I have some questions for Catholics who have abandoned their faith to live a secular life and then returned to The Church at a later time:

* Was there any pivotal event that happened to make you leave The Church?

* How long did you stay away?

* Was there any pivotal event that happened to make you return to The Church?

In my own case, there was no one event that made me leave. I spent about five years wrestling with “inner demons” while in my late teens and early twenties. I was a late dater who didn’t date until I was 17 years old and already in college. Most dates were “first dates” or “second dates” because it seemed that all the men (no matter how nice they seemed) insisted on intimacy while dating and I was bound and determined stay a virgin until marriage. Most men never phoned me again after they found out my moral beliefs, even though oddly enough most of them admitted to coming from “Christian” or even Catholic homes.

So after five years of fighting men off and spending sleepless nights agonizing about morality, I decided to give in to their demands because I truly felt that this was the way all men were. And the only way I could try to feel “comfortable” with my change in lifestyle was to avoid The Church so I wouldn’t have to be reminded of my guilt. While living the secular life, I really had no guilt after getting into it for a few years because I didn’t have to answer to anyone but myself. I had made myself into a “god”, so to speak. If it felt good to me and I wasn’t hurting anyone, it was okay. I rationalized my point of view by thinking “Well, life in the 1970s is radically different from life during the biblical days, so I’m sure God would try to understand if I were tempted to (fill in with the sin of your choice). College-aged people were always telling me, “Today’s morals are different”. But looking back on it, I wish someone had told me--or reminded me--that God never changes; it is only the society around us that changes. Even though society might go through immoral times (which are much worse now than when I was young), God always remains constant. I stayed away from The Church for about 25 years.

When I hit my forties, I started hating the person I had become, especially all my cynicism involving men and their motives. I even had a few fantasies about what it would be like to return to The Catholic Church. But for some reason, I just felt that I had gone too far down the wrong path and it would be impossible to change. So when I married my Hindu husband in a civil ceremony, I really didn’t think I would ever have the guts to go back to my religion.

Maybe it was when we moved to “Sin City” (Las Vegas) and I saw all the sleaziness in the area (numerous topless clubs, adult magazines on every corner, etc.), it made me think about my lifestyle before I got married. I asked myself if my old lifestyle was any less sleazy than some of the sleaze I saw around me. Even though by this time I was living a very clean married life, sometimes it made me ill when I thought of my previous relationships with men and how each of those relationships had progressively hardened me until there was almost nothing left of the real me. Until I met my husband, I was eyeing most men with a lot of suspicion and distain because I felt that most of them were only out to use me, dump me (never marry me), and then move on to the next woman who would submit.

So about six years ago, I gathered up some strength and met with a kind, grandfatherly priest. I had a good confession and emptied out all the garbage that had been burdening me for more than two decades, and I have been faithful to The Church ever since.

-- Patience (nospam@idelete.it), February 27, 2005

Answers

Please "bump" (I hope I did this correctly)!

--Patience

-- Bumpity (bumppmub@bumpmail.com), February 27, 2005.

So basically you returned to the church because you were insecure about the things that you had done in your earlier life?

If God never changes, then why are the things that were preached 2000 years ago no-where near the same as what they are now ?

It's all a matter of being confused and not understanding the world.

Some people can't just accept the fact that you are just a machine.

Let it go. There is nothing else, when you die, you will die.

I'm sorry if this offends you but it's called Practicality.

Tom Dootson.

If there's any problems, just e-mail me.

if for some reason i get my post deleted, all hail freedom of speach.

-- Tom Dootson (tojado@gmail.com), February 28, 2005.

If God never changes, then why are the things that were preached 2000 years ago no-where near the same as what they are now?

You are wrong, Mr. Dootson. The "things that were preached 2000 years ago" are often EXACTLY "the same as what they are now." Don't believe me? Read the works of the Early Church Fathers.

In some cases, what was preached long ago has simply been adapted to meet changing circumstances (for example, to determine whether or not cloning and "the pill" and cheating on income taxes are immoral).

May God reward you, Patience.

-- (KGreene@eireworld.com), February 28, 2005.

Some people can't just accept the fact that you are just a machine.

you know, i think tom is right, we are all just machines... no ability whatsoever to control our desires and whatnot, just have to respond to every impulse. no self control, no moral accountability. everyone, we've got to release all the prisoners from jail, they're just machines and aren't accountable for their actions. the rapists, the killers, the theifs, and pedophiles... they're all doing their machine job according to the ever educated tom. we are all enlightened as to how wrong we were to assume that man has the ability to rise above our weak impulses. thank you tom.

seriously though, moral relativity? determinism? intro to philosophy would show you how wrong you are. why is it that every person who comes here with an agenda assumes instantly that they are smarter and more educated than anyone else?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), February 28, 2005.

YES!MASTER!

-- james (jameshow@hotmail.com), February 28, 2005.

I think the person, paul i believe it was, needs to calm down just a little.

What are you so protective over?

Anyway, my point, when i was refering to us as machines, i wasn't implying that we were all the same coming off of a batch line, nor was i suggesting none of us have personality, which you, being your very educated self, decided to come and take out of context. I was merely refering to the fact that we all come, we live and then we die.

Are you afraid of that? Is that why you have just become so defensive?

In your next response, please remember that you are no lower or higher than anyone else on here. You're just a human.

-- Tom Dootson (tojado@gmail.com), March 02, 2005.

Tom,

Even if it wasn't your intent, calling us "machines" definitely doesn't invoke the idea of each person having a different personality. Machines do not have different personalities, so why would one figure that you calling humans "machines" would include each of us having a personality?

Tim Kirschenheiter

-- Tim K. (tk4386@juno.com), March 02, 2005.

I left the Church as a young adult for 20+ years because I felt I knew it all. Atheism was in vogue and it was easy.

Nothing pivotal brought me back. I just realized I missed it, and quitting it was mostly the result of selfish intellectual overcomfidence.

I don't have any rational reasons for my return. All I can say is, "it was the best thing for me to do." I stay away from proofs, and reason with regard to religious belief. For me, Faith is something different. I'm doing the best I can with it (which I've discovered is never enough.)

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 02, 2005.

So basically you returned to the church because you were insecure about the things that you had done in your earlier life?

I never left the Chruch, but hey, i'm not Catholci either,nonetheless... If God never changes, then why are the things that were preached 2000 years ago no-where near the same as what they are now ?

Sort of Vauge...

However, nothikgn has relaly changed in what was and is preached, the basic mroality remaisn the same and the theoloy remaisn the same.

So not rellay seeing a poitn here...

Can you prove things have changed?

It's all a matter of being confused and not understanding the world.

I doubt that. im not confused and udnerstand this world quiet well.

Some people can't just accept the fact that you are just a machine.

I can't accep it because I knwo its not true. we are more tan the sum of our parts...

Let it go. There is nothing else, when you die, you will die.

1: let what go?

2: I'm sorry, but this sin true either. ot everyone who beelives in an afterlife do so for comfort. I beleive as I hav seen rather clear indicaitosn that ti is true.

when I grew up, "Soul Sleep" was a common theological position for most of my ealry peers, they where taught that when you die, you die, and are ressurected by God. I knwo you discount the ressurectiion, buy ou do NOT discount the "when you die you die" bit.

But I dobt you have any evidence, whereas NDE's, as well as other experemental Data, actually have been collected in recent years.

I'm sorry if this offends you but it's called Practicality.

No its not.

Its called Annihilism and Post-odernism.

Practicllity demands you not waste time on an internet discussion board dedicated to Cathlisism and insist that you are right.

It's like saying its practical to leap into swamp and wrestle an alegator ebcauswe you hate Alegators and fear oen will eat you...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 02, 2005.

yes, but i don't hate catholics...or aligators...

-- Tom Dootson (tojado@gmail.com), March 06, 2005.

I iddnt say you hated Catholics, however, you arent beign practical.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 06, 2005.

Tom,

No, I think you misunderstood some of what I said in my post. You said that I had returned to the Church because I was “insecure” about the things I had done earlier in my life. Actually, insecurity was the reason why I *left* the church—I felt insecure about being a highly moral young woman. I ended up “selling out” and debasing myself into a modern anything-goes woman because it was easier to do that than to defend my values to men.

Then you said, “If God never changes, then why are the things that were preached 2000 years ago no-where near the same as what they are now?” Well even if different brands of Christianity interpret Biblical verse differently, that doesn’t disprove God’s constancy in what he expects of us. I think the post by “KGreene” summed it up well in relation to the Early Church Fathers.

You said, “Some people can't just accept the fact that you are just a machine.” Huh? Humans were created by God to have dominion over the animals; that means we are supposed to act morally, not out of basic instincts. I hate to sound crude, but if two dogs want to “do it”, they just do it! There’s no intellectual or moral process there—they simply do what comes natural to them as animals. I feel pretty confident that God didn’t create us to act like “machines”, robots, dogs, or anything else other than humans who follow His laws!

You said, “Let it go. There is nothing else, when you die, you will die. I'm sorry if this offends you but it's called Practicality.” No, I'm not offended, in fact, I'm chuckling right now. I don’t know what this point of view has to do with practicality. Obviously, it’s practical for you in your viewpoint, which seems (correct me if I’m wrong) halfway between secular and atheistic. I think the biggest attraction of secularism is that each person has no one to answer to except for himself. While I agree that this point of view would make life a lot easier, it just doesn’t make any sense to me. And I just can’t believe that there is no spiritual life waiting for me after I die. That would make everyone’s life, as well as Jesus’ death on the cross, meaningless.

Yes, it’s true what you said in a post to someone else, that we are all just humans. But isn’t that the point? We *are* just humans, and God is above all of us. He is the Creator, and as such, He has the right to make up the rules that we should follow in our lives. We have no right to substitute our own laws over His laws.

Tom, while I respect your right to freedom of speech, I’m sorry, but you didn’t convince me that God doesn’t exist, His laws don’t matter, and we are alive for absolutely no reason. You sound a bit like a “Rebel Without A Cause”.

-- Patience (nospam@idelete.it), March 07, 2005.

"While I agree that this point of view would make life a lot easier, it just doesn’t make any sense to me. And I just can’t believe that there is no spiritual life waiting for me after I die. That would make everyone’s life, as well as Jesus’ death on the cross, meaningless. "

But didn't this just stem from the fact that you were raised as a catholic?

I mean let's be realistic here, the majority of people who are in a faith, have been in that faith from childhood, because their parents raise them that way, be that catholics, judaists, muslim's, etc.

the point i'm trying to make, a religion is usually there because of other people influencing you to believe what they believe.

You have chosen a religion to believe, yet there must be 100,000 other versions of religion out there, how do you know that you've made the right choice? You don't. You're presuming that yours is the right one because of being raised that way. That's going back to basic human instincts.

-- Tom Dootson (tojado@gmail.com), March 07, 2005.

Yet, clinical studies shwo religiosu peopel are happier, more prodictive in work, tend to lead more stable lives, ad have fewer health problems.

Havign direction, moral codes, and a framework to live oens life by ( Not t be confused wihthte other oft-toted claim of closng oens midn and fllowign blidnly) is beenficial, and peoel do much beter with clear boundaries.

I beelive all rlegions contan some truth. I do nto ebliv ein universalism, before my detractors coem antd attakc me on this, but if they wherent true to some degree, then observaiton alone woidl yeild evidence of this.

The morals contained within religion, and the ability to lead a better life and thus effect pesonal transfomaiton and lead a rinciled existance, tyeildsobvious benefit, and is suggested for everyone.

Cliniclaly speaking, we ar spiritual beigns and need to develop that aspect of ourselves.

so why complain, Tom, unless you seek attention?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 07, 2005.

Tom

I was raised Catholic, and drifted away. I will admit that had I not been raised Catholic and drifted away from some other religion, (if I returned) I probably would have returned to what ever religion I was raised in. However, I didn't return to my Catholic faith simply "because" I was raised Catholic. I could have remained an atheist. For me it was a choice---return to faith or stay an atheist.

I actually find "faith" and "belief" more difficult than being atheistic. My agnostic/atheistic orientaion, (I drifted between the two) was quite easy to reconcile because I found it to be "rational" and that was a requirement for me at that time. It was intellectually easier for me to be an atheist. I know that's an appalling notion to many here, but thats how it was for me. I think faith comes easier to some than others. Unfortunately, I'm in the "faith is difficult" group.

For me, faith is something you have to "want" to have. I wanted it again. If thats the case, you take the Kierkegaardian "leap." I think you are probably closer to being right in thinking that one is "more likely" to return to a faith they were raised in as opposed to some "other" faith.

As one who was raised Catholic it would seem irrational to for me to return to a faith--- such as a Baptist, Methodist, or some other Protestant denomination (unless I lost a few marbles and somehow came under the spell of some "Svengali" type.)

I returned on my own terms, and since I was going to take the "leap," Catholicism was the only way to go. Anything else would seem foreign and incomplete to me.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), March 07, 2005.