one of the huge problems I have had with the charismatic movement -- in the Catholic Church or any other church. Too often they throw out the ritual for all the "feel good" types of things.

Many older Christians (not just Catholics) have a problem with the movement because it always anticipates praying and God answering that prayer word for word. If you aren't getting that answer, you must be praying wrong or aren't "right" with God. If you are sick, it's hard to understand why your prayers aren't be answered and someone else's are getting rich with their prayer.

The emphasis on the spirit and not on anything else throws them off balance much like a drug addict. If they aren't getting their "fix" of the spirit, they usually become disenfranchised and move onto something else. You have to have the spirit but you also have to have depth that carries you through the many other times.

As I said in an earlier post, too many Catholics (at least those that are baptized as infants not those that are properly catechised) have no understanding of the ritual and therefore lack the spirit. They are as off balanced with thinking sitting in a pew will get them to heaven. I had one priest liken it to "you can sit in a garage and wish you were a car all day and all night -- it's not going to happen. Doing the same in church is no different!"

The church I go to balances both very well. Perhaps it is the priest who has a deep and rich understanding (he speaks to the heart and the brain), it may be the relationship to the cardinal and diocese in Washington DC but while worship is lively, it is also beautiful and solemn. The people are friendly and yet very much in awe of what is transpiring.