Audio only:
In this episode, Trent reviews an article written by someone leaving Catholicism for a very poor reason.
Narrator:
Welcome to The Counsel of Trent Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Hey, everyone. Welcome to The Counsel of Trent Podcast. I’m your host, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker, Trent Horn. Today, I want to talk about an article I read a few months ago called Why I just quit the Catholic Church. Now, this was written back in May of 2022. I remember reading it back then thinking, oh man, I really want to talk about this. This just really stands out to me as a bad reason to leave the Catholic faith. But life happens. I sometimes come across all kinds of articles and videos, I want to talk about them here on the podcast, and life happens. I got a debate to prep for, or I’m traveling, or personal reasons not able to get to it.
But today I thought, you know what? I do want to talk about this. This is something that’s important. When I hear people say, “I’m leaving the Catholic faith,” I try really hard to be empathetic. I don’t always succeed in that. I’m a fallible human being. I can be unempathetic and fail in that regard, but I try and I think we all should try. If someone says, “I don’t want to be Catholic anymore,” and they give a reason, to try to understand where they’re coming from. I think there’s a big temptation, especially people who want to dramatically change church teaching and then say, “I’m mad that the church upholds traditional teaching, so I’m leaving.”
There’s this temptation to want to say, “Okay, don’t let the door hit you on the way out, buddy.” Now, on the one hand, I understand the sentiment behind that. I mean, think about St. Paul when you had the man who was engaged in incest with his stepmother in 1 Corinthians 5, and he said that he blamed the community for tolerating that behavior. He said the man needed to be handed over to Satan, that maybe would knock some sense into him. On the one hand, if you want someone to be… That’s why we have excommunication, right? It’s a medicinal punishment to help people see the gravity of their sins.
But I think a lot of times it’s more of a self-righteous thing like, “Ha ha, I’m the good Catholic. You’re the bad Catholic. See you later, buddy. Nobody needs you around here.” It lacks that sorrow of here’s the person who’s risking their immortal soul. If we engage in our spiritual pride, we risk our immortal souls like, oh, thank you, Lord, for not making me like that dissenter. It’s kind of like the tax collector and the Pharisee and the public in the temple. Thank you, Lord, I’m not like this lowly tax collector. I’m not like this lowly public. I do this great stuff. I do that great stuff. We all need mercy, especially those of us who think that we’ve got it all figured out.
We got it all figured out. A lot of times, no, we don’t. We’re always spiritually growing. I understand, but at the same time, usually that dismissive, “See you later. We don’t need you around here, and don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” it’s a self-righteous attitude, and it doesn’t properly mourn for this person who is risking their immortal soul. St. Paul himself in 1 Corinthians 9:27 says that he fights for his faith. He doesn’t shadowbox for fear that he himself might be disqualified. Those who’ve been given more, more will be expected. All of us, it is only by grace. The catechism says that even the saints realize that there are merits.
It uses the phrase pure grace, I believe. There are reasons, and I try to walk with people where they’re at, right? Because some reasons logically don’t make sense. I had a really bad experience with a priest at my parish, or even worse, I was the victim of clerical abuse. Now, if you just looked at it strictly logically, well, logically that doesn’t disprove the foundational teachings of the church, just one instance of abuse from someone. But you got to understand, their trust in Christ’s church, how it’d be shattered by someone they spiritually call a father, and just the injury and harm that comes upon that person and the trauma that they’re living with from that.
You can understand why. If you’re a Protestant listener, it’s like understanding why would somebody give up on God because they’ve gone through something terrible? Logically, even William Lane Craig will say this, that logically you can answer the problem of evil, but the personal problem of evil is a lot different. You look at C.S. Lewis, big difference between his book Problem of Pain, which is an academic treatment of the problem of evil, and A Grief Observed, which is him grappling with the death of his wife. It’s a lot more raw when you see there Lewis confronting the problem of evil in that regard.
Even keeping all this in perspective, I want to go through this article because I do think it is one of the worst reasons that I’ve come across, and I see people say this. This is from the San Francisco Chronicle. It’s a local op-ed in response to back in May when Archbishop Cordileone prohibited Nancy Pelosi from receiving communion because of her unrepentant and obstinate defense of legal abortion and are promoting of legal abortion through her position in Congress. That was back in May. Let’s go through the article here and bring this up. What’s the guy’s name again? Craig Lazzeretti.
Lazzeretti says, “With the archbishop of San Francisco’s announcement Friday that he was unilaterally banning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from receiving the sacrament of Holy Communion, I made a decision that had been building for a long time. I no longer consider myself a member of the Catholic Church.” Now, I guess he might say it’s not just this reason, there’s a lot of other reasons, but I bet the other reasons are probably similar to this one. “Those are painful words for me to write. I spent my youth as an altar boy deeply influenced by the priests and nuns I was with. I looked on in pride as my children received their First Communion.
I’ve attended more masses, listened to homilies than I can count in the past 40 plus years.” He goes on. “But if you’re Catholic, you know how deeply important the sacrament of Holy Communion is to all of us who consider ourselves sinners. It’s the climax of the Catholic Mass as the consecrated body and blood of Christ. To deny a Catholic this sacrament is to deny them the right to unite with Christ.” But here’s the problem, you can’t unite with Christ if you’ve already separated yourself from Christ through grave sin. In particular, a grave sin like scandal. If you’re scandalizing other people.
By being an elected representative who defends the legal killing of other human beings, you’ve separated yourself from Christ by engaging in these actions that are grossly disobedient to God’s will for you. The idea here to deny the sacrament, well, the Code of Canon Law makes it clear the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be given any Christian who is not prohibited by law. Someone can be prohibited from receiving the Eucharist, and that’s for their benefit, so they don’t eat and drink judgment upon themselves, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11. The problem is to be united with Christ, you have to remove grave sin or mortal sin, anything that is keeping you from Christ, including…
Even if you say, “Well, Nancy Pelosi has never committed abortion,” no, but she keeps it legal and she confuses people about the teaching. She is engaged in grave scandal. He goes on to say, “The idea that a leader of the church would weaponize something so precious is not only wrong, it’s abhorrent. It betrays the teachings of Pope Francis and the principles of the church operated on for more than half a century in respecting our rights to follow our conscience. The Second Vatican Council declaration of religious freedom, the decree that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs.”
In fact, when people quote Humanae Vitae, and so I’ll bring it up right here, they almost always misquote it. I see people do this all the time. It says, this Vatican Council declares the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups, or of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. But it goes on that’s not quoted, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or an association with others, and here’s the kicker, within due limits.
The church does not teach that the government can never force someone to act contrary to his own beliefs. This was a big thing, Reynolds versus the United States of America. The Supreme Court dealt with polygamy. Because when Mormons used to practice polygamy, the mainstream Mormon church does not anymore. But when they did, they said, “Well, it’s our religion. You can’t say polygamy is illegal.” In Reynolds versus USA, the court said that if religious freedom means you can do whatever you want according to your religion, it said that the government would exist in name only. Anybody could do what they wanted if you could do anything you wanted in a accord with your religion.
That’s not what it teaches here. Let’s go back then to the article here from The Chronicle. No one is forced to act manner contrary to his own beliefs within due limits, and one of those due limits should be not killing unborn human beings. He goes on. “Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone takes to Twitter to denounce Pelosi and her fellow Catholic Biden over their abortion stances. He rarely targets politicians over other grave moral issues.” I think I actually have seen Archbishop Cordileone address other moral issues besides abortion, including those championed by so-called liberal politicians. I have seen that.
I know I’ve seen it there, but it’s not parallel. “I did not see a word from him in the aftermath of the Buffalo Massacre.” Well, here, there’s nobody in Congress saying, “You know what? I think mass shootings should be legal.” That would be the parallel. If there was a bishop who condemned politicians for keeping abortion legal but ignored politicians who said mass shootings should be legal, yeah, that’d be inconsistent. But the question is about things like gun control and we can reasonably disagree over what gun control or gun violence policies work or don’t work. We can disagree about that. But it’s not the same thing to compare it to abortion.
He goes on. You don’t say enough. He’s not doing enough that I would want. Okay. He goes through here, “I am tired of the hypocrisy of bishops who denounced pro-choice politicians for failing to legally protect fertilized embryos while not saying anything about people on the death penalty.” When I see fertilized embryos, when I see fertilized egg, I feel like that person’s almost always pro-choice. That’s a misnomer. There’s no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once the egg is fertilized, it’s an embryo. But to say here, this is something that de… It’s trying to dehumanize the unborn, by the way, because all abortions take place long after the human embryo comes into existence at fertilization.
Every abortion stops a beating heart. For example, the heart begins to form in 18 days. He goes on saying, let’s see, “It’s time to say enough to church leaders who attempt to bully Catholic public officials who refuse to do their theological bidding.” He just goes on to say, “My belief in Christ’s message of love and tolerance is as strong as ever. But I am a Catholic no more.” But here’s what gets me about this. Now, going through, he talks about… Let’s see, does he say here the right to abortion? Let’s see. I have the right to follow Chris. By the same legislators he wants to ban the right to abortion.
Now, he might mean legal right. It wouldn’t surprise me if he believes in moral right. I don’t know. Maybe I could chat with Mr. Lazzeretti. I’d be happy to do that. But the argument is Archbishop Cordileone did something I disagree with. Therefore, I’m not going to be Catholic anymore. What boggles my mind is that ar Archbishop Cordileone or Bishop Strickland, they’re more of the outliers in what they’re willing to say and the actions they’re willing to take on issues like abortion. Most other bishops are not willing to do some of the things that they’re willing to do. They’re the outliers here.
You’re constructing this idea that all the bishops in the world, or especially all the bishops of the USCCB, are just like Archbishop Cordileone. Now, I’m not big into the whole Catholic blogosphere, Catholic Twitter, bishop drama, what’s going on there. I’ve said before, I don’t want to talk about that stuff, but I am aware of it and I know that Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Strickland, Bishop Riproki, they’re more on the outskirts of the actions they’re willing to take that are controversial. There are many bishops who are solid, but they just don’t take as controversial public positions. They’re orthodox, they’re solid theologically, but they don’t want to stick their necks out there necessarily.
You’re going to leave the church because of Archbishop Cordileone? Even if he were wrong, let’s say he were wrong in his decision, a bishop can make an incorrect disciplinary decision towards a member of his own diocese. It wouldn’t follow, therefore, that you should leave the church there. There’s a similar thing on the right. If you’re very traditional and you say, “Well, I’m going to leave the church because look at what these bishops in Germany are doing. I’m going to leave the church. Look at what these bishops in Germany are doing.”
Well, by that logic, St. Athanasius should have left the church in the fourth century because Athanasius Contra Mundum, in the Eastern Empire, it was all overrun by Aryan bishops. Athanasius was standing alone in the Eastern Empire in that regard. But he perseveres. He doesn’t do that. That was a legitimate, widespread problem. Here to say this that both on the progressive side and the traditionalist side to make this mistake to identify the Catholic faith with a particular bishop and saying that their behavior, “This is something that I can’t tolerate, so I just can’t be Catholic anymore,” we need more of a larger or global perspective, if you will, when it comes to the faith.
Just seeing this, I know this isn’t as… I don’t know, I’ve seen other Catholics who might identify more as progressive Catholics to say these things like, “Oh, Bishop Strickland did this or did that, and I can’t be Catholic anymore.” Well, you’re going to jettison your whole faith over what one bishop does? Now, I do think it’s deeper. It’s not just that. It’s also you don’t agree with the church’s teaching on homosexuality. You don’t agree with the church’s teaching on abortion or contraception. Now, that’s a legitimate qualm.
It makes sense if you feel like you cannot be Catholic if you can’t assent to these important teachings, even giving the religious submission of mind and will, even if you can’t even refrain from publicly objecting to these teachings. To tie all of this together, if you are seriously questioning your Catholic faith or leaving the Catholic Church, don’t reduce Catholicism to a particular bishop or bishops. Understand that this is the church Christ established 2,000 years. It would be one thing if you were comparing, oh, this is a solemn ex-cathedral papal teaching that I think is contradictory that is infallibly taught.
That’s one thing. But if it’s just, I disagree with a prudential judgment, I disagree with a judgment call this bishop or that bishop made, or this priest or that priest made, or this priest embarrasses me, or I can’t believe that bishop said this or that, whether you’re progressive or traditional, and it scandalizes. Make a distinction between those individual acts because all the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, are fallible in what they do. The charism of infallibility only applies to the church as a whole or to the Pope when he is speaking under specifically limited conditions. Otherwise, make that distinction and then look at the teachings of the church itself, and there you might have to do more soul-searching.
When Archbishop Cordileone prohibits giving communion to Nancy Pelosi, is that what you’re mad about, or are you mad that the church teaches that civil authorities ought to protect the unborn from being aborted? If that’s what you’re mad about, well, can you adhere to that teaching? At the very least, can you not publicly object to that teaching? Can you at least not vote in favor of keeping abortion legal? If you can’t even do that, then you have to do some real soul-searching. I would pray that God would open your heart to see that the spirit of this age is one that it’s often driven by nice platitudes that cover wickedness.
I’m going to follow my heart. Jeremiah 17:9. The heart is a wicked thing. Who can know it? Draw close to Christ, to really what Christ says. Really read the gospels, not just remembering the antiseptic politically correct version of Jesus a lot of people have in their minds. Really read them, especially when Jesus challenges people and he calls them to God, to the Kingdom of God to repent, and then to come to the Kingdom of God. Draw close to him and to the church’s teaching and just keep things in perspective.
I would say the worst reason to stop being Catholic is when you’ve lost perspective and have taken something very minor and use that to justify severing yourself from what should be the most major relationship you have in your life, the relationship to God through the church he established. Hope that’s helpful for you all. I just hope you have a very blessed day.
Narrator:
If you like today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.