Debate: Why do Catholics lapse?

“I firmly believe we need the grace of a “New Pentecost” in our Church.”

## We had one of them, thanks to John XXIII – the result has been rather dodgy, to put it no more strongly

“Blessed John Paul II pointed out that many Catholics are “sacramentalized” but not “evangelized”.”

## All too true.

“Liberal Catholics have merely caught up with the XVI century Protestant revolutionaries…”

## This certainly doesn’t apply to all Catholics referred to as “liberal” – liberalism is in any case a relative term, without an an absolute meaning that is accurate (or even identical) in all historical contexts. It’s the kind of word, like “Protestant”, that Catholics (& not only they) often use inaccurately, as an insult.

“There were no Catholics leaving the Church before the Council, so that kind of blows your argument clean out of the water.”

## That is not the case. France is in a dire state now  – it was in a very bad state even in the 1950s. 

This is very informative: siena.org/December-2010/an-old-old-question-is-france-pagan

“The worker-priest experiment began because of a 1940 book by an obscure French priest,
Abbe Henri Grodin, called “France: A Mission Field?’ and published in English by Maisie Ward, of Sheed and Ward, under the title “France Pagan? in 1943. (I own a copy of the Sheed book. It certainly gives one perspective on our situation 70 years later.)”

## I too have a copy of the book. One of the reasons that Mgr. Ketteler of Mainz urged Leo XIII to write “Rerum Novarum” was that the working class was being lost to the Church. And that was before 1891.

Lack of Faith is the primary cause of lapsation not laziness
or children’s extra-curricular activities, not even Vatican II. To be a
practising and devout Catholic first and foremost requires Faith, which is a
gift of God. Baptism makes you a Christian and it confers the seeds of Faith in
the infant so what happens then when this gift is not treasured, not nourished
or even valued? Does it die or just go into
abeyance? To cut a long story short
I entered a Religious order at 16. At 17 I was sent to Rome to study
Philosophy. I was, I suppose a bit of a late developer perhaps assisted by the
rural setting of the novitiate but things were different in the midst of
Eternal City as I became acquainted with sexual desire. Naively I imagined that
I was the only one to be troubled in this way and felt as I couldn’t conquer
this appetite I couldn’t continue. When I look at the behaviour of clergy of
late I realise how naive I was. Obedience also was a problem and the thought of
never being able to be my own boss or to ‘know’ a woman made me seek a
dispensation to leave the order when the 2nd year was up.

Returning to the ‘world’ was traumatic; I was like a fish out of water and had
no idea what I was going to do never having thought about it before. My
education was incomplete leaving me unqualified. My parents were naturally
disappointed though they tried to hide it and I got the impression that the
local clergy and my fellow parishioners thought I had sort of let them down (I
was probably wrong about this). I became angry and frustrated. A priest had
warned me just before I left that ‘the apple on the other side of the fence
always looks rosier’ and how right he was. The only way I can describe how I
felt is that it must have been how Adam felt looking back at the Seraphim
guarding the entrance to Eden after he and Eve had been expelled after the
fall. It was a few years later that I lapsed although in truth I only carried
on going to Mass during that time to avoid rows with my mother.

I am in my sixties now and I lapsed just about the time the Council was taking
place, nothing had changed in the Church then and I never expected it to, so I
cannot lay the blame there. I got a job, tried to satisfy the prurient
curiosities I had had during my 2 years as a Religious, not very successfully,
I might add. Some years later when my situation had stabilised I met a girl. We
courted for several years but I knew almost straight away that I would not be
able to live without her. The problem was she was a Protestant and an unbaptised
one at that. Despite the problems with parents we married in a Registry Office
as we both felt it would have been hypocritical to make use of a Church, hers
or mine, as neither of us had attended for years. We are still together after
nearly 40 years without any lapses in fidelity.

When we had children, however, Religion raised its head again. I  wanted
my children to have a religious upbringing as i had had and not a Protestant
one. When I went to Catholic Churches I was appalled at what was going on there.
The beautiful, noble Tridentine liturgy, which I had loved passionately, had
been swept away, replaced by a happy-clappy, Protestant Holy Communion Service,
the sort of thing I used to tease my wife about. I studied the documents
of Vatican II in detail. I read descriptions of the conduct of the Council by
writers of all persuasions and was not impressed to say the least. I had tried
several Churches but such was my revulsion at what I saw in the sanctuary and
heard from the pulpit that I abandoned the idea of ever returning.

Then I discovered an Anglican Church, which advertised Solemn Mass, Evensong,
Benediction and even Confession. The liturgy was Novus Ordo but celebrated with
such baroque solemnity and dignity that it somehow obscured the banality of the
new Roman Missal. For months I pored over the history of the Reformation, post
Elizabethan theologians, the Caroline Divines, Anglican Orders and Apostolicae
Curae and in the end concluded that the Orders of the current C of E clergy
were probably valid owing to the change in the wording of the Ordinal in 1662
and the participation of Old Catholic Bishops in the 19th century; a
probability recognised by Pope John Paul II and the present Pope who have
authorised ordination, sub conditione, of former Anglican priests. Alas the
ordination of women put an end to my Anglican days and that of the Vicar with
whom I was on very good terms; he subsequently became a Catholic priest (again,
ordained sub conditione).

Since then I have attended the Tridentine Rite Mass a few times locally but as
the altar was makeshift, the servers in albs and trainers, the celebrant was
unenthusiastic, in favour of women priests and one of his sermons was a
Powerpoint presentation, I despaired of ever returning to the Church of my
Baptism. I flirted with the SSPX and although it brought back old memories I
felt that I would be simply moving from one sect to another and anyway my
current state of being excommunicated would be a bit of a stumbling block to
say the least.

So in conclusion I would say that my lapsation was due to rebelliousness and
not having a strong enough Faith to overcome the lure of the Devil, the World
and the Flesh in my younger days. Laziness, certainly not, I took my children
to ‘Mass’, Evensong and Benediction Sunday after Sunday and Holy Days without
fail, hail rain or snow until they left home. Never did their extra-curricular
activities interfere with their Church-going.  I have to say that although
Vatican II was not the cause of me abandoning the Church but it played an
enormous part in my continued separation from the Church. Apart from my marital
impediment which it may be possible to resolve without twisting my wife’s arm
to be baptised against her will which I refuse to do, Vatican II is the main reason
which makes me baulk at reconciliation.

I have tried to be as reticent as I can about matters of the Flesh but they did
and do play a part in my history so sorry if I have offended anyone.

 Thank you for your gracious reply I am very grateful and I am sorry to have offended you by referring to the SSPX as a sect. I have the greatest respect for the Society and for its founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a most saintly man if ever there was one.  Among the books I read was Fr Ralph Wiltgern’s, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber. The author declares he holds no brief for either side and if this is true his record of the treatment of the Coetus Patrum Internationalis of which the Mgr was a founder, is a shocking indictment of the lack of charity displayed by those with a Modernist agenda within the Council but also brings shame upon Popes, John XXIII and Paul VI for the tacit encouragement the modernists received from them . One can say without doubt that this Council would never have been summoned by Pius XII and even if it had, he never would have ratified it. In fact he would never have allowed it to fall into the hands of the Modernists which his successors did despite their oath to the contrary.
Despite my respect for John Paul II and Benedict XVI, I feel that if they were truly honest they would have openly repudiated the reforms of Vatican II, a simple matter as it was not a dogmatic Council as it’s predecessor had been and could not, nor did not overturn any previously promulgated doctrine of any Pope or Council. Instead they have chosen to pay lip service to the Council whilst surreptitiously supressing the excesses brought about by its reforms in a disjointed and piecemeal fashion.
The lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX Bishops is an example. In fact it calls into question the very meaning of excommunication. Mgr Lefebvre died excommunicate because he ordained bishops without the permission of the Holy See, contrary to Canon Law. The bishops he ordained were subjected to the same excommunication yet it has been lifted. Are we to understand that whilst Mgr Lefebvre has been officially consigned to the fires of hell, alongside the likes of Savonarola, Huss and Luther yet those complicit in his ‘act of disobedience’ have been reprieved because they happened to outlive him?
I am afraid I cannot subscribe to this and it is the essence of the very crisis the Church finds itself in today. Whether to continue as a pseudo-catholic church under the nominal leadership of the Pope but in fact a church whose members are as free as any protestant denomination to believe and do what they like with the complicity of their priests and bishops or to finally stand up and not say, ‘enough is enough’, but ‘we have gone far too far and must go back’.  For me it is whether to bow my head and humbly submit to a regime which I sincerely believe has destroyed the Church ‘which gave joy to my youth’, yet will stir up within me a festering resentment for the rest of my life or to opt for so-called schism where, with all due respect, EditorCT, I would, at the moment, not feel any more confident of salvation than I do now just trusting in the mercy of God. I do not, alas, have your strength of Faith. Quæro locum meum, et non inveniam.

Pusillus,

In that case you think that Christ has failed in His promise to be with His Church until the end of time: unthinkable.  You cannot take refuge in a (with respect) false humility that claims lack of “strength of faith” – if you wish to save your soul you must reflect urgently on the consistent teaching of the Church expounded even in the (new, of course!) post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church:  

“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council
teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the
one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his
body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith
and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church
which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved
who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through
Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in
it.”(# 846, Catechism of the Catholic Church)You are clearly intelligent and know the truth about the current crisis in the Church. You have no defence to give at your judgment.  You are allowing “principalities and powers” to keep you from seeking absolution and preparing yourself for death and judgment. My earlier advice stands. Please take it most seriously.

Emma, Very well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The fault is twofold.   Many bishops and priests are liberal and openly flaunt the tenants of the Catholic church with no one stepping forward to correct these wayward shepherds who are leading people astray. Borderline Catholics believe there is no right or wrong due to these liberal leaders so anything goes–it is cafeteria time.  Sin needs to be preached from the pulpit along with confession, repentence, and redemption.   But it isn’t happening in many parishes.   

The worship is just bad and the preaching non existent. If people do no find salvation within Catholicism they will move on. Everything else is just window dressing.
When the church fundamentally fails to serve the spiritual needs of the people they will leave.
- And they should leave. Asking people to stay in a spiritually dead church is ridiculous! 

Catherinemaxey,

You appear to be unaware of the very serious and rational reasons for male-only priesthood not to mention the divine authority which mandates this ruling, and, ironically, you join those”feminists” who belittle the true nature of womanhood.  I wonder if you also approve contraception and the woman’s “right to choose” to murder her unborn child (and now that the campaign for murdering the newborn is underway, the right to murder the newborn)?  Because that’s where this focus on women’s “rights” leads. If that person wants x, and that person is a woman, she has a right to x. The devil is behind this divisive feminist movement which has set women against men, and women against God.  The very title of your blog reveals the latter.  There ARE no “goddesses” – why would you believe such nonsense and yet reject the demonstrably true claim of the Catholic Church to be divinely authorised to teach in Christ’s name?  I say “demonstrably true” because despite all the human failings and sinfulness within the Church (by individuals – the Church cannot sin, the Church itself is holy) no pope has ever taught, as binding on the faithful, something we must believe, any error or heresy.  That was the promise of Christ and Christ has kept His promise.  Contrast that with crackpot stories of imaginary “goddesses” – no contest.

Priests who uphold male only priesthood when asking for prayers for vocations are not embarrassed because Christ, who instittued the male-only priesthood was not embarrassed nor was he rude by only inviting his apostles to the Last Supper where he ordained those first priests. We women have our own, centrally important but different – role in the Church and the world.  Feminists usually belittle motherwhood – interesting – but there wouldn’t be any priests without mothers.  When Pope Saint Pius X (I think – one of the great popes) was elected his mother knelt at his feet to kiss his ring.  He pulled her up and pointed to her wedding ring, making the point I’ve just made.  I won’t sue him for copyright infringement…

The fact is that you have not – with respect – actually returned to the Catholic Church at all. None of us can claim to be Catholics while dissenting from even one doctrine of the Church.  We cannot doubt God’s word that He has bequeathed His authority to teach, to His Church and that He will guide it until the end of time, keeping it free from teaching heresy.  Even if an individual pope fell into the error of women-priests, he could not make it binding on the faithful because the Holy Spirit would prevent him from so doing.  We cannot call God’s will “embarrassing” or “rude” – if we can’t understand it, then we humbly submit our intellect and will to His divine and holy wisdom, as did Our Lady when she did not understand how she could fulfil God’s plan for her to be the mother of the Messiah.  “I am the handmaid of the Lord, let it be done unto me, according to His word” should be the prayer on the lips of every one of us, Catherine.  Nothing less.  What, are we cleverer than Our Lady?  Was she a simpleton to be scorned? The Queen of Heaven and Earth? 

I urge you NOT to read the likes of the feminist Sister Joan Chittister and not to misread St John of the Cross, who would never condone dissent of any kind. He wrote – as many saints did – in a poetic manner to express his understanding and love of Christ, not to make political points.  You need to read them in their entirety, not take individual quotes given by people/feminist groups with dissenting agendas.

Instead of reading dissenting literature and pagan texts such as those you mention above, read the lives of the saints published before 1962 (since then, some have been reprinted to the Modernist agenda, so you will find e.g. a former Jesuit who wrote a Lives of the Saints where each saint’s life was doctored. St Thomas More, e.g. instead of giving up his life rather than deny papal authority, is presented as a hero who died for the rights of conscience. Avoid that sort of claptrap.)

You’ve returned to the physical buildings of the Church, Catherine – now you need to develop a Catholic soul, and truly Catholic sense in order to remove yourself from the diabolical influences in your life – feminism and goddess worship.

I am a lapsed Catholic who has made effort to get back into church but, boy, is it hard. Its more like trying to get into a secret society.

Upon moving to my old home in Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, after 7 yrs in London and 7 in France I contacted my local church, duly filled in the new parishioner form and ………waited.

No one contacted us. Anyway we attended a few masses and despite effort on our part we felt like lepers with everyone in closed groups and the principle focus seems to be on parents of children at the adjacent school. The rush to get out of the church at the end of mass nearly bowled us over. 

Eventually we gave up.

One final point. One day we visited the ancient Anglican Church to see its Catholic heritage. 

What a welcome!!! Everyone was really friendly even after they found out we were Catholics.

There are lessons to be learnt.

It’s totally self-inflicted by a feminized and infantile modern Church that no-one, even its own members, takes seriously anymore. 

 Go In Peace