Talk:Lapsed Catholic

Good Idea
I think is a good idea to create a category about this.--Domingo Portales 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusing
We protestants have a word for people who were raised in religious households but no longer follow the teachings of their (and assumably no one else's) religion: agnostics. Is a lapsed or recovering Catholic simply a euphamism for an atheist or agnostic, or does it have wider applications (say, a former Catholic who now follows Islamic or Mormon teachings)?


 * Answer :
 * Agnostic has nothing to do with that ! An agnostic think that maybe God exist or maybe not, but anyway this knowledge is impossible for human being to reach. And therefore, there's no need to argue about "God wants you to wear red pants" or "You shalt not have sex with bananas", and all that stuff. Someone can be agnostic with or without being raised in religious households. And someone can Lapsed without being agnostic.
 * Atheists don't believe in God.
 * A lapsed catholic is someone raised as a catholic who decides to stop all the catholic worship (going to church every sunday, etc...) but still believe in God. That's all.


 * Great question! In the Catholic faith, once someone becomes Catholic, they are Catholic forever. "...Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation." Technically, a Catholic who fails to live the faith could be more precisely labled a heretic, an apostate, a schismatic etc... or labled by the sin the commited (drunkard, murderer, gossip etc...) so the term is a euphamism in that it sidesteps naming the exact fault(s) of the Catholic in question. Elephx4 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that a Fact?
The article states that "lapsed" is most often applied to Catholics. Is this really a "fact"? I am a "lapsed Catholic", in as much as I have quit going to church, but I am agnostic when it comes to the concept of a Creator-Created relationship with God. I suppose it's possible, but just can't commit to the idea. I just linked in from the Robert DeNiro article. I wonder how he defines the term. I guess the point is that it is difficult to attach labels to a group of people based on a short article. I believe the generic label for anyone who falls away from a religion is "apostate." Knowing the crowd that scans these pages however, I'm sure there is someone who will argue the use of that term as well. Tim F. TFreckman 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing, lacks neutrality, contains bias?
This article appears to lack neutrality. It referrs to Roman Catholicism as a specific religion rather than a sect of Christianity. The author also does not make any distinction between those who leave the Catholic Church to join another religion, and those who join another Christian denomination.

The author also appears to confuse the term "lapsed catholic" with "recovering catholic". Are there not differences between being "lapsed" and "recovering". The author needs to explain why these two are the same, if they actually are, and the origin of the term "recovering catholic".

The article also seems to focus on one particular point of view - that of a person that has remained in the Catholic Church. If the article were neutral, it would neither reflect the view of a practicing Catholic, or a non-practicing Catholic. The article also states that someone who has opted out of the Catholic faith remains Catholic forever.

I find this confusing and would appreciate clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecbuch21 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree! And the article is also too particular as regards to reasons for inactivity ("after leaving their parental home", is that the only one?). Only the links to Everything2.com and MuslimMatters.org has anything real value for the article. I thinkt the concept "lapsed Catholic" is a description occurring in the context of who is a Roman Catholic, not a formal religious term per se. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say so. My reason for stopping many of my religious practices as a Roman Catholic has nothing to do with moving out on my own, or inconvienence of attending Mass.  It actually has more to do with patterns in Catholic Church policy.  I still consider myself loyal to the Catholic Church, and pray regularly that God look over it and guide it back to the proper path.


 * My parents fully back me in this choice. God and Prayer are a regular part of my life, and always will be.  I really don't see this page as properly describing the status of a Catholic who has temporarily left the Church.  Robert Wm &quot;Ruedii&quot; (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is not quite right...
The article is not right... it refers to non-attendance at mass and confession, but fails to acknowledge the failure to carry out Easter Duties as the main cause of "lapsing"...  and is vague and too general... sorry, it's a nice try, but you need to get someone who has expert knowledge to re-write this, it's amateurish... and I speak as a lapsed catholic myself! :)

Deletion of sourced information
An anonymous contributor from Ireland (NTLWORLD.IE) has, on grounds of irrelevance (deletion 1) or unreliability of source (deletions 2 and 3), excised three parts of this article. But:
 * 1) The sample sources do show the use of the adage "Once a Baptist, always a Baptist"..
 * 2) Newsweek is surely a reliable source to show that "bad Catholics" is a term in use for people who haven't renounced their religion but do not practise it.
 * 3) What more reliable source can be cited for RCC law than its Code of Canon Law? Esoglou (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

1 does not refer to the adage as old, nor mention any connection to the term lapsed catholic 2 Newsweek doesn't make any mention of the word lapsed or of how being a bad catholic is related to being a lapsed one 3 a webpage titled "why baptists are not christians" strikes me as unreliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.58.51 (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to discuss the question. I hope we can reach agreement. Unfortunately, the reasons you have advanced so far seem to be invalid, except for one word.
 * 1) In view of your objection, I will remove the adjective "old". Mention of the term "lapsed Catholic" in connection with Baptists is no more required than it is with regard to Jews or Muslims; you have no more grounds for deleting the parallel with Baptists than for deleting the whole paragraph (and more).  The website you refer to under your number 3 is of course not a reliable source on "why Baptists are not Christians"; but it is certainly a reliable source for the existence of the saying "Once a Baptist, always a Baptist", since it attacks Baptists on account of it.
 * 2) Newsweek did not have to use the word "lapsed" to show that the term "bad Catholic" is used of Catholics who, without renouncing their religion, are not observing its practices - which is what this article is about.
 * 3) You have made no attempt to justify your deletion of the part that explains the difference between lapsed (non-practising) Catholics and ex-Catholics (those who have defected from the Church), the subject matter of this section of the article. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Very confused article
When I came to this article yesterday it seemed very confused and a reflection of several editors' viewpoints rather than anything documented.

It basically said that anyone who was once a Catholic but no longer carried out necessary observances was a lapsed Catholic (without saying whether this was official, unofficial Church category, the opinion of Catholics in general, the opinion of the person, or several of these). It dealt exclusively with what the person did (e.g., attend), with no consideration of their belief, adopting a different belief, or abandonment of belief. The subject is a messy can of worms, with things that can't be clearly demarcated, but what can be said should be said, and any fuzziness revealed, not swept under the carpet.

I just asked for a citation; the response was to clarify the lapsed did not exclude those who had adopted another religion—but still no sources.

I note that a lot of the article is not sourced at all. Some sources seem a bit close to their subject. Rather than get into interminable discussion that ultimately doesn't produce any light, I remind people of some Wikipedia policies: (1) material without a source can be deleted without further ado. (2) where sources are cited, they must be reliable—judgement call here. (3) Bold editing is encouraged; [WP:BRD|bold editing speeds up fixing problems]]. This would apply to anything unclear, in particular; rather than edit-warring, people who have an opinion must be encouraged to find sources and write proper clear text, expressing various opinions from reliable sources is a good thing.

While this isn't s guideline, if text that is written seems to be someone's opinion or editorialising, it seems quite reasonable for someone to replace it with a different approach. As long as neither is sourced, all such text is subject to deletion or modification.

Coming to this article in particular, I think it should show how to describe someone who was once a Catholic but now:
 * 1 someone who believes in a God and the teachings of Catholicism, and carries out all required observances (practicing, believing, perhaps)
 * 2 someone who believes in a God and the teachings of Catholicism, and carries out some of the required observances such as occasional church-going
 * 3 someone who has ceased to believe in a God, but continues to follow all observances for social or occupational (if holding an ecclesiastical post) reasons
 * 4 someone who believes in a God and the teachings of Catholicism, but never carries out any of the required observances
 * 5 Someone who believes in a God and some things, but strongly disbelieves other things, and/or digmas and practices. E.g., disbelieve transubstantiation and physical assumption of Mary, support contraception and abortion
 * 6 someone who now practices another branch of Christianity and considers themselves a believer in it
 * 7 someone who now practices another Abrahamic religion and considers themselves a believer in it
 * 8 someone who now practices a non-Abrahamic religion and considers themselves a believer in it
 * 9 someone who does not believe in a God and does not practice any religion

All of these have variants regarding public expression of belief, e.g., someone who privately has no belief, or serious doubts, but publicly behaves as a believer. It would be useful to give names to each these numbered categories (practicing C, lapsed C, ex-C, etc.).

Pol098 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There may be a grey area with no well-defined agreed demarcation between a "lapsed" and an "ex" Catholic. But this needs to be brought out in the article, not fudged. Pol098 (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewrite of text
As far as I know—and I am not an expert or even knowledgeable—anybody who has been baptised as a Catholic and not excommunicated is in the eyes of the church a Catholic (maybe even excommunicated people are still technically Catholics, though maybe described as worse than lapsed?). This would include, in addition to people who don't actually bother to practice, people who state that they do not believe the fundamentals, or who have taken up another religion. They would all be, in the eyes of the church I repeat, either practicing or lapsed Catholics.

Some of the church's "lapsed Catholics" may define themselves as former Catholics, ex-Catholics, Zoroastrians, or whatever, and not call themselves lapsed Catholics, or Catholics at all. But as far as the Catholic church is concerned they are all lapsed, and any of them can return as existing members.

If this information is reasonably correct, it (or a corrected version) should be clearly explained in the text. If excommunication means ending of the status of Catholic, that needs to be said explicitly. Pol098 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Interpreting this article as about belief is confusing, but does not prove the article confused. This article is about practice, not belief.  One can believe in the Catholic faith without practising it fully or at all.  One who practise it fully or partly without believing in it.  The above fine distinctions would be material for a detailed article on belief, not practice.
 * In present canon law, an excommunicated person does not cease to be a Catholic. While being deprived of some rights and privileges, the person is still obliged to attend Mass and fulfil the other duties of Catholics. Esoglou (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for useful comments. My point basically is that things such as those you point out should be made clear to the general reader in the article; I have actually made additions based on your suggestions. For example, I'm quite happy to accept that "This article is about practice, not belief"; however that was said in this discussion, not explicitly made clear in the article (intuitively I'd say somebody who no longer believes something has lapsed in faith to it). I'm quite happy for anything I say to be corrected, but I think the article does need to explain things it didn't. Again, for the general reader, not the committed and the expert. Pol098 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I don't feel like doing anything more to the article just now, in spite of or rather because of thinking that it is being unnecessarily complicated by discussion of abstruse matters that have little to do with "lapsed Catholic", such as the precise canonical notion of notorious (which is distinct from public), the nature of excommunication (citing a source that only by WP:SYNTH can be said to support what is claimed) and mediaeval executions on charges of heresy. I may return after some months.  Esoglou (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, the whole point of Wikipedia is that there is an army of editors. I do think that medieval burnings for things such as not going to Mass and working on Sundays, now considered lapses but then considered indicators of heresy, are notable and relevant. Pol098 (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cultural Catholic: Page of its own
I think 'Cultural Catholic' should not redirect and have a page of its own. I don't equate the terms 'Lapsed Cathlolic' with 'Cultural Catholic'. A Cultural Catholic is someone who observes the outwards signs of being a Catholic but may keep his/her own counsel when it comes to his or her own thoughts on, for example, the divinity of Christ and nature of God. He or she may believe in the advancement of the social mission of the church, follows and even advocates propagation of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and believes in preserving the cultural heritage of the Roman Catholic church. A very similar concept is 'Cultural Judaism'. I would create a page, but maybe someone would like to chime in on some other aspects of this. h00pla (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oddly, there is an article already at "cultural catholic" so you may just want to expand on that. I think whatever happens, that article should be a redirect to the capitalized name. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Lapsed Catholic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120221004222/http://www.dublindiocese.ie/content/121010-statement-formal-defections to http://www.dublindiocese.ie/content/121010-statement-formal-defections
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905124716/http://three-part-harmony.com/heartsongs/2002/03/31/why-i-hate-easter/ to http://three-part-harmony.com/heartsongs/2002/03/31/why-i-hate-easter/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)