Why Does God Allow Bad Things To Happen ?

Why would God allow a church roof to collapse and kill His people during Mass ?

Read this news report:

Nigeria: Church Collapses, Kills 22 in Benue


Twenty-two people were killed and 31 others were injured in Benue state when their church building caved in on them during Easter vigil, a government spokesman said Sunday."Following a heavy downpour and storm Saturday night, the building of St Robert's Catholic Church in Adamgbe collapsed, killing 22 worshippers while 31 others sustained various degrees of injury," Cletus Akwaya told AFP.


Fourteen of those killed were women while six others were children, including a two-year-old, he said on telephone.


"It was an outdoor Easter vigil service but within the church premises. When the rain poured down, followed by a storm, the about 3,000 worshippers ran and crammed into the church and the building collapsed, killing 22 of them," said the spokesman.


The storm first blew off the roof of the church and its wall caved in, he said, adding that the bodies have been taken to a state hospital morgue in Vandeikya, a major city near the scene of the tragedy.


The deputy governor of the state, Stephen Lawani, visited relatives of the victims on Sunday to offer his condolences, Akwaya said.


The Benue church tragedy comes on the heels of a bomb blast in Kaduna, which killed at least 36 people on Sunday morning.

Source: All Africa

A reader writes to Mark Shea (a popular Catholic writer and speaker) as follows:

My faith has been on the line for the past couple of years. Nearly every time I feel drawn back to confession and an active life within the Church, I read something like this [link to the above news report] and have great doubts. I understand the consequences of sin causing tragedy in our world, but why would God allow a church roof to fall in and kill tens of people during the Easter Vigil? People were running from the outside Mass to seek shelter IN A CHURCH, and then this? I realize that it would have necessitated a miracle due to the sheer number of people in the church, but that's nothing if the Eucharistic miracle is taking place at every Mass, right? How can we consider ourselves blessed to find a convenient parking spot at the mall, how can we consider that a miracle has occurred when we find a job or get the approval for a mortgage, when twenty-some women and children perished for trying to give God his due worship, and on the night-of-nights to boot. I just don't get it.

Here's Mark Shea's reply:

I don’t get it either. But do really keep that in mind. You don’t get it. You and I don’t know the first thing, let alone the last thing, about the lives of the people who died that night. We know nothing. All we know is that they died. That they were going to die sometime or other was already a given. What matters is, precisely, their disposition to God when they did—because this life is given to us with an absolute, money-back guarantee that it is subject to expiration by the Manufacturer at his discretion, not ours. We are also given assurance by that same Manufacturer that when our lives end, they don’t end. All who have ever lived live still. Those are the things we know. What we don’t know in the slightest—but are sorely tempted to draw conclusions about--is The Meaning of certain deaths.

In Jesus’ own day, for instance, people were tempted to conclude they knew The Meaning of why a tower had fallen on a few people (Luke 13:4). They were, said Jesus, totally wrong. Job’s Comforters were certain they knew The Meaning of Job’s terrible sufferings. God begged to differ with them. Jesus’ disciples were sure they knew The Meaning of why the blind man was born blind:

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him. (John 9:1-3)

Others were tempted to conclude they knew The Meaning of why the up-country hick preacher with a messiah complex had gotten nailed to a cross after a royal beating all the best people said he richly deserved, on the very eve of Passover. Cursed is he who is hanged upon a tree. It was obvious to such people what The Meaning was: a dirtbag had gotten his comeuppance from a righteous God. Turns out they were wrong.

These days, people are much more inclined to discern The Meaning of such deaths as you chronicle by concluding that The Meaning is that there is no God, or he is evil, or simply a capricious idiot who kills us for his sport. Like we know any more than the clueless people who stood at the foot of the cross declaiming on The Meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Bottom line: we don’t know anything except that the same Jesus who died on that cross loves the people killed in that tragedy no less than he loved his apostles and all the martyrs of the Church. The manner of their death is not revelatory of Who God Really Is, Nor is it revelatory that God Does Not Exist. It is the manner of Jesus’ death (and resurrection) that is revelatory. Look to that and entrust them, and yourself, to Jesus. In the next life, you may, if it is any of your business, discover why the lives of these particular people ended in this way. If not, and you meet them in heaven, you will not be grieving there because the time for crying and mourning will be over.

Source: National Catholic Register

Related post:

Why Do We Suffer? The Theological Answer Of St. Paul

Please post your comments.

Manhood: A Natural Remedy for Tolerance, Niceness, and Self-Esteem

What are the most important virtues to acquire in life? Perusing children’s and adolescents’ television programming gives the impression that in the top tier are tolerance, niceness, and self-esteem. I know these affected me. Perhaps they affected you, too.

I’m not a psychologist, so I won’t be getting into the history of psychology on the development of this trending prioritization of children’s virtues. I am qualified to critique them, however, as a parent and as an armchair theologian. As a parent, I can tell you that these terms and their prevalence in modern society drive me a little nuts. The “virtues” of tolerance, niceness, and self-esteem are not comparable to the virtues of prudence, temperance, courage, and justice. As a Catholic parent, the kind who reads Catholic blogs, imagine your delight if Dora the Explorer told Swiper not to swipe because it violates commutative justice (perhaps in simpler terms) or if, instead of telling them to believe in themselves, today’s superhero cartoon characters were role models in courage who thought prudently before acting. The world would be a better place.

I can also tell you that these three so-called virtues bother me on a different level. I doubt that any of the producers of these children’s shows could tell you what the word virtue means, in light of its origins. Do you know what it means? Manhood. Vir is Latin for man. In its genitive (possessive) form, the Latin virtus becomes virtutis. The -tut- in the word evolved through German into the suffix -hood. Man-hood. So, having reinvigorated virtue with the concept of manhood, let’s look at these three alleged virtues to judge their manliness and look at some ways to fix the problems and suggest some changes.

Tolerance – Tolerance, we are told, is manly because it is gentlemanly. The gentleman respects the differences he has with others and most importantly does not bring them up if that would bother the person he’d be in disagreement with. In reality, tolerance isn’t really about avoiding uncomfortable topics or trying not to offend. Tolerance is about resisting. We say that certain materials are heat tolerant. We don’t mean that they try to make excuses for heat or ignore heat. We mean that they can put up with the heat, they can stand it, they can tolerate it. Here’s another illustration: in a high wind, a mountain is more tolerant than a reed. In this sense, tolerance is the opposite of what our society believes it is. The mountain doesn’t bend with the wind. The wind bends around the mountain.

Until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.
-Ephesians 4:13-14

Manly virtues to foster instead: Humility, Justice, Courage, and Compassion
Objective: Learn how to consider and critically evaluate the reasons for another person’s position, to find common ground, and to disagree with charity. Be commanding, but not domineering. Be dynamic, but not forceful. Be like a mountain, neither submitting to the wind, nor moving to attack it.

Niceness – You can’t go more than a few minutes today in a typical conversation without hearing the word nice. Ambivalent people throw the word around without distinction, although to me it seems the best use of the word would be to describe Barney the Dinosaur. Do you know what nice means? In Middle English, it meant “stupid” or “foolish,” deriving from the Latin word for “ignorant.” (There have been many and widely varied connotations of the word nice in its development, all of them negative until a couple centuries ago.) A nice man was a simpleton or a silly person. To some, it still betrays a sense of folly – if the best people can do is call you “a nice man,” perhaps it’s because you don’t strike them as worthy of being called “a kind man.” At the very least, we have a common sense that it is not a serious word, for good or bad. The Online Etymology Dictionary cites one etymologist as saying the word niceis “too great a favorite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness.” That seems fitting. I typically use the word in conversation when I’m not really paying attention. It seems that today, the word nice has settled on “vaguely pleasant.” Why are we teaching our children to be nice again?

Manly virtues to foster instead: Wisdom, Practicality, Temperance, Flavor (see Matthew 5:13)
Objective: Develop a character imbued with the proper balance of humorous wit and sage advice. Be the kind of steady man people trust and admire. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Give the people around you the full attention they deserve. Never in the process settle on the blandness of being “nice” – move boldly beyond it.

Self-Esteem – In a society as egocentric as ours, it’s no surprise that self-esteem ranks high among the virtues taught to our children. Personally, I prefer to teach my kids confidence. Why? Self-esteem smacks of finding value in myself. Here’s a secret for you non-parents out there: kids don’t need to find value in themselves. They already know they’re awesome. Confidence is a much greater virtue to teach the young, and a more manly one, too. What’s the difference between self-esteem and confidence? Self-esteem roots a sense of dignity in the self, and then promotes action based on that dignity. It’s not all bad, but it isn’t enough. Confidence, from the Latin for with faith, is directly action-oriented and roots those actions in God, the object of faith. It’s manly to act. It’s even more manly to have faith in God. Self-esteem tells kids, “You’re special! You can do anything!” Confidence tells kids, “God made you and has a plan for you!” Those may not seem all that different, but consider the difference in light of life’s struggles. Self-esteem tells kids, “You can do it! If you can’t, then it must be a failure in your value as a person!” Confidence tells kids, “God has a plan. Stick it out and you’ll make it to heaven. What more could you want?” You see, self-esteem is a psychological creeping Pelagianism. Confidence is rooted in our faith in God to save us.

Manly virtue to foster instead: Confidence

Objective: Go. Move. Don’t delay. Follow St. Padre Pio’s advice: “Pray, hope, don’t worry.” Carry yourself – and your cross – with the dignity of a Christian. Don’t just talk about how to make the world a better place. Be a man of action.

Source: Truth & Charity

Please post your comments.

Why Do We Suffer? The Theological Answer Of St. Paul

…I have been crucified with Christ...
Galatians 2:20

…I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions
for the sake of His body, that is, the Church…
Colossians 1:24

The Problem of Pain

Nearly every religion seeks to make sense of the problem of pain. If God is both omnibenificent {all-loving} and omnipotent {all-powerful}, why then does He allow us to suffer? The Eastern traditions such as Buddhism dismiss pain and suffering as “unreal.” This solution is difficult to explain to a child with cancer. Other religious traditions attempt to accrue “good karma” in order to ensure that good times will come with a future reincarnated life. For these traditions, the origin of suffering is past sins, even sins committed in previous lives. Still other religions, such as Islam, seem to place the origin of suffering in the capricious “will of Allah.”

Knowing Christ Crucified

The Catholic Faith offers an entirely different account of suffering, because the Church holds up the crucified Christ as the archetype for Christian living. No doubt, the Church is obsessed with the crucifix, and that for good reason. The crucified Christ provides the meaning of life and the meaning of death, even the meaning of the life to come! The suffering of Christ does not prevent our suffering on earth, but it does allow us to suffer with dignity and meaning. Saint Paul indicates that every authentic Christian will suffer in this world:

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake (Phil 1:29).

It was for this reason that the Apostle Paul focused the attention of his spiritual life on the crucifixion of Christ:

For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2).

This “crucifixion mentality” is one that Paul sought to instill in his disciples. When the Apostle perceived heresy in the Church in Galatia, he realized that they had forgotten their identity as followers of the crucified Christ:

Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? (Gal 3:1)

The glib Protestant adage, “But we worship the resurrected Christ, not the crucified Christ” finds no traction in the writings of Paul. One cannot divide Christ. There is not a “resurrected Jesus” and a “crucified Jesus.” There is one Lord Jesus Christ and His resurrection possesses meaning for us only in so far as we appreciate His crucifixion. Moreover, Saint Paul indicates that if we wish to attain the resurrected glory of Christ we must first enter into the sufferings of His death:

That I may know him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead (Phil 3:10-11).

Paul also states that we are “fellow heirs with Christ, provided that we suffer with Him” (Rom 8:17). Moreover, Saint Luke also preserved the words of Christ to this effect: “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple” (Lk 14:27).

A person will carry the cross only if the cross carries meaning. The cross swallows every sin and every pain. When Adam and Eve sinned, they brought mankind into the state of original sin, as we observed in an earlier chapter. “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men” (Rom 5:12). God permits the suffering of mankind on account of sin. Yet, God did not choose to remain outside of our sufferings. Instead, He entered into our sufferings. Jesus Christ experienced the hardships of humanity. He experienced poverty, hunger, thirst, false accusations, persecutions, and even a bloody death. Christ our Lord has experienced pain and death, and so when we unite our own sufferings to those of Christ, our personal sufferings take on redemptive power. Saint Paul explains how through Christ he transformed physical hardships into spiritual strength:

I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:9-10).

Many well-meaning Christians are repulsed by the crucifix, because it displays the weakness of Christ. However, the cross teaches us that Christ transformed His greatest moment of physical weakness into the most potent act of redemptive suffering. Christ’s death is our salvation. The Catholic Church guards as a precious jewel the paradox that states, “when I am weak, then I am strong,” or alternatively: “death brings forth life.” Because of this, Saint Paul perceived his own vocation as a ministry of redemptive suffering:

We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:8-11).

Saint Paul explains that he always carries in his body “the death of Jesus.” When Paul is crushed, persecuted, struck down, he remains mindful that he bears within himself the “death of Jesus.” The union between Paul’s sufferings and Christ’s sufferings results in the manifestation of Christ’s life in the person of Paul.

Saint Paul articulates his doctrine of redemptive suffering in a shocking statement to the Christians in Colossae:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is, the Church (Col 1:24).

On the surface, it seems that Saint Paul is uttering blasphemy. How can Paul complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions? Can we possibly speak of there being any lack in the sufferings of Christ? We know that Paul did not wish to diminish the sufferings of Christ, or else he would not have said:

But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world (Gal 6:14).

We might best understand what Paul means by “that which is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” as those sufferings that we must experience in this life. Christ’s sufferings are complete and efficacious in their own right. We can add nothing to the redemptive suffering of Christ. However, we can unite our sufferings to Christ. This is the element that is “lacking.” When we offer our sufferings to Christ, Christ makes them His own in a mysterious way. To this end, Saint Paul even speaks of himself as nailed upon the cross with Christ:

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal 2:20).

Ultimately, this is where Saint Paul’s doctrine of participation reaches its highest expression. At this point, our book turns full circle. We began with Saint Paul’s miraculous experience on the Road to Damascus where he heard those significant words of Christ in Acts 9:4: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” Unbeknownst to Paul, Saint Stephen and the other persecuted Christians had united their sufferings to the sufferings of Christ. One might even place the words of Paul in the heart of Stephen as he died a martyr’s death: “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake…for the sake of Saul.” Perhaps it was the prayerful suffering of Stephen, in union with Christ, that initiated the grace of God toward Saul who stood by holding the coats of those who cast their stones at Stephen, the Church’s first martyr.

Source: Canterbury Tales

Please post your comments.

Civilisation: A Personal View by Kenneth Clark

Civilisation: A Personal View by Kenneth Clark — is a television documentary series outlining the history of Western art, architecture and philosophy since the Dark Ages. The series was produced by the BBC and aired in 1969 on BBC2. Both the television material and an accompanying book were written by art historian Kenneth Clark (1903–1983), who also presented the series. The series is considered to be a landmark in British Television's broadcasting of the visual arts.

Watch this video series and discover the contribution of the Catholic Church in the development of western civilization.

Part 1



(Part 1 has to be watched on YouTube, but subsequent parts below can be watched through this site)

Part 2



Part 3



Part 4



Part 5



Part 6



Part 7



Part 8



Part 9



Part 10



Part 11



Part 12



Part 13

Related posts:

The Catholic Church: Builder Of Civilization (audio)

Catholicism: The Heart of History (audio)

Please post your comments.

What Is Humility?

Humility is an attitude which helps us to overcome the limitations and weaknesses in our lives. Father Nicolás Schwizer teaches more.
by Father Nicolás Schwizer | Source: Schoenstatt Press

Humility is an attitude which helps us to overcome the limitations and weaknesses in our lives. What is humility? Father Joseph Kentenich, Founder of the Schoenstatt Movement says: “Humility is the moral virtue by which one experiences oneself as totally weak when separated from God and totally strong when submerged in God.” Humility is something very different from feelings or inferiority complexes, which are expressions of dejection or depression. Today, many suffer with these complexes and feelings, especially those persons with melancholic temperaments. But the truly humble person is not anxious, otherwise nervous, or ill-tempered.

Humility as smallness and greatness
Humility contains two life sentiments which are apparently in opposition: smallness and greatness. Whoever only experiences his own smallness will in the long run fall into an inferiority complex. On the contrary, whoever only experiences his own greatness will become proud and presumptuous. In Mary, the human being par excellence, there is the perfect equilibrium: within herself she feels small, but at the same time, she feels loved and exalted by God.

Humility as greatness is, then, to feel accepted, valued and loved by the Father. It is the resting in God which gives us security. It is the experience which tranquilizes our hearts and permits us to accept smallness and limitations without anxiety. We can feel loved and, therefore, great and important in the eyes of God.

Humility as smallness is to accept ourselves as limited and sinful creatures before the perfect and holy God. Thus Saint Teresa says that humility is truth. The authentic man finds himself well when he is truthful: it is the spontaneity of the person who has nothing to hide, it is the spontaneity of the child.

Therefore, humility is not hiding one’s own talents. The Biblical ideal of meekness is not the same as a lack of personality; patience is not cowardice and passivism; smallness and simplicity is not mediocrity. When Jesus speaks of those who are “afflicted and troubled” He is not referring to sick melancholy.

If we do not wrap our minds around the true humility, we will never be truly free people. On the contrary, hiding our own personalities, being cowards, adepts of mediocrity, and irresponsibly permissive will easily push us into psychological problems and even a physiological ones.

Nerves. Therefore, Father Kentenich also says: “In general, the humble man is not nervous.” Or in other words: If we are nervous – not when we have clinical neurological problems, but when we behave anxiously - we have to analyze whether or not this happens because we are lacking humility in our lives.”

In that sense, for Fr. Kentenich, smallness is “not thinking so high of myself .” Do not think so high of yourself to the point of blocking God’s grace. Do not think so greatly of your weaknesses that you cannot accept that God’s grace on your is more than your own human imperfections. Fr. Kentenich teaches us to think like this: My person is not important, neither is my health, nor my honor, nor my work, nor my love, nor my misery, or the lack of any or all these things, or something else. You have to die to yourself, so that God can live in you (Galatians 2:20). I am only an instrument (Romans 6:13).

Very well then, who is important? Only God the Father is. We should give importance only to him. He is the most transcendental person in our world. I only give importance to God’s work, the Kingdom of the Father. He does everything. I only help him a little. The honor of what I am doing is not for me, it is for God. Not I, only God. “I must decrease and he must increase” (John 3: 30), said St. John the Baptist.

If I do not give importance to myself and only give it to God the Father and his work, then he gives importance to me. The less importance I give to myself, the more I am important to Him. It is the mystery of authentic childlikeness: because I am small, I please God the Father; because I am small, therefore, I am great.

Here we understand another phrase of Father Kentenich: “You are the one who does the greatest works only in those who are the smallest and through those who are the smallest.”

Questions for Meditation
1. Do I think of myself as a nervous person?
2. How do I relate my nervousness to a lack of humility?
3. What does the phrase “not to give myself importance” say to me?

If you wish to subscribe, comment on the text or give your testimony, write to: pn.reflexiones@gmail.com

Source: Catholic. Net

Please post your comments.

Do Catholics And Muslims Worship The Same God ?

It certainly seems as if we worship the same God. After all, we call God by the same name. Arabic-speaking Christians, including Eastern Catholics such as Maronites and Melkites, use the word “Allah” for the God of the Bible.

But are they the same God?

The question is not answered by simple linguistic identity, as evidenced by St. Paul’s complaint to the Corinthians: “For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough” (2 Corinthians 11:4). The “other Jesus” that was being preached among the Corinthians was not a different person of the same name, but a view of Jesus of Nazareth that was so radically different from Paul’s that he termed it “another Jesus” altogether.

In the same way, it is possible that the Qur’an and Islamic tradition present a picture of God so radically different from that of the Bible and Catholic tradition that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the proposition that they are the same Being in both traditions, apart from some minor creedal differences.

But wait a minute. Don’t Catholics have to believe that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, because the Second Vatican Council says so? The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church tells us that the “plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Lumen Gentium 16)

It is almost more important to clarify what this text does not say than what it does. The first statement, that “the plan of salvation also includes” Muslims, has led some – mostly critics of the Church – to assert that the Council Fathers are saying that Muslims are saved, and thus need not be preached the Gospel, as they’ve already got just as much of a claim on Heaven as do Christians.

This is obviously false. This statement on Muslims comes as part of a larger passage that begins by speaking of “those who have not yet received the Gospel” and concludes by reaffirming “the command of the Lord, ‘Preach the Gospel to every creature.’” It speaks of the possibility of salvation for those who “through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.”

Clearly, then, Muslims figure in the “plan of salvation” not in the sense that they are saved as Muslims, that is, by means of Islamic observance, but insofar as they strive to be attentive to and to obey the authentic voice of the Creator whom they acknowledge and who speaks to them through the dictates of their conscience.

This suggests that a Muslim who refrains from suicide bombing because he understands that it is cold-blooded murder has a better chance to be saved, and is more clearly attuned to the promptings of the Creator within whose plan of salvation he finds himself, than does a Muslim who blows himself up in a crowd of infidels because the Qur’an promises a place in Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah (9:111).

The Conciliar statement also wisely adds the caveat, all too often ignored by the Church’s critics, that “Mohammedans” (Musulmanos) are “professing” to hold the faith of Abraham. Whether or not they actually hold it is arguable, but the Vatican Council is only noting that they claim for their faith that it is that of Abraham, without discussing whether or not Islam actually is an authentically Abrahamic faith.

Likewise widely misinterpreted, or at least given a weight that it was clearly never meant to bear, is the subsequent affirmation that Muslims “along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” Many see in this also an assertion that the Gospel need not be preached to Muslims, or that they are already saved, for they adore the one and merciful God. Many Catholics, including writers of some prominence, have asserted that Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church that quotes it, teach that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, and then proceed as if this establishes more than it actually does, or as if it were obvious that the Council was thus forbidding a critical stance toward Islam or concern about Islamic supremacist advances in Europe and the U.S.

In this vein the great Catholic writer and apologist Peter Kreeft writes disapprovingly that “many Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, do not believe what the Church says about Islam (for example, in Vatican II and the new Catechism): that Allah is not another God, that we worship the same God.” He leaves unexplained, however, what he thinks that means exactly, or what responsibilities or courses of action it sets out for Catholics.

The Council document is actually saying perhaps less than Kreeft and others of like mind would wish it to be saying. In the first place it is clearly affirming that Muslims, like Christians, are monotheists, which is a rather commonplace observation that has been noted numerous times over the fourteen centuries of Islam’s existence. As far back as 1076, Pope St. Gregory VII wrote to Anzir, the king of Mauritania, that “we believe and confess one God, although in different ways.”

What it is asserting beyond that bare fact, if anything, can best be ascertained by considering the passage in light of those “different ways” to which Pope Gregory alluded. It is noteworthy that Pope Gregory doesn’t say that the one God that he and King Anzir both worship is the same God. All he says is that both he and Anzir worship one God; in other words, they’re both monotheists. And the Second Vatican Council is not actually making a definitive statement on that issue. It is saying that both Catholics and Muslims adore the one and merciful God, and while that clearly does indicate a certain commonality, there can be no doubt about one thing it certainly doesn’t mean: that Muslims and Catholics adore the same God in every particular, for Catholics do not believe that Muhammad was a prophet or the Qur’an is God’s Word, and Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God or the Savior of the world, or that God is Triune.

The same may be said of Jews, of course: they, along with Muslims, reject the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the divinity of Christ, and yet clearly Catholics and Jews worship the same God. This, however, is because Christianity began as a form of Judaism and is in a certain sense an extension of it, affirming faith in the same Old Testament Scriptures, the same prophets, and many points of belief.

These things cannot be said about Islam, which considers itself to be less an extension of Christianity than a rejection and correction of it, such that Muslims even reject the Old and New Testament Scriptures as corruptions.

In declaring that both Muslims and Catholics adore the one and merciful God, the Council obviously did not mean that Muslims and Catholics regard that God in exactly the same way, or that the differences were insignificant. The Council is silent on the question of whether or not the Muslims’ adoration is blind or informed. So what, then, is the Council actually saying?

Vatican II was a large-scale attempt to restore relationships that had been broken for centuries and build new bridges of trust where groups had been divided from the Church by centuries of mistrust, suspicion and outright conflict. Consequently it emphasized common ground rather than differences, unlike every ecumenical council that preceded it. No case, however, can be made that its statement about the shared adoration of the one and merciful God in any way mitigated the Church’s truth claim or sense of its own responsibility to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, any more than shared monotheism removes that responsibility in regard to Protestants or anyone else, for that responsibility is reiterated in the same passage.

It is not even certain that the Council is saying that Muslims and Catholics adore the same “one and merciful God.” Muslims certainly believe that their one and merciful God is the same One whom Christians (and Jews) worship, for the Qur’an tells them so (29:46). And whether they know it or not, the only God actually available to receive their adoration and hear their prayers is the Christian one. However, the differences in how Muslims and Catholics conceive of the one and merciful God lead to the possibility that while Muslims believe that they are worshiping the same God that Catholic worship, the teachings of Islam itself, despite the Qur’an’s insistence that Muslims worship the same God as do Christians and Jews, actually paints a picture of a God who is substantially different from the God of the Bible and the Catholic Faith.

It is noteworthy in this connection that the Council speaks of “Muslims” (Musulmanos), not “Islam,” adoring with Catholics the one and merciful God. It is a manifest fact that Muslim people believe that their God and the Christians’ God is the same. It is by no means as clear that the teachings of Islam itself about God offer a picture of the same Being who is delineated in orthodox Catholic theology. Although Arabic-speaking Christians generally use the word “Allah” for the God of the Bible – the same Arabic word used for the God of the Qur’an – this identity of name does not require that the two Beings referred to in each book are one and the same. It may be so, but it is not established on the basis of the Qur’an’s declaration, or of the identity in nomenclature.

In any case, this short passage from Lumen Gentium is burdened down by a weight of assumptions. When Kreeft says that “many Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, do not believe what the Church says about Islam (for example, in Vatican II and the new Catechism): that Allah is not another God, that we worship the same God,” he apparently assumes that to affirm that Muslims and Christians worship the same God establishes an important kinship between the two groups, and may even indicate that Islam in itself is a fundamentally good thing, such that Catholics should encourage Islamic faith and Muslim piety. Kreeft, in fact, espoused such a view in a debate with me.

These assumptions, however, do not proceed as a matter of necessity or inevitability from the Conciliar text. It would do no outrage to that text if the differences between the Islamic and Catholic views of the one and merciful God, and between Islam and Catholicism in general, were such that Catholics would not wish to encourage Muslim faith or fervor. One may therefore take a jaundiced view of the prospects for Catholic/Muslim cooperation and dialogue without dissenting from the Council’s teaching.

At the same time, even if the Council Fathers did mean to affirm that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, this would have little significance for the contemporary ecclesiastical or political situation, in which Muslims are oppressing and killing Christian believers in several countries without regard for the Qur’an’s insistence that “our Allah and your Allah is one.” And as for the assumption that the Council meant to speak of a special kinship between Catholics and Muslims, Catholics have a moral obligation to be charitable to all people, regardless of whether or not they believe in the same God we do. Genuine charity includes a concern for justice.

The second Vatican II reference to Islam comes in the Declaration on Non-Christian Religions,Nostra Aetate:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

While this is a bit more descriptive about Muslim belief than was Lumen Gentium, as it includes the Islamic classification of Jesus as a non-divine prophet and Islam’s respect for the Virgin Mary, it adds nothing in terms of substance to the Dogmatic Constitution’s statements about Muslims. Here again we see that the Muslim linkage of Islam to Abraham is presented not as fact, but as something Muslims affirm, or “take pleasure” in affirming. Here again we see that they adore the one, merciful God; in other words, that they’re monotheists.

That is all that Vatican II is really saying about Muslims: they’re monotheists, they say they belong to the religion of Abraham, and they revere Jesus, but not as the Son of God, and His Blessed Mother.

The tone is very different, but not much in terms of substance is added in earlier Church statements on Muslims and Islam. And as Pope Benedict XVI has reminded us, Vatican II is not a super-council that supersedes all previous Church teaching; rather, its teachings must be understood in light of tradition. When it comes to Islam, the consistent focus in earlier statements about Islam is generally not on what Muslims believe, but on Islam as a heresy, and on the hostility of Muslims to Christians and Christianity. In that vein, Pope Benedict XIV in 1754 reaffirmed an earlier prohibition on Albanian Catholics giving their children “Turkish or Mohammedan names” in baptism by pointing out that not even Protestants or Orthodox were stooping so low: “none of the schismatics and heretics has been rash enough to take a Mohammedan name, and unless your justice abounds more than theirs, you shall not enter the kingdom of God.”

Pope Callixtus III, in a somewhat similar spirit, in 1455 vowed to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East.” Neither this statement nor that of Lumen Gentium rise to the level of a dogmatic definition, but is it possible for Islam to be a “diabolical sect” that at the same time adores the “one and merciful God”? Certainly, for it is always possible that their adoration of the one and merciful God may be wrongly directed, marred by wrong emphases and outright falsehoods.

Nonetheless, many Catholics would argue that the statements of Benedict XIV and Callixtus III (and others like them from other popes) reflect a very different age from our own, and that Vatican II’s statements reflect a more mature spirit, as well as the charity toward others that Christians should properly exhibit. And that may well be so, although it must be noted that even though they are only fifty years old, the statements of Vatican II on Islam reflect the outlook of a vanished age no less than do those of the earlier popes. For in the 1960s, secularism and Westernization were very much the order of the day in many areas of the Islamic world. It was, for example, unusual in Cairo in the 1960s to see a woman wearing a hijab, an Islamic headscarf mandated by Muhammad’s command that a woman when appearing in public should cover everything except her face and hands. Now, on the other hand, one may walk down the streets of the same city and be surprised to see a woman who is not so attired.

This change has not been solely external. The hijabs in Cairo are but one visible sign of a revolution that has swept the Islamic world, or more properly, a revival. Islamic values have been revived, including not only rigor in dress codes but also a hostility toward Western ideas and principles. The “Arab Spring” uprisings have led to a reassertion of the political aspects of Islam, as opposed to Western political models, all across the Middle East. Western ideas of democracy and pluralism that were fashionable in elite circles all over the Islamic world in the first half of the twentieth century have fallen into disrepute.

One consequence of all this is that the Islamic world that the Fathers of Vatican II had in mind is rapidly disappearing. The words of Vatican II on Muslims must be accorded the respect that all Church teaching merits, and obeyed to the degree that obedience is owed to all magisterial statements. These statements must be evaluated, however, within the context of their times. The documents of Vatican II are no less a product of their age than the statements of Benedict XIV and Callixtus III are a product of theirs. Just as the age of crusading knights has vanished, so also the age of a dominant secular West striding confidently into what it terms the “modern” age is rapidly vanishing. This is not to devalue or denigrate the Council in any way, but simply to see it as what it is, no more, no less: an enunciation of certain eternal truths, to be sure, but within the context of a number of unexamined and yet decisively influential core beliefs and assumptions about the nature of the world and of mankind.

Ultimately, while it may always be the Christian’s responsibility to reach out with respect and esteem to Muslims, the hostility that the Islamic world had always displayed toward Christendom was never less in evidence than it was in the 1960s, and so a statement of friendship was never more appropriate, either before or since. That situation does not prevail today, a fact that has a great many implications for the prospects for dialogue as well: Western-minded Muslims who have a favorable attitude toward the Catholic Church no longer have nearly the influence among their coreligionists that they once had, at least in the Islamic world.

That is not to say, however, that we have returned to the world of Benedict XIV and Callixtus III, when Catholics understood that Mohammedanism, as it was then popularly styled (to the indignation of Muslims themselves) was a heresy, steeped in falsehood and perhaps even diabolical, and dedicated to the destruction of the Church and the conversion or subjugation of Christians. We are centuries away, and separated by chasms of cultural assumptions, from the world in which it was even possible to think of one’s faith as having enemies and needing to be defended. Catholics of the modern age have long assumed that that world was gone forever, and there is some reason to believe that it is indeed.

But with Muslim persecution of Christians escalating worldwide, there is also considerable evidence that that rough old world is returning, and may never have been as far away as it seemed to be.

Source: Crisis Magazine

Please post your comments.

On Three Degrading Influences And How To Overcome Them

A Meditation on Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on the Holy Rosary. By Msgr. Charles Pope

A reader alerted me to an interesting and insightful analysis by Pope Leo XIII of three trends that both alarmed him and pointed to future problems. He wrote of these three concerns in 1893 in the Encyclical on the Holy Rosary entitled Laetitiae Sanctae (Of Holy Joy). The Pope enunciates these three areas of concern and then offers the mysteries of the Rosary as a necessary remedy. Lets look at how the Pope describes the problems and then consider too what he sees as a solution. His teaching is in bold, italic, black. My remarks are in plain text, red.

There are three influences which appear to Us to have the chief place in effecting this downgrade movement of society. These are–first, the distaste for a simple and laborious life; secondly, repugnance to suffering of any kind; thirdly, the forgetfulness of the future life. (# 4)

Problem 1 – The distaste for a simple and laborious life - We deplore….the growing contempt of those homely duties and virtues which make up the beauty of humble life. To this cause we may trace in the home, the readiness of children to withdraw themselves from the natural obligation of obedience to the parents, and their impatience of any form of treatment which is not of the indulgent and effeminate kind. In the workman, it evinces itself in a tendency to desert his trade, to shrink from toil, to become discontented with his lot, to fix his gaze on things that are above him, and to look forward with unthinking hopefulness to some future equalization of property. We may observe the same temper permeating the masses in the eagerness to exchange the life of the rural districts for the excitements and pleasures of the town….(#5)

One of the truths that sets us free is to simply realize and come to accept that life is hard. It involves trials, arduous work, and setbacks, along with some of the progress we can and do experience. Very few things of true values come to us without a significant cost. Simply put, life is hard. But, coming to accept this is a freeing thing for many of our resentments are minimized or removed by this acceptance. The fact is, many today expect that life should be peachy. And when it is not, there is resentment, anger, even threats of lawsuits. Many today think of happiness as a God-given right. Our Founding Fathers recognized the pursuit of happiness as a goal. But today many expect that happiness to be the norm and to be a sort of right. When it does not exist for them, there has been a failure of the system somehow. Many today expect to live lives where there is little danger, and where things come easily. This has been one of the factors that influenced the growth of government. For as insistence on a comfortable life grows and hard work seems unreasonable, we expect government to ease our burdens and provide increasing levels of comfort and happiness, and we are less willing to work hard for these things. Rather we see happiness and comfort as things to which we are entitled.

But unrealistic expectations are premeditated resentments. And so, with often unrealistic expectations, people quickly grow resentful and even pout. It would seem that our ancestors who lived even as recently as 150 years ago had different notions. They looked for happiness alright, but largely expected to find that in heaven. Many of the old Catholic prayers bespeak a vision that this world was a place of travail, of exile, a valley of tears, where we sighed and longed to be with God. Most Catholics of those earlier times lived lives that were brutal and short. Most were peasants, and lived with far less creature comforts than we. There was no central air, electricity, running water, and medicines were few and far less effective. Entertainment was limited, houses were smaller, even tiny and transportation was far more limited.

We live so well compared to them. And though we are more comfortable, there is little evidence that we are happier. Indeed, we seem more resentful, because we expect more, a lot more. As the Pope notes, young people resent discipline and expect to be spoiled. The majority of parents seem willing to indulge them and shun giving correction since it raises tensions and causes difficulties.

The value of hard work and the satisfaction that comes from it seems lost on many today. Cardinal McCarrick used to counsel us priests that if we did not go to bed tired, something was wrong. We all need some rest and relaxation, sure, but hard work actually brings greater satisfaction to times of rest.

The fact is, high expectations of this world like we have today, breed discontent and resentments. For by it these unrealistic and high expectations, we really insist on living in a fantasy that this world is, or can be paradise. It cannot. A better strategy is to accept that life is difficult and, though it has its joys, it presents arduous difficulties to us that must be met with courage and acceptance. Though this is a hard truth it brings peace when it is accepted.

To the first error Pope Leo commend to our attention the Joyful mysteries and particularly a meditation on the implicit lessons of the home at Nazareth:

Let us take our stand in front of that earthly and divine home of holiness, the House of Nazareth. How much we have to learn from the daily life which was led within its walls! What an all-perfect model of domestic society! Here we behold simplicity and purity of conduct, perfect agreement and unbroken harmony, mutual respect and love….devotedness of service. Here is the patient industry which provides what is required for food and raiment; which does so “in the sweat of the brow,” which is contented with little….These are precious examples of goodness, of modesty, of humility, of hard-working endurance, of kindness to others, of diligence in the small duties of daily life, and of other virtues…., Then will each one begin to feel his work to be no longer lowly and irksome, but grateful and lightsome, and clothed with a certain joyousness by his sense of duty in discharging it conscientiously….home-life…loved and esteemed….(# 6).

Problem 2 – Repugnance to suffering of any kind - A second evil…. is to be found in repugnance to suffering and eagerness to escape whatever is hard or painful to endure. The greater number are thus robbed of that peace and freedom of mind which remains the reward of those who do what is right undismayed by the perils or troubles to be met with in doing so….By this passionate and unbridled desire of living a life of pleasure, the minds of men are weakened, and if they do not entirely succumb, they become demoralized and miserably cower and sink under the hardships of the battle of life. (# 7)

Yes, today more than ever, there is almost a complete intolerance to any sort of suffering. This has been fueled by the fact that we have been successful in eliminating a lot of suffering.

As noted, we have many creature comforts that protect us from the elements, medicines that alleviate physical pain and bodily discomforts, appliances and technology that provide unprecedented convenience and make a lot of manual labor all but unnecessary.

This, as we have also noted, leads to expectations which are ultimately unrealistic. Namely, that all suffering should be eliminated. There is almost an indignity expressed when one suggests that perhaps some things should be endured or that it is unreasonable to expect government, or doctors, or science to eliminate every evil or form of suffering.

Further, we seem to refuse the notion that accidents sometimes happen or that unfortunate circumstances will just occur. Instead we demand more laws that are often intrusive and oppressive, and we undertake huge lawsuits that often discourage the very risk taking that makes new inventions, medicines and medical techniques possible.

We often hold people responsible for things they can do little about. Sometimes economies just have cycles, climates too. Governments, laws and politicians cannot be expected to solve every problem or alleviate every burden. Sometimes accidents just happen.

Not a Padded room – While we can and should undertake to fix unnecessary hazards and seek to ease one another’s burdens, life isn’t a padded room. Suffering, sorrows, accidents, burdens and difficulties are part of life in this valley of tears. Acceptance of this truth leads to a kind of paradoxical serenity. Rejection of it and indulgence in unrealistic notions that all suffering is unreasonable leads to resentments and further unhappiness.

Here too, Pope Leo commend to us the rosary, in particular the sorrowful mysteries:

…If from our earliest years our minds have been trained to dwell upon the sorrowful mysteries of Our Lord’s life…we [may] see written in His example all the lessons that He Himself had taught us for the bearing of our burden of labor– and sorrow, and mark how the sufferings…He embraced with the greatest measure of generosity and good will. We behold Him overwhelmed with sadness, so that drops of blood ooze like sweat from His veins. We see Him bound like a malefactor, subjected to the judgment of the unrighteous, laden with insults, covered with shame, assailed with false accusations, torn with scourges, crowned with thorns, nailed to the cross, accounted unworthy to live….Here, too, we contemplate the grief of the most Holy Mother…”pierced” by the sword of sorrow…. (# 8 )

Then, be it that the “earth is accursed” and brings forth “thistles and thorns,”–be it that the soul is saddened with grief and the body with sickness; even so, there will be no evil which the envy of man or the rage of devils can invent, nor calamity which can fall upon the individual or the community, over which we shall not triumph by the patience of suffering….But by this patience, We do not mean that empty stoicism in the enduring of pain which was the ideal of some of the philosophers of old, but rather….It is the patience which is obtained by the help of His grace; which shirks not a trial because it is painful, but which accepts it and esteems it as a gain, however hard it may be to undergo. [Men and women of faith] re- echo, not with their lips, but with their life, the words of [the Apostle] St. Thomas: “Let us also go, that we may die with him” (John xi., 16). (# 9)

Yes, indeed, the cross is part of this life. But Christ has made it clear that the cross yields ultimately to glory if we carry it willingly and with faith.

Problem 3- Forgetfulness of the future life - The third evil for which a remedy is needed is one which is chiefly characteristic of the times in which we live. Men in former ages, although they loved the world, and loved it far too well, did not usually aggravate their sinful attachment to the things of earth by a contempt of the things of heaven. Even the right-thinking portion of the pagan world recognized that this life was not a home but a dwelling-place, not our destination, but a stage in the journey. But men of our day, albeit they have had the advantages of Christian instruction, pursue the false goods of this world in such wise that the thought of their true Fatherland of enduring happiness is not only set aside, but, to their shame be it said, banished and entirely erased from their memory, notwithstanding the warning of St. Paul, “We have not here a lasting city, but we seek one which is to come” (Heb. xiii., 4). (# 11)

I have become increasingly amazed at how little most modern people think of heaven. Even Church-going believers talk little of heaven, priest preach little on it. Our main preoccupation seems to be making this world a more comfortable and pleasant place. Even in our so-called spiritual life, our prayers bespeak a worldly preoccupation: Lord, fix my finances, fix my heath, get me a better job. Almost as though we were saying, “Make this world pleasant enough and I’ll just stay here.” It is not wrong to pray for better health etc. It is not wrong to work to make this world a better place. But in the end, our home is in heaven and we ought to be solicitous of it and eagerly seek its shores. It should be a frequent meditation, and to be with God forever, the deepest longing of our soul. Instead we fear getting “older” and hide death away in our culture. It ought to be that we can’t wait to see God. Sure, it would be nice to get a few things done that we’ve started, but as heaven and being with God draw closer, we ought to be happy that the years are ticking by faster. Each day is one day, closer to God!

Here too, our prosperity and creature comforts have mislead us into a love of this world that is unhealthy. A friend of the world is an enemy to God (James 4:4). We are distracted and too easily dismiss that this world is passing away. The fact is, we are going to die. Only a proper longing for heaven can correct the absurdity that an obsessional love for this world establishes in our soul.

Meditate on heaven often! Read the scriptures, such as Revelation 1, & 4-5, 20-21. Ask for a deeper longing from God.

Pope Leo commends the Glorious mysteries of the rosary to our attention as a medicine for this absurd attachment to this passing world and our forgetfulness of heaven:

These mysteries are the means by which, in the soul of a Christian, a most clear light is shed upon the good things, hidden to sense, but visible to faith, “which God has prepared for those who love Him.” From them we learn that death is not an annihilation which ends all things, but merely a migration and passage from life to life. By them we are taught that the path to Heaven lies open to all men, and as we behold Christ ascending thither, we recall the sweet words of His promise, “I go to prepare a place for you.” By them we are reminded that a time will come when “God will wipe away every tear from our eyes,” and that “neither mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow, shall be any more,” and that “We shall be always with the Lord,” and “like to the Lord, for we shall see Him as He is,” and “drink of the torrent of His delight,” as “fellow-citizens of the saints,” in the blessed companionship of our glorious Queen and Mother. Dwelling upon such a prospect, our hearts are kindled with desire, and we exclaim, in the words of a great saint, “How vile grows the earth when I look up to heaven!” Then, too, shall we feel the solace of the assurance “that this momentary and light affliction produces for us an eternal weight of glory beyond measure, exceedingly ” (2 Cor. iv., 17).

Here then are three diagnoses, and three remedies. It is interesting to see that the roots of them were already evident in 1893 and how they have come further to press upon us more than 100 years later. It is helpful to have a Doctor of Souls to help us name the demons that afflict us. For having named a demon, we have more power over it and learn its moves:

Demon, your name is “laziness” and “distaste” for hard work. By the joyful mysteries of the Lord’s Life, be gone.

Demon your name “refusal of any suffering” and an “resentment at the cross.” By the sorrowful mysteries of our Lord’s life, be gone.

Demon your name is “forgetfulness of heaven” and “obsession with the passing world.” By the glorious mysteries of Lord’s life and our Lady’s too, be gone.



Source: Archdiocese Of Washington

Please post your comments.

Why Catholics Leave The Church

This is a recent study and some comments from two different perspectives. By Msgr. Charles Pope

Concern over the numbers of those who leave the Catholic Church, and those who have simply stopped practicing any faith, has been a consistent discussion on this blog. I recently came across an article by Fr. Thomas Reese SJ. who cites some recent Pew Survey results on why Catholics leave. I will admit that I do not share a lot of Fr. Reese’s views of the Church. Nevertheless, the data he shares is good and, while I do not agree with some of his conclusions, his article is thought provoking.

I will provide excerpts here. You can read his full article here: Hidden Exodus.

Of those who leave the Church, half simply stop practicing any faith. Forty percent go to Protestant denominations and 10 percent to non-Christian religions. Reese focuses his article on those who go to Protestant denominations. His remarks are in bold, italic black, my remarks are in plain text red.

The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge. To be fair, that is because the Church is huge. There are over 70 million (at least nominal Catholics) and that number is still growing (due mostly to immigration) Even a small percentage of that number is large. Also, to be fair, Protestant, even Evangelical denominations also loose a large number of adherents, close in percentage to the Catholic experience. That said, it still remains that an alarming number of Catholics are leaving the Church.

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.

Agreed. This has not been enough on the radar at the USCCB. Here in the Archdiocese Washington we have recently become more serious about the problem and doing some pretty significant things to focus anew on keeping Catholics connected and evangelizing. But at the national level there does seem to be an eerie silence as hundred of Catholic parishes are being closed, Catholic schools likewise. Where is the reflection, study and teaching on this matter. What is the plan to re-engage the Catholic faithful and get them to return to Mass. How have we let weekly Mass attendance slip to 27%, according to recent CARA studies.

Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant.

Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant?

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent).

Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.

In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.

Yes, regarding our “worship service” (aka the Mass), I must say that the key point is not that it is or is not traditional or contemporary. The key point seems to be that Catholic liturgy generally seems sleepy. Sermons are short, often uninspired, filled with generalities and abstractions, and generally do seem to teach the Scripture effectively. Liturgies are often hurried, people do not seem all that happy, and generally seem relived when it is all over. Sometimes, in a typical Catholic Parish, it looks like every one just sucked a lemon. Frowns and distractions are common. One might conclude that a funeral was being celebrated more than a risen Lord, that the Church was a widow, rather than a bride.

It is interesting that, having served in African American Parishes most of my priesthood where liturgies are quite spirited, the most common remark that visitors make is, “Is this a Catholic Church?” To be sure we follow the rubrical norms exactly, it is the enthusiasm to which they refer. What does this say of the average parish?

And these remarks are not targeted at traditional liturgy which I also love. I have been to plenty of traditional Masses where people were awake and joyful. I’ve also been to contemporary masses where musicians et al. thought they we being relevant and behold, the congregation is sleepy and bored. And vice versa.

People, at least a lot of those who leave, really are hungry for a liturgy that is more vital and engaging. They are also hungry to be taught the Word of God. At least for those who leave for Protestant denominations, the “Say it in Seven” “Thought for the Day” Catholic approach to preaching does not nourish them or meet their spiritual needs. Perhaps one Mass in a parish could be tailored to those who are seeking a more substantial homily and are not insistent with being out in under an hour.

Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines…..

People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.

[A]lmost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.

Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism.

Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service.

But….a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent)….

They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving.

Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough.

Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.

Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results.

For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings…..

Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving.

Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.

Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent).

Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.

What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.

Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching.

Lessons from the data

There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.

First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.

Well, OK Father, but if the wording of Mass is no big deal with people, as you suggest, then you shouldn’t mind so much that we’re doing this. Frankly I agree, the issue of the translation is rather beside the point in this whole discussion of why people leave and go to Protestant denominations. Why one of only three points that Fr. Reese chooses to focus on is this, seems puzzling, given the premise that “no one cares” how consubstantialem is translated.

I don’t think anyone has said that we should change the translation to gain new members or staunch the flow of leaving members. Rather, the new translation is necessary since the old one is just plain wrong. It is a paraphrase at best, and inaccurate at worse. It makes sense that we should have a translation that is accurate.

But that is a separate issue in this matter of those who leave and not, as Fr. admits, a major factor in why people leave. So why raise it?

As for “creativity” I’d like to know more what Fr. means here. Frankly, a lot of “creativity” has irked the faithful and has, in fact driven some away. If, he means that we should allow permissible creativity to thrive and do perhaps a little niche marketing, perhaps so. I do have people come from all over the area for the experience of African American Liturgy we have. I also have them come from all over the area for the Traditional Latin Mass I celebrate. We get especially good crowds there when we done polyphonic or symphonic masses. Perhaps too I’d like to see more use of Taize music. I’m not a big fan of “folk” music but some like it, and it’s allowed. Then of course masses in various languages etc. At some level of course we risk a balkanization, but for now, I’m OK with allowing diversity to flourish.

Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible. The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.

Agreed, as I stated above. I would only add, that another big feature of Protestant denominations is the weekly (usually Wednesday) Bible Study. Every Catholic parish should have good, effective bible study available. But please, less of this unguided bible study in the parish hall. If Bible Study is going to be effective, well trained clergy, religious and lay people have to teach it. Perhaps this means that regional Bible studies in which a number of parishes come together. But effective teachers are the key. Just handing out books and having small groups grope through the material is not effective. In my own parish I lead a bible study ever Wednesday Evening and it is usually well attended. People are hungry for the Word of God. It is a lot of work, but THIS is what I was ordained to do.

Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists. Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.

But, careful here. Many young people I have met are hungry for liturgy that is more authentically Catholic. Trendy, ephemeral things are less desired among the young than in decades past. I am amazed at how many young adults are interested in Eucharistic adoration, and want vigorous study of the faith and solid moral instruction rooted in Scripture and the Catechism. A surprising number of them attend the Traditional Latin Mass and I get a lot of wedding request in that form.

As for religious education programs and teen clubs being currently ineffective, I surely agree. I just wish I had some clear ideas of how to better teach the faith to young people. It’s tough when so many of their families are lukewarm. Nothing is a better indicator to me that a kid is going to know his faith than that his parents are strongly practicing their faith. The family component is obviously a critical factor. Surely we have to do a better job at the parish level, but the family too must be recalled as the chief influence on whether a kid will know his faith and stay connected through the 20s.

The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.

Agreed, though it needs to be said that many are also coming TO the Catholic Church and we have a lot to learn from them about what we are doing right. There is also the truth that Evangelical Protestantism is not as strong and vigorous as we often think. They too are struggling to keep members and suffer from the tendency to reinvent themselves every 90 days. We’re getting some wonderful converts from the ranks of the Evangelicals and they bring many gifts.

Further, I think it is unmistakable that the Lord is purifying and reforming the Church. And I see a lot of this happening in the best place: among young adults. While it is true that we have on-going concerns about numbers, I also see the Lord laying the groundwork for a Church that may be smaller, but also more intense and more rooted in the faith. We shall see, but I am excited by what I see in many places even as the overall numbers continue to cause concern.

Here is an example of Protestant Preaching. Adrian Rogers (RIP), one of my favorite Baptist preachers, is commenting on the verse that man shall cling to his wife… The preaching is direct, sincere, uncompromisingly biblical and practical. There is nothing of abstract generalities here, rather, it is practical and plainspoken.



Source: Archdiocese Of Washington

Related posts:

Why Evangelicals Are Returning To Rome

Pentecostals Winning The Believers

Dr. Thomas Howard's Testimony

Alex Jones' Testimony

Drake and Crystal McCalister's Testimony

Dr Scott Hahn

Pope examines Why Latin American Catholics Join Evangelical Churches

Please post your comments.