Why did you leave the Catholic Church?



I am asking this question to those who were members of the Catholic Church and then left - either to join another Church or to stop being religious altogether.

The question is:

What was the reason that you left the Catholic Church?

Where did you go?

Why did you chose where you went?


I grew up and realized that I didn’t have faith, and quite possibly lack even the capacity for it. I’d just been doing what I was told for the longest time. I tried generic theism for a while, but it only lasted as long as it took for the remaining shreds of what I’d thought was faith to disintegrate – I moved from pantheism to panentheism to straight-up agnosticism. It’s the only stance on the matter that makes sense to me.


I left because Mass was over, and everybody else was leaving.

Where did you go?

I went to Barnes & Noble.

Why did you chose where you went?

Barnes & Noble has nice, comfy chairs.:smiley:


:smiley: You owe me a keyboard…I just spewed coke all over it :stuck_out_tongue:



People shouldn’t drink and type.:stuck_out_tongue:


So, what are the things that make sense to you right now, Mirdath?


Lots, but specific to this topic the idea that the divine is unknowable to humans :wink:


First, have you looked into the history to see if there was a real Jesus?


What if the divine chooses to be known?


Well, I was sitting in mass one time when I was 13 or 14 and watching the people sit, stand, kneel together, mouth the words of all the prayers etc. Two things struck me about this:
[list]*]besides the size of the audience, what was the difference between what I was observing and what you typically see around groups involved in subtle brainwashing and cult-like behavior and *]why did I believe?[/list]

I have never quite figured out the answer to the first question, there are both differences and similarities. However, I realized I only believed because my parents and family told me that Catholicism was true from the time I was a small child. Unfortunately, I could not take their word on the subject because they were also raised Catholic and believed for the same reasons I did. This lead me on a long (and likely unending) quest to understand religion and religious beliefs, starting with my own.

I became a generic theist for a while, then a deist and finally now an atheist. That seems to be a pretty common transition for someone born into a religious family, there is a period of transition where you must shed yourself of past superstitions and habits.

I did not chose. Given what I have observed in life, what I have learned through my studies, I would have a difficult time being anything but an atheist.


Yeah, but what kind of atheist? Do you believe that the only reality is one presently acknowledged by modern Western science? Do you consider it a possibility that modern Western science has not discovered all aspects of reality? Why do religious people believe in something that does not exist – who started this whole, brain-washing process to begin with?


Weak atheist. I see no evidence for a god, therefore, I do not believe in one.

I do not quite understand what you mean by ‘reality’. Is it what we can see and understand using science? If so, I will point out that science only deals with the natural world and not the supernatural one. Science may eventually discover all the answers in the natural world, but it can never prove or disprove the existence of gods, so I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

Do you want a name? :wink: I suggest that you start studying religions, by doing so you can find lots of people that have started their own religions that have millions of followers. Joseph Smith comes to mind as one in recent times.

Many people believe in things that are not true or do not exist, strength of numbers does not equate to validity of belief.


Do you believe a supernatural world exists? Do you have personal experience of this supernatural world? Do you believe that, even though science cannot address this supernatural world, that the supernatural world can indeed make itself known to humans?


What is it to believe if it doesn’t need faith?


No and no.

Depends on the supernatural world you believe in. Most people seem to believe in one that can.


Pardon? Are you asking why someone should believe in god without faith? I would think that if our place in the afterlife is determined by how nicely we follow the rules and believe, then the least a god could do is give evidence that does not require faith. :wink:

If you are asking what beliefs do not require faith, then I can point to a number of scientific theories. In that case, anyone can do the same experiments, observe the same reactions and reach the same conclusions, regardless of where they live. In that case, I would think that faith (i.e. belief without evidence) is not required.


Everybody in Hell never believed there was a Hell.


There are so many miracles - that is one of the evidences. Let me share you a real story at my church. One night, a young man showed up at our Praise and Worship group. He came to ask us to pray for his newborn baby - who was less than a month old. She had all sort of problem and at the ICU. The doctor did not believe she would have any chance to live. She had lung problem, heart problem, brain problem and some DNA problem. It was just matter of day for her to pass away. There was no hope.

The gentleman asked us to pray for him and her, and so we did. One week later, he came back to tell us that her daughter was home now, and the doctor could not find anything wrong with her. There were three nurses at the hospital asking the gentleman what he had been praying. He handed them the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

The above is just one of many many miracles that science cannot explain, but we believe that our prayers were heard.

I was referring to religion belief as we’ve been discussing.

If someday you bring me a calf coming from nowhere, then I would believe there is no God. Make sure not to bring a magician though. :smiley:


This is where we differ. I agree that science cannot explain everything yet, and it may never be able to. However, I would not call this a miracle. Perhaps the doctors made a mistake with the diagnosis? They are only human after all.

Millions of babies are born each year with similar conditions, and the vast majority die. However, a very few with access to the best medical care and a very strong will for survival will live. From a simple statistics point of view, if a million babies are born with the odds of survival at 10 000:1, then about 100 of those would survive. I would not credit the survival of those 100 to a miracle anymore than I would credit the death of the other 999 900 to a miracle.


(sorry things got a little ahead of me… I just slept for twelve hours, it’s been a long week :smiley: )

I think it’s quite likely that there was a man named variously Yeshua, Jesus, or Immanuel in first century Judea who claimed to be the Messiah, gathered a small following, came up with a moral philosophy I greatly admire, and was put to death by the Sanhedrin. I am not 100% sure, not having been around to see any of it; but I’m not about to accuse Josephus or Tacitus of being bad historians! :wink:

However, the Gospel accounts are at their most reliable simply overblown and at their worst outright mythical. And for all his preaching, traveling, and fame as recorded there, there’s very little mention of the Christ outside the Gospels and the books that didn’t make the cut for the New Testament.

Since I see no reason not to admit to an historical Jesus, C. S. Lewis offers me three choices in his trilemma: lunatic, liar, or Lord. The first one I see as a possibility. The second conflicts with his philosophy of morals, unless he believed the lie justified in order to get people to follow it – making him a lunatic. The third, obviously, I do not believe. So what’s left?

The trilemma is incomplete. Lewis ignores the possibility that there was a very real, sane, truthful preacher of morals from Galilee who never claimed to be anything more than human but was deified after his martyrdom.

(Also, given this and other topics you seem interested in, I have to recommend The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov to you, in case you haven’t read it yet :slight_smile: )

[quote=Randy Carson]What if the divine chooses to be known?

Then that’s great for the person to whom it has been revealed, but it’s still just as opaque to everyone else. If God touches someone directly, that person has no choice but to admit to God’s existence – but those who remain untouched in such a way have no ability to ‘see’.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.