Have you stopped practicing because you’ve got it down pat?
I don’t get it- I was baptized in a Baptist church, but I don’t call myself a non-practicing Baptist. Religion is a belief- you either believe or you don’t; it doesn’t attach itself to you as some sort of genetic trait. I just don’t get the point of identifying with a religion that you don’t practice.
Now, of course, Catholics believe that baptism puts an “indelible” mark on one’s soul- and so perhaps that’s why you still call yourself Catholic. But given that you reject the church’s other teachings, why should its stance on baptism mean anything to you?
It’s so much a part of the culture you come from, really. I’m half-Italian, and we went to a mainly Italian parish my whole childhood. A LOT of the traditions and events of Italian-American culture are closely entwined with Catholicism. Saints’ feast days, the parish festival, Midnight Mass at Christmas, religious statuary, saints’ medals, the scapular, First Communion, Confirmation, thirteen years of Catholic school, participation in the lay ministry when I was younger (I played guitar and sang for the choir)…you don’t grow up immersed in that without retaining some part of it, I don’t think. I didn’t, anyway. I may not believe in the tenets of the faith, anymore, but that 18 years of childhood and adolescence I spent swimming in the stuff is always going to be a part of me.
Many, many people would disagree. I would not, but if a person asks what faither you “belong to”, or “what religion you are”, it is easiest to claim the faith to which you have some familial ties at least, rather than pick one at random. Just saying “I’m an atheist” is impolitic in most cases.
To wit:
I meant that I was on the fence about the existence of God, not that I had rejected the possibility. And, being Catholic, if necessary I can repent of all my sins (including unbelieving) and be forgiven. Everybody wins.
It’s sort of like when someone says “There’s no such thing as an ex Marine”.
Even if you drift away, somehow it is still part of who you are.
Many non-Catholics believe that Catholics are in the thrall of the Pope, and that when this thrall is broken, the subject is no longer a Catholic. I may be overstating this a little, but it’s an attitude I have come across many times.
In truth, the Church has as much dissent in its ranks as any other institution. I’m told by people old enough to know that the radical reforms of Vatican II were all in lively discussion for decades before the fact among scholars, seminarians and the religious vocations. Most Catholics, especially American Catholics, are “Cafeteria” Catholics, and anyone who claims otherwise is out of touch with the reality of the situation.
Anyone who was raised in the Church has a claim on the name Catholic. When Church authorities say how many Catholics there are worldwide, they count all of us, not just the observant churchgoing ones.
And for decades after, as well…there are still parishes that have a dispensation to perform the Tridentine Mass in Latin because some parishioners refuse to attend a “new-fangled” vernacular Mass.
Yes, but surely if someone were to disagree with the vast majority of what the church teaches (perhaps even including the existence of a God), then there’s not a whole lot of point in self-identifying as Catholic (and I’m talking generally, not specifically about the OP). I mean, it’s no big deal, and if you feel some sort of cultural connection that’s fine and I can somewhat understand, but to me it’s like if I referred to myself as a non-believing empiricist instead of saying I was a rationalist; it’s identifying yourself by what you’re not rather than what you are.
But again, it’s no big deal. It’s just a mentality that I’ve always been a bit interested in (and, obviously, have never completely understood).
A few years ago I realized that calling myself a former Catholic was like keeping clothes that no longer fit. Why was I labeling myself with a religion I didn’t agree with and wasn’t giving me anything positive? My ancestors were forced into their religion based on geography, not beliefs. I finally realized that it is OK to change religions and find one that works for you. The fact that most religions (maybe all) profess to be the only true religion, is probably the most damaging principle in the history of man. If we all could just lighten up and be more tolerant of each other we could really solve the worlds problems instead of killing each other in the name of religion.
All I can say is, being raised Catholic is not a comparable experience to being raised Unitarian or Congregationalist or Lutheran. It’s a cultural identity. Unless it was a condition of marriage, I know of very few lapsed Catholics who would consider becoming a Protestant. Not that we hate Protestants so much; a lapsed Catholic considers himself to have been sold a fraudulent bill of goods, but considers a Protestant to have been sold two.
I disagree strongly with this statement.
Actually, Krokodil, I have quite a bit of respect for protestantism, in that historically there were some problems with the church and they decided to do something about it. I know it wasn’t intentional but please don’t attempt to speak for a group as diverse as former catholics/non-practising/lapsed or whatever you want to call yourself.
But maybe this is the basis for the title of ‘non-practicing’ or ‘lapsed’ instead of the more final ‘former.’ Maybe there is a lingering sense of superiority over other denominations. (Im not taking a shot at anyone here, but maybe the previous insult shed some light on the situation).
Like Guinastasia said…
I have to add that I am amazed that the Catholic Church nowadays is more progressive (in favor of evolution, tolerance and against war) than many of the churches that separated from it. The CC is still mired in the past though (against abortion, anti-conceptives and social justice).
I only look back at the church from time to time only to see if it gets better, and to criticize it when is not. That old saying of “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" works for me in the sense that the church has to listen to the ‘former’ Catholics and eventually change for the better to prevent further loses.
Since religion is not going away, the purpose in life for the unbeliever is to make sure that religion remains benevolent.
One Q for CynicalGabe:
Do you think that someday, the differences between the American Catholics and the Vatican will cause a separation (like the Church of England did)?
Doubtful. Let me know if you want my long-winded analysis. I can give it to you tomorrow, but I’m drunk now and going to sleep.
chinbender,
I’m trying to shed some light on why a person might, upon severing his ties to the Church, prefer to self-identify as a Catholic (albeit a lapsed/non-practicing one) than to shift allegiences to a different established denomination. Clearly, many former Catholics have converted and it’s a perfectly valid choice. Unless the conversion is for the sake of a marriage, though, it’s also an unusual one.
In my experience, if/when a lapsed Catholic resumes religious life, it overwhelmingly tends to be within the Catholic Church. The Rite of Reconciliation exists precisely because this is such a frequent occurance.
Most Catholics will not turn to another religion. It is too ingrained. Some will, but most won’t. Many of us view Protestants as no big deal. We don’t call for Inquisitions or burnings. Some of us can even look at history and say “gee Martin Luther was right” in many ways. He was against the selling of indulgences, paying cash for an E ticket to heaven. He was against the corruption and the greed he saw. He was right. There was a reason why Latin was used - at one time it was the common language in Europe. If you were travelling between several countries it made sense to use this common tongue. Then, it stayed as a tradition. When it had outlived that usefulness, things slowly changed. It’s highly unlikely the “cafeteria Catholics” will break away from Rome. They may on occasion try to push for what they want and sometimes get it, but that has happened before in the church and will alway be. I don’t like the “cafeteria” term. There are plenty of people who pick and choose the congregation and or preacher they want in other religions too. If a Baptist tires of his fire and brimstone preacher, he joins a different Baptist group. Is he now a cafeteria Baptist? If a Jew prefers a different Rabbi, does that make a him bad person or any less religious?
A priest once explained things to me, and it makes perfect sense. In a nutshell, he said the following.
The church does change and will continue to change in order to meet both its needs and the needs of its people. It only appears to be static and monolithic. It tends to reserve the highest priestly ranks for as he put it, “old people”, who tend to think of themselves as being conservative. However, each generation is different. Each generation of popes and bishops can be seen as more progressive than the previous (over the long term). Thus, change is gradual and incremental. It happens in stages, so as to prevent total chaos.
That’s true in my experience as well. It’s also my experience that people who refer to themselves as non-practicing Catholics sometimes don’t mean that they don’t believe the theology. Sometimes it just means they don’t go to Mass. It’s not at all unusual to see people who stop attending Mass regularly shortly after they are confirmed as teenagers (although they may still attend on Christmas and Easter, get ashes and fast on Ash Wednesday ,etc), get married in a Catholic ceremony, disappear again until the first baby is ready to be baptized, and start appearing every Sunday once that child is about 4 or 5.
I think that part of the reason you hear “non-practicing Catholic” and don’t hear it with other Christian denominations (although I have heard the similar " non-observant Jew" ) is because perhaps the other denominations don’t have quite as legalistic a set-up. I know I’ve heard the occasional non- Catholic say something along the lines of “it means more when we go to church because it’s not required” or " I don’t understand why Catholics have to get married in a Catholic ceremony, my religion recognizes civil marriages". If religion X doesn’t have any required practices, then it makes no sense to speak of a “non-practicing X”.
I hesitate to say that most born-and-bred Protestants (Piskies don’t count…they’re Catholic Lite :D) don’t quite understand how deep Catholic roots go into your…well, your you. I’m Catholic! I may be a lapsed Catholic, a fallen-away Catholic, a non-practicing Catholic, a recovering Catholic, a heretical Catholic, or a Christmas-and-Easter Catholic, but I’m Catholic. If I never set foot in a church again in my life, I’m Catholic. Just like I’m Italian, and Irish, and German, and Welsh, and Native American, I’m Catholic. Ain’t never gonna change.
K, since you’ve put yourself out there, so will I …
I’m a born and raised Presbyterian, which I believe to be one of the most laid-back denominations available in the Christian “circle”. There are many …err… ex-Catholics in my church even, however they don’t skip through the halls telling everyone… almost like a sad chapter in their life that they don’t want to remember when you bring it up or it slips out that they once were… on top of things I married a … to my observations “nonpracticing Catholic” as well- which is where Guinastasia took some of my interest due to their orgins( my wife is Polish)… and through all of it… I must say it seems to me that there are “Christians” and then there are “Catholics” …
I know the flaming of the "Mother church" is upon me now... but God has got to be crying from all the stupidity of our thinking... I'm not a huge fan of denominations.. but I must say.. I don't want lectures or church guidance in my life... I am a black sheep even in my own church, quiet and unwilling to "chat-up" people in fellowship.... being Catholic btw-my wife HATES fellowship...
The indoctrination of Catholics and the ferocity of their defensiveness has always astounded me… I take crap about being a christian in stride… those people aren’t me and I don’t have to act like they are… more psychology I guess than Christianity… still … wtf? We can’t question the Catholic faith? (those that have no understanding of it) … it’s like the Masons or something… S-o big and in your face and yet “you” know nothing about this thing; nothing but whispers and heresay available to learn with…
There’s this taboo in there too, about frequency of visitation… it’s taken me a long time to relax my standards on this- not my church; my father did this. He believed in going to church every Sunday. I bucked this rule as I got older, but found that going regularly to church was kinda a good thing to remind me there’s someone I’ve been ignoring all week, but I did it because I-I wanted to, lol.
Still I never considered not going most of the time and showing-up like twice in a year... it was hard for me to wrap my head around that... that a person's faith and love for God could be so strong that they were able to forego the church thing... I enjoyed the singing of hymns (really I think this is where karaoke came from, you shouuld hear some of these people) and the sermons to make me think and later having something sweet talking to the ones I may like over there, but this is just me.
There's too much in this whole subject to put in here, but I'm trying anyway haha...
Why is it that Catholicism seems more political than anything else? I go to the service even and it’s stand, sit, kneel, stand, kneel, recite, kneel, stand, recite …mm ok we’ll let you sit for a few seconds now back on the floor … this was in Poland, true. You guys he-re think you’ve got it bad- I saw 80 year old grandmothers kneeling just the same as the rest of them on the cold rocks the floor was made of… the sh*t is cold as hell in the church and there’s the priest in his cushy chair with a space heater next to him drinking wine out of the goblet, then when offering was taken up they poke a stick in your face with a little bag tied to the end of it and give you hard stares. Then it’s back on the floor for you… on top of that, it was a matter of “cleanliness” that you could accept part of Jesus Christ (it’s literal in the Catholic church from what I hear) … but I don’t remember this exception in the Bible- where Jesus denies those who have not confessed of all their sins… In my church all that’s required to take communion is to have the ability to understand what you’re doing… everyone’s invited into the church it’s not some members only thing.
Jesus kn-ew we were sinners, what do you think he came for? The big last supper meal? He offered himself to every-one... there are so many messages alone conflicting the Bible's teachings and "THE church's" "routine" that just have me in total enigma of it's Christian affiliation .. .. how can it be the same denomination with so much... irregularity and sometimes blatant conflict with the obivious messages of the Bible?? Is it something like a Bill Maher message :"God does not write books"...
A church is a nothing more than a place to focus on your faith and yourself; should I even bring up the red light? I understand it’s purpose (my friend’s a Chaplain) …it’s just a good thing you don’t have to understand everthing in this form…you just accept that it’s another person’s way… which goes to show that once you have a open mind to accept all beliefs you can pretty much take on anything else…
Consider yourself asked 
I’ve been over your post several times, ThinkTank and I think I have finally discovered an actual question in there.
I think that you re asking why Catholics are still considered “Christian” when, in your view, they have practices that are in conflict with (your reading of) the bible.
There are two aspects to a short answer to this: First, nearly every claim that I have seen made that the Catholic Church has “turned from” the Bible has been based on one reading or another that differs from Catholic interpretation of what is in Scripture. Generally, Catholic belief is firmly supported by Catholic interpretation of Scripture.
Beyond that, it should be noted that Christianity survived for over 1400 years without a doctrine of sola Scriptura. There are, indeed, some traditions and practices in the Catholic Church that are outside of (not in conflict with) Scripture. However, most of these date back to a very early period in the Church (and there are similar or identical practices held by the Orthodox, as well). It was only when Protestants attempted to strip away what they perceived as excess baggage that the Reform churches begn to stop using them. (In fact, even among some Protestant groups, generally those descended from Luther’s break, rather than Calvin’s, many practices continue to be observed that might surprise a good Presbyterian.)
As to the specific point on which you dwelled in hyperbole, the Catholic (and Orthodox and Anglican and many Evangelische/Lutheran) practices of the Liturgy are rooted in a cognizance that worship involves more than simply sitting and praying. The liturgical forms of the older traditions are more elaborate because they have a longer history. The actions of the congregation (which do not have nearly the bouncing effect that you have portrayed) are simply ways to demonstrate attitudes of prayer, standing when the congregation voices prayer, kneeling when the congregation prays silently, and sitting when the “action” is one of listening. (There are a few exceptions, but this is the general outline.)
Pardon the hijack, but :eek: :eek:
Thinktank, if you could examine Presbyterian heresy in my community and tell me what you think about this? My email addy is listed if you’d prefer to avoid further hijacking.
Just curious.
Thanks.