Atheist group urges liberal Catholics to quit the church

[fakepigtails73]

Yeah, it's true that Catholics don't teach "tithing" as ten percent off the top the way Mormons and some Protestant fundies do. And it's true that some people just don't give anything. However, in my experience they do ask for money, quite a lot. You can go to communion or confession anywhere. But to get your child baptized, have a wedding or funeral, or send your child to religious education or the Catholic school, you pretty much have to be officially registered in a parish. Once you do that, they will send you personalized envelopes each month, and they will include you in their "Stewardship Campaign" which is basically the pledge drive. And if they have to build a new church, they will have an extra special pledge drive for the building fund. I know these things because we did them all, in several parishes around the country. It may not be true for all parishes, but it was for all the ones we attended. If you want to send your kid to the Catholic school, you are required to give money regularly. It doesn't have to be a lot, but you do have to give.

After we stopped going to Mass, not one person called to see if we were okay, or why we weren't there. Not one. Certainly not the priest. However, it's been maybe five years now, and we've moved out of state, but they're still sending us our envelopes each month. We've called the parish office and asked them to stop, but they're still doing it. We told them we don't even live there anymore, but it doesn't seem to be making an impression. I don't think the Catholic Church is ALL about the money, but they definitely care about money and ask for money.

That's one of the main reason a lot of people that go from Catholicism to Baptists or Pentacostal fundie churches give when they're asked what made them leave the RCC. Lack of fellowship, like they were just one parishionner in the pews instead of an important part of the congregation. If they really wanna stay Catholic they'll sometimes go to an SSPX chapel.

Although to be honest I can't see how they'd feel "important" at a mega-church like Rick Warren's where on any given sunday mornings you have 5 000 people (and maybe more), like being at a sports game. These mega-churches look like arenas.

I lurked on a fundie board that had lots of former Catholics and these reasons came often, as the "I like the once saved always saved".

[theologygeek]

theologygeek, my solution would be to quit the church anyway. What do you suppose Jesus would think about the church's conduct? I would hope he's none too pleased. Jesus is supposed to be the main thing, right?

I feel very fortunate to have gotten past my supernatural beliefs. I think that if you feel bound to support an organization with such a poor track record, you should strongly reconsider the beliefs that are leading you to do that. These particular supernatural beliefs are supposed to lead you to do the right thing, not the wrong thing, yes? If not then you probably ought to make a change.

The church is not going to change without a big push. And only the members can provide that push. Someone upthread said that the church is not a democracy. So true, but you can vote with your feet and your wallet.

Probably not the solution you want, but it's all I've got.

I put right in my post that I do not go to church. That's not a solution, though.

[theologygeek]

If they really wanna stay Catholic they'll sometimes go to an SSPX chapel.

It's too bad the closest SSPX chapel is an hour away from me. That would solve my problem.

[theologygeek]

theologygeek said:

I have a lot of sympathy for you, theologygeek, because that's the same position I was in a few years ago. I thought, "But it's the true body and blood of Christ! No other church has that! How can I live without the sacraments, without my Catholic identity? I wouldn't even know who I was." But, after the Church's horrible way of dealing with sex abuse in its ranks, I just felt sick every time I went into a church to go to Mass. I quit going, but I still thought of myself as a believer.

I can tell you what I did--YMMV and it might not be what you'd choose. First, I read more and more about the sex abuse scandal. There's a website called bishopaccountability that has a lot of documents. I read blogs of people who had been abused. I became convinced that it wasn't, as they like to say, just a few individuals. The bishops, the leaders of the church, worked together to cover up and deny, in a concerted, organized, coordinated effort. Again, it wasn't just a few bad apples, it was all of them together. That made me think twice about their teaching authority. If they were wrong about that, what else were they wrong about? If they were hearing the voice of God, how did they miss the memo that you can't let people go on abusing children with impunity?

While I was away from the Catholic church, I visited other churches and found that there were very nice, good people teaching that you should be good to each other, and creating sacred space in their own ways. It didn't even look that different. I continued to study the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the more I studied, the less sense they made. I also studied the teachings of other religions, and realized that they ALL think they got a special revelation.

I came to the conclusion that none of this was revealed by God. Men got these revelations (always men, isn't that interesting!) and wrote them down. Then other men argued, discussed, and voted on which revelations were the real ones. Then they started teaching them and interpreting them, and banding together in organized groups to make sure they kept all the power to themselves. Oy. What else is new? I concluded that all of this happened in response to political, social, and economic forces. That's what determined the rise and fall of religions, not the mandate of God.

That's a highly simplified version. As I said, YMMV. You sound like a studious person, so probably the best thing is to go on studying. I wish you luck.

I studied the bible, bible history, theology, and Catholic doctrine for about 25 years. I don't believe that all Catholic doctrine is true, but no doctrine is all correct. My beliefs match up more with Catholic doctrine than the doctrine of any other faith. If it were just little things, I could go anywhere. But my biggest issue is faith and works. I can't go to a church that teaches sola fide. Just the thought of it makes me ill.

[B5SnowDog]

I don't agree with a lot of things regarding the people who run the Church, but I believe in the doctrine. What choice do I have? Can't go Protestant when I don't believe in the doctrine of any of the Protestant denominations. Can't go non denominational because I don't believe in sola fide. That is a big one for me and I'm not willing to bend on it. I believe that faith and works are necessary for salvation. I stopped going to church. I'd love to go to church. What solution do you have? Everyone has an opinion, but no one can come up with a solution.

Would the Eastern Orthodox Church be an option for you?

[Avalondaughter]

That's one of the main reason a lot of people that go from Catholicism to Baptists or Pentacostal fundie churches give when they're asked what made them leave the RCC. Lack of fellowship, like they were just one parishionner in the pews instead of an important part of the congregation. If they really wanna stay Catholic they'll sometimes go to an SSPX chapel.

.

I have to agree with the idea that Protestant churches can seem more welcoming and be more community oriented than Catholic ones. I noticed this as a kid when I would go to church with a friend and compared it to mass. People in the congregation knew each other, they remembered my name. They had all sorts of activities like a pancake breakfast on Mother's Day cooked by the men.

Some of that probably has to do withthe size of the congregation though. The other church had a Sunday worship service that everyone attended. The Catholic church was huge and members were just shipped in and out of hourly masses every Sunday. Maybe there were occasional coffee hours, after mass, but they weren't a regular thing.

My mother attends an even bigger Catholic church now. This church has a massive congregation and a fair amount of money. They hold regular gatherings, dinners, dances, and even a carnival. They have a few "clubs" within the church as well. When Mom starts longing for a more expanded social life, I have suggested she try the church, but she said that these clubs are really sort of cliquey though.

Mom is as disillusioned with the Catholic church as anyone, but she stays because she can't let go of that part of her life. She loves the ritual (the backlash against Vatican 2 reforms in recent yeras seems to echo that sentiment that the ritual is what makes Catholocism Catholocism). She loves the saemness of it. Her church was a big part of major events in her life. She can't part with it because of that.

[Boltingmadonna]

theologygeek said:

But my biggest issue is faith and works. I can't go to a church that teaches sola fide.

Well, I see your problem. My husband was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran, and they were certainly sola fide. It doesn't seem to have done him any harm, because he's about the nicest and sunniest person I know. That's not true of all Lutherans though, so maybe it's just him.

I solved that problem for myself by deciding that in fact I was NOT born with the "stain of Original Sin" on my soul. I was just born, like every other creature, and what happened to me after that was a combination of environment, biology, and my own decisions. Since I wasn't born with evil in my heart in the first place, I don't need a savior. Thus, it doesn't matter if we're saved by faith alone or by faith plus works. I think that was just the medieval version of nature vs. nurture. It's a question with no answer, because those are made-up categories and everyone defines them differently. Since I've removed my mind from that box, I no longer need to make those distinctions. But I realize this may not work for everyone. Our minds all work differently, which is something God should have considered before he invented theology. ;)

[margiebargie]

I put right in my post that I do not go to church. That's not a solution, though.

I missed the bit about not going to church. Sorry.

I offered a solution...just not a satisfactory one unfortunately. It sounds like some of the others here might have better ideas. You can definitely console yourself with the thought that you are doing the right thing by not supporting the church anymore. I commend you for taking that step. I wish more people had your strength and integrity. When the scandal first broke, all I could think about were those kids and their families. It put things in perspective for me.

[theologygeek]

Would the Eastern Orthodox Church be an option for you?

That is number 1 on the maybe list. It's probably what I'll end up doing.

[B5SnowDog]

That is number 1 on the maybe list. It's probably what I'll end up doing.

I hope you find what you're looking for.

[QAF_Rocks]

I don't know, I think there's a difference between simply not agreeing with a few minor details, and actively thinking huge swaths of the religion are false or immoral. I mean, if someone doesn't believe in anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, transubtantiation, the divinity of Jesus, the existence of hell or the devil, etc. what exactly still makes them Catholic? They're repudiating pretty much everything that the Catholic church stands for.

I was thinking about this some more, and it seems like there are two issues here.

The first one is moral disagreement. If someone really, truly believes that what their church teaches is gravely immoral, then why would they stay with a church that is actively promoting things that they believe are harmful? I'm only talking about the Catholics here who believe that the church's policies on abortion, birth control, homosexuality, and women clergy are immoral. I can't see a reason for them to stay, when they know there is no hope of reforming the church. As mentioned earlier, the Vatican isn't going to change their opinion because Catholics in the United States disagree with them. If they truly care about those issues (as opposed to being ambivalent or complacent), then I really can't figure out why they insist on giving money to an institution that is working against what they believe in.

The second is theological disagreement. This is a fuzzier area because, in most cases, such beliefs are not actively harmful to others who are not members of the group. So you can disagree about original sin, or the existence of hell, or the devil, or transubstantiation, or the divinity of Jesus, or a multitude of other issues and still call yourself a Catholic, but is there some point at which that label becomes ridiculous? Is there a percentage, say 40-50%? If you disagree with nearly (or more than) half of what your chuch teaches, should you still be part of the church?

[fluttershies]

I was thinking about this some more, and it seems like there are two issues here.

The first one is moral disagreement. If someone really, truly believes that what their church teaches is gravely immoral, then why would they stay with a church that is actively promoting things that they believe are harmful? I'm only talking about the Catholics here who believe that the church's policies on abortion, birth control, homosexuality, and women clergy are immoral. I can't see a reason for them to stay, when they know there is no hope of reforming the church. As mentioned earlier, the Vatican isn't going to change their opinion because Catholics in the United States disagree with them. If they truly care about those issues (as opposed to being ambivalent or complacent), then I really can't figure out why they insist on giving money to an institution that is working against what they believe in.

The second is theological disagreement. This is a fuzzier area because, in most cases, such beliefs are not actively harmful to others who are not members of the group. So you can disagree about original sin, or the existence of hell, or the devil, or transubstantiation, or the divinity of Jesus, or a multitude of other issues and still call yourself a Catholic, but is there some point at which that label becomes ridiculous? Is there a percentage, say 40-50%? If you disagree with nearly (or more than) half of what your chuch teaches, should you still be part of the church?

All of this. I've been growing more high-church in my Anglican beliefs lately and there came a point where I was investigating Catholicism - but I realised I could never belong to a church that would not let me do a job because of my genitalia. The Church of England has a lot of flaws but we're working on them and at least it's a democratic enough organisation that ordinary members can change things. There's no point in me joining a religion I can never have the same role in that a man does, simply because I am a woman.

And Theologygeek, I do sympathise with your situation and I hope you find what you're looking for. Pax Christi.

[Coconut Flan]

I was struggling with that for awhile. Where is the line for how much you can disagree with and still belong? I had the discussion with many of my friends who belong to various religious groups and they all had a different answer so I was still on my own. I finally settled on one where I didn't disagree with any of the "top 20" or so beliefs. I don't think for me or any of my friends we could say that we agree 100% with 100% of the beliefs and practices of our religious organizations. Most of us are kind of closer to the 80/20 rule. If we can be at least 80% happy with 80% of the beliefs and practices we can try to find a way to deal with or ignore the remaining 20%. With the group I joined finally, I've found that pretty much no one there follows every little thing 100%. Maybe 1 to 5% of the congregation if that and for the rest it goes all the way to some who are only nominally practicing. I say that not in condemnation but accepting that we are all on our own paths and we're all at a different place. It's comforting to me that it isn't an all or nothing approach.