What do you call someone who used to believe that in compatibilism but longer does,? You call them an ex-compatibilist or an incompatibilist (what they currently are).
What do you call someone who used to believe in the existence of deities but no longer does? You can them an ex-theist or an atheist (what they currently are).
What do you call someone who used to practice dentistry but has since forgotten the procedures and hasn't been inside of a dentist office for years? You call them a ex-dentist saying that they used to be a dentist but no longer practice dentistry (what they currently are).
What do you call someone who used to follow and believe the Catholic catechism but no longer does? You call them (and they call themselves (sometimes)) a Catholic.
** I don't mean to imply that this only happens with Catholicism, simply I have seen this more frequently with the Catholics; I don't frequently hear those who no longer believe in the fundamentals Buddhism call themselves Buddhists**
It seems like something has gone wrong here. We are associating what someone used to be with something that they are now. If, in the past, someone followed the ethics of vegetarianism but no longer does, we do not call them a vegetarian. They could still believe in a part of the foundation of vegetarian ethics (that animals feel pain), but that doesn't mean that we call them vegetarians still, if they indeed eat meat.
The title of Catholic seems to be akin to the sort of tag of identification that we have with race/ethnicity. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic is the mentality here. This, I think, is largely on purpose. The Catholics baptize the new members at a very young age and raise them to believe that they are Catholics even if they are vehemently opposed to the Catechism. If someone does not believe in literal transubstantiation, they are told that they are still Catholics, when in reality, the Lutheran Church would be much more to their liking (given that the the lack of belief in the literal transubstantiation, is the significant distinguishing characteristic of the two).
Even if someone begins to actively practice Islam, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Paganism, or any other religion, the Catholic Leaders (and often the people themselves) still consider them Catholics; again, it's almost as though Catholicism is an ethnicity. In fact, you are not considered an ex-catholic until your formally defect from the church. So, my question is why is this so?
You bring up an extreamly interesting social phenomenon relating to the catholic church. I visualize this attitude as a temporary (or not so temporary) sort of resting point in the church's declining membership. It seems that Catholicism is still in much the same place as it was during the reformation where Catholics are still grappling with weather you can be a christian outside of Catholicism. Or rather, they are not grappling with it and are accustomed to thinking there is nothing beyond the Catholic church.
ReplyDeleteWhoa! I really enjoyed reading this post. You have brought up some very intriguing points. For example, I truly agree with your statement: "What do you call someone who used to follow and believe the Catholic catechism but no longer does? You call them (and they call themselves (sometimes)) a Catholic."
ReplyDelete"They call themselves a Catholic." It's so true! Even though certain people don't follow the Catholic religion anymore, they will guiltily or cheerfully admit, "Yeah, I'm a Catholic." I think that the Church is strict with the process of becoming an "ex-catholic" because once baptized, the commitment was made to practice the teachings of the Church. In a person's decision to "leave," the Church wants it finalized.