Dear Fallen-Away Catholics: 10 Things You Should Know About What You Left Behind

Dear Fallen-Away Catholics,

Perhaps you left the Church because you disagreed with some doctrine. Or maybe you just gradually stopped going to Mass. Or maybe it was some combination of the two. Either way, you’re gone, and we really miss you and wish you would come back.

I myself never really discovered Catholicism until my mid-teenage years. I was really a fallen-away Catholic right from the get-go because I come from a family of fallen-away Catholics. My attendance at Mass and CCD was very spotty growing up. Then, just when I was ready to completely leave the Church, I experienced a powerful conversion that changed my life through the grace of God.

I say this to highlight the fact that I have not always been a devout Catholic. In no way do I desire to talk down to you or judge you, because I know how you feel. I was there. With that out of the way, I present to you the top ten things I wish I had known about Catholicism earlier.

10. CCD doesn’t even scratch the surface. Remember those dull days sitting in a church basement while some catechist read boring stuff to you and you wanted to be doing literally anything else? Well, that’s not Catholicism. Oftentimes, parishioners are pressured into teaching CCD and they might not be super well-informed about the faith themselves. Further, the materials used in CCD don’t get to the juicy stuff. Our faith is not merely a moral system, which is what CCD often reduces it to. There’s so more to it. Dive in. For AP-level CCD, visit this site.

9. The secular world biases us. This happens subconsciously. How often do secular news sources take a certain slant on the goings-on in the Church? How often do teachers and even some textbooks reveal their own biases and opinions on matters regarding the Church? Pretty soon, you have this general sense that Catholicism is just plain wrong, but you can’t point to any super specific examples because everything happened so subconsciously. I know because that is precisely what had happened to me. Here’s a challenge: next time the Church is in the news, read a secular article about it from, say the New York Times, and then read an article about it from a Catholic news source, such as the Catholic News Agency. Note the differences in assumptions the articles make and the topics they choose to focus on, as well as general themes.

8. You are allowed to question Catholic doctrine. In no way do I intend to belittle Catholic doctrine. What I mean to say is that you can and should look into the doctrines. You’re smart and you want answers to why the Church teaches what she does. I didn’t realize the following for a long time: the Church actually has reasons for her teachings. Her teachings are not arbitrary. Explanations of Catholic doctrine are widely available all over the Internet. Another important corollary point here: it’s okay if you have trouble accepting a doctrine. You can’t just flip a switch and say, “Yes, I accept this wholeheartedly.” You could say that, but it might not be genuine. Just be open to the possibility that Catholic doctrine x is true. You deserve time to research, think, and pray about it. God gave you reasoning capacities and a conscience; you were made to seek Truth.

7. There are passionate Catholics out there. It seems like a lot of Catholics are not passionate about their faith. Beyond Mass, participation levels in parish life can be quite low. With this sort of atmosphere, one can start to wonder if there’s something wrong with Catholicism. I come from one of the most irreligious states in the country, and even I’ve been able to find passionate Catholics here. There are many Catholics who are truly on fire for their faith, and the impact Catholicism has had on their lives is incredible: you just have to look in the right places. Go to a retreat or a Bible study, or volunteer at your parish. You’ll find them.

6. You don’t want to make your spiritual journey alone. We live in the age of the “spiritual but not religious” movement. Those with this mindset reject organized religion and espouse a merely personal spirituality. Before I truly discovered Catholicism, I kind of had some sort of a spiritual life going on, and I didn’t think I needed an organization of some sort to help me achieve my spiritual goals. Then when I became an active part of my parish, I realized how much more progress I made when I was with others and under the guidance of the Church. When we want to make academic progress, we go to a college where we earn a degree by fulfilling the requirements of our institution and learning from those wiser than us. No one questions this. Likewise, when we want to make spiritual progress, we go to a church where we follow moral teachings to the best of our ability and learn from those wiser than us. Further, having Catholic friends will help you stay on the straight and narrow.

5. Priests are sinners too. Many Catholics left the Church because of the sex abuse scandals and the Church’s response to them. Indeed, these scandals were a dark point in the history of the Catholic Church, and my heart goes out to all the victims. Naturally, people wondered, “How can we be part of a church whose leaders are so corrupt?” The sins of the priests who committed these crimes certainly delegitimized Catholicism in the minds of many. I’d like to make an important point here: priests are sinners too. In no way does that excuse their behavior, but it make it clearer how Catholicism can still be legitimate even when certain clergy have made serious mistakes. The Church is run by humans, and humans mess up. We can’t look at our clergy as gods on earth because that’s not what they are. Priest confess their sins to their fellow priests, by the way. Pope Francis goes to Confession too. Also, a side note: according to this article from the Washington Post, about 4% of priests are sex offenders. Again, I’m not excusing any of their crimes, but also according to this article, this proportion is consistent with estimates of sex offenders in other similar fields and other religions. What I mean to say is, it’s inexcusable that sex abuse happens, but it’s not a problem limited to the Catholic clergy.

4. The Catholic Church, est. 33 AD. The Catholic Church is old. We have an extremely rich body of teachings that have been in the making for 2000 years. So many brilliant minds (St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!) have been refining Catholic teachings for many, many years. Catholicism is “the original,” so to speak. Here’s how it went down: Jesus started His Church in 33 AD (but he didn’t call it that–it was the group of all his followers). The Church flourished an grew under an unbroken line of popes, beginning with St. Peter, His disciple. Then in 1517, Martin Luther decided the Church had been getting it wrong for 1500 years. (His disagreements went beyond the corruption in the Church at the time–that’s something your high school history class doesn’t usually mention. He disagreed with many intellectual points as well.) With Martin Luther came the Reformation, which saw the creation of various Protestant denominations that changed doctrines that had been in place since the earliest days of the Church. Basically, if you want to experience Christ’s Church as close as it was to when He started it, you need to be Catholic. (For more insight into what the early Church was like, I recommend the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (circa 110 AD), St. Justin the Martyr (circa 110-165 AD), and St. Irenaeus of Lyons (circa 140-202 AD), just for starters.)

3. Catholicism is *really* intellectual. Sometimes religion is viewed as childish because it seems to require adherents to blindly follow rules. Hopefully it’s become evident from my earlier points that this is simply not the case with Catholicism. We have a vast body of 2000 years of writings that explain why we believe what we believe. Some of these writings get into some really hardcore philosophy. To see what I mean, try reading St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica.

2. Mass is really exciting when you know what’s going on. Before I truly discovered Catholicism, what I hated most about the Church was the Mass. It seemed so boring! What I was really lacking was proper context. I didn’t understand that the whole Mass is really centered around the miracle of the Eucharist. I didn’t understand that the Eucharist is a miracle. I had no context for any of the Scripture readings. I didn’t understand that the Mass is centuries old. It was kind of like walking into a movie for the last 5 minutes and trying to understand what was going on.

1. The Eucharist IS Jesus. This is, I would say, the mosimportant Catholic teaching. And somehow, I never learned this in CCD. (As I mentioned before, CCD totally does not scratch the surface.) As Catholics, we believe that the Eucharist really is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. At communion, we are literally eating Jesus. Upon hearing this, this sounds repulsive and somewhat batty. How could we be eating Jesus if communion clearly looks like bread? And do we really want to eat Jesus? Doesn’t that sound like cannibalism? There is so much to say about the mystery of the Eucharist. And, as I’ve mentioned time and time again in this post, we have 2000 years of brilliant minds that have given us the resources to understand why we believe what we believe. Below I’ve compiled some of the resources on the Eucharist that helped me the most as I was learning about this sacred mystery.

How what looks like bread can actually be Jesus

    Summary: Using Aristotle’s metaphysical theories (which were in place long before the time of Christ), while the Eucharist has the accidents of bread and wine, their substance changes from bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ when the priest utters the words of consecration. Basically, the appearance of the bread and wine remains the same while what it actually is changes. 

The Biblical basis for the Eucharist

Summary: Jesus tells us to eat of His Body and Blood. When those listening to Him leave in response, He doesn’t stop them and say, “It was just a symbol!!” Instead, He repeats Himself three times. 

The Old Testament foreshadowing of the Eucharist

Summary: Jesus’s sacrifice mirrors the Passover sacrifice of the Old Testament. For Passover, Jews sacrifice a lamb and then eat it for the forgiveness of their sins. Likewise, Jesus sacrifices Himself for the forgiveness of our sins, and we eat Him, the new lamb. 

What the Church Fathers thought of the Eucharist

Summary: The early Church believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. 

Eucharistic Miracles

Summary: Sometimes, miraculously, the Eucharist visually turns into flesh and blood.

Anyway, it’s my hope that this post has sparked your interest in Catholicism. Catholicism has made such a massive difference in my life for the better; let it transform your life too.

Yours Truly,

A Young-Adult Catholic


Response to Reader Comment: Genesis, Manipulating the Religious, and Epistemology

I recently received a comment from Guy Winter on this post that I would like to address here.

Guy Winter writes:

No matter how hard anyone tries, no matter how advanced the technology is, it is physically impossible to prove that any religious text is an account of actual happenings.
It is my belief that religion was created in order to control people and generate profit, which catholism does very well. If this if true, then surely they would cover every aspect of doubt in people’s minds that the stories are true.

You justify your reason for believing these to be true by saying ‘we’ use historical ‘happenings’ such as the death of Alexander the Great in our mainstream history textbooks, even though his biography was written hundreds of years after his death (among other similar examples). Given this information, it would not be wise to take this as truth either. Just because it is in textbooks, does not make it true, similarly what is written in the bible is not likely to be true.

All information should be questioned unless witnessed first hand. Even today we receive information from all sources which has been manipulated to portray a certain perception of events. When something happens, and witnesses are asked about what they saw, even a few hours after the event, everyone perceives the event differently and remembers it in different ways.

You mentioned gospel writers risking their life, and if what they were writing wasn’t true, why would they risk their life? So explain to me why Muslims who strap bombs to theirselves do so? There are people willing to sacrifice their life for all kinds of things, it’s all a matter of belief. The gospel writers had no first hand experience of the truth of their writings therefore you cannot say you doubt they would risk their life for their belief, if they even risked their lives at all, which again you don’t know. You have no credibility for any gospel writers actually risking their life? How do you know? Because it says so on a piece of paper. Every point you make to justify believing what is written on paper, is made through information you obtain from history records which are written on paper.

The likelyhood is, they were all written by a group of people wishing to control the masses, as well as making a profit from them at the same time. It would be the perfect plan, and evidently it works very welI. If you trust all historical records just because everyone else does, (which you imply many times in your response) if you follow the masonry origins all the way back, you will find they date back thousands of years before Jesus’ supposed day of birth.

It seems all logic is completely lost when it comes to Christianity. Not so long ago, I believed in God, and heaven, and I trusted my family and everyone around me to allow me to not think about it. However when I started thinking about it as I reached my late teens (I am now 20), I realised how proposerous the whole idea was, and it was then I was able to see my ‘faith’ was based upon fear that God would think bad of me for questioning him. I realised that just because millions of people believe something which is probably a lie, does not make it true. Now I can see life outside the box, and my whole perception of truth and the world has been changed. We must only trust entirely what we experience ourselves, questioning all we read, all we are told and most importantly what we believe, and if things don’t add up, have the courage to admit so.

If you think critically and analyse the argument with an unbiased viewpoint as a whole, whoever wrote and compiled together the many stories, gospels and manuscripts together has a vested interest in making it believable. They make money, and they are able to keep order in towns, with the mind as the police force. With the masses believing God is watching their every move, they would be less likely to steal, kill…..(sin). Perfect.

How do you explain the book of genesis and it’s story of how god created the world, and Adam and Eve? Who wrote those? Whoever it was certainly wasn’t watching what was happening. This is the baseline of which Christianity sits, it is where Christians draw their belief of god being the infinite force creator, yet the credibility of the story is zero.

I apologise for the delay of my response, and I thank you for reading it.

Guy Winter

Minding the Authors Intentions: Genesis: 

I would like to begin with your last point. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. In fact, only since the nineteenth century have some Christians taken that literally. Scholars and theologians generally agree that the author’s (or authors’) intention was to write an allegorical piece to communicate the idea that God created the world (which can be deduced via a priori reasoning- we need not rely on the creation story to see this), among other things. (Pope Benedict XVI has an insightful book about this called In the Beginning: a Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall.) Some books of the Old Testament are intended to be allegories, others are histories, others are laws, others are prophecies. I am no expert on the art of determining the authors’ intentions, but based on the little I’ve read about it, I get the sense that it comes from examining styles and comparing them to ancient works which we believe fall into a certain genre. 

So how can we say that the Old Testament is to be taken figuratively sometimes, and then turn around and say that the New Testament is not? Again, by looking at contemporary styles, scholars can determine the writer’s intentions. 

The Apostles, their Belief, and their Martyrdom:

I should have been clearer in my original response. Yes, it is true that just because the Apostles believed in Christ does not make it true. It does, however, show us that the Apostles believed what they were saying, even to the death. So that rules out the possibility of them creating the religion of Christianity for their own personal gain. (I could point you to non-Biblical sources that attest to their martyrdom, but since you question written sources, that probably would not be very helpful.)

Altered Sources and Religion’s So-Called Manipulation of Adherents:

You have said that written documents are often altered in order to manipulate the masses and make profit. It takes time to tamper with sources. There is this theory out there (probably propagated by Dan Brown’s DaVinci Code, which, yes, I have read and enjoyed) that the Roman Empire rewrote the Bible (or created it in the first place) under Constantine to keep order in the empire. This is actually absurd when you consider that we have ancient fragments of the New Testament (that are consistent with our modern New Testament) that have been carbon-dated to as early as 100-150 AD. (Constantine reigned in the early 300s AD.) 

Furthermore, if I am a ruler of an empire (or the head of a religion) and I want to manipulate people and make money, what kind of religion would I create? I would definitely want to claim that I am divine so that I can scare people into obeying me. Yet Pope Francis does not claim divinity. The Catholic Church teaches that only the three Persons of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are divine. Popes obey the same rules that laypeople follow. Popes even go to Confession, just like any ordinary Catholic. 

Some Points on Epistemology:

As is clear by this point, I have continued to use evidence from texts that tell me things I have not experienced first hand. I agree with you that we must question things that we have not experienced first hand. For my part, I have come to the conclusion that certain texts can be trusted. Otherwise it is almost impossible to talk about anything.

For example, I have never personally witnessed that the moon is more than a bright speck in the sky. I don’t know that one can actually stand on it as one stands on the earth; I don’t even know if it is three-dimensional because from my perspective it looks pretty two-dimensional. Yet, I trust that science is accurate and that Neil Armstrong being truthful.

As another example, I was not alive to witness the Israel-Palestine problems throughout the ages that have led to the current Gaza mess. But I believe that the events (though not necessarily the slant on them) reported in textbooks must have happened, especially because I see the result of them today. (Likewise, I see the result of Jesus’s resurrection today in the many, many believers worldwide, 2000 years later.)

It may come as a shock, but I was initially quite skeptical of the Bible and Christianity. Like you, I started exploring these ideas in my late teens (I was 16). But I came to the opposite conclusion. My family is marginally Catholic at best, but a bit agnostic at worst. After exploring the issues and reading a lot, I came to believe in Christianity and in the credibility of the Bible and other sources.