MetaCatholic

Sometimes I wonder at a certain Christian mentality. The often stimulating After Existentialism, Light, for once, I think, gets it wrong in this post on why people leave the Church.

InsideCatholic recently did an interesting survey of the reasons Catholics (and, for that matter, Christians in general) leave the Church by asking several prominent Catholics (bishops, professors, lay authors, etc.) for their opinion on the reasons and solutions.

Kevin is far from alone in what I see as the main mistake here, rather I often hear many others doing precisely the same thing. But what distinguished Christians think might be beside the point. The problem is, the bishop he quotes gives a Christian and theological explanation. It shows no sign that the bishop has actually asked anyone who has left the church why they have done so, or that, if he has asked them, he has listened to them. Yet surely, asking leavers is the first and most obvious step towards an answer. There might then be room for some very interesting sociological and theological reflections on why people do so, that is not simply taking their answers at face value, but does involve accounting for those face value answers coherently and honestly. Empirical research is not heretical, although its rarity might make you think it was.

My own experience of asking that question suggests that the answers are quite diverse, sometimes profound, and often very mundane and practical. “I moved house” seems to influence both those coming back to church and those leaving it. Individualist conceptions of faith and cultural patterns of habitual behaviour means that they often don’t see that leaving church as any loss of faith, and that, catholic orthodoxy aside, it genuinely may not. Sometimes faith has comparatively little to do with church attendance, and conversely, leaving church has little to do with loss of faith.

Then again, I can think of some who might leave church because they simply can’t relate to a church which has bishops who actually talk about “modern man”.

Two pieces of paper have passed my desk recently (the second coming today). The first reminded us all of the importance of bats as a protected species. Even if they were filling the church with their droppings, you could do nothing to get rid of them, but simply cover your furniture and floors with dust sheets when the church wasn’t in use. Any high level work in a church needed you to swear that there was no evidence of bat activity before you would be allowed to mend the hole in the roof.

The second piece of paper I saw today was advice on bats and rabies. A few years ago someone in Scotland caught rabies from a bat and died. The leaflet wanted to reassure us that while a significant proportion of bats (perhaps 20%) were carrying rabies, it did not easily jump between species. However, we were strongly advised to wear gloves if handling a bat. If a bat flies into your home, you are allowed to take it outside, but you should wear gloves to do. If it nests in your church, you may not even disturb it.

So there you have it. In the name of conservation you must permit a rabies carrying species to take over and dictate the use of your church. Stuff the idea of pleasant user-friendly surroundings, and stuff the health and safety of the people. Diseased flying rodents must be protected.

They call this nature-loving. I call it unnatural.