A 1979 Gallup Poll said Catholics expressed these as reasons for dropping out. Ecumenism doesn't seem prominent in the issues they cited.

When I grew up and I started making decisions on my own, I stopped going to church. 41%

I found other interests and activities that led me to spend less and less time on church-related activities. 39%

I had specific problems with or objections to the church, its teachings, or its members. 35%

I moved to a different community and never got involved in a new church. 25%

The church was no longer a help to me in finding the meaning and purpose of my life. 25%

I felt my life-style was no longer compatible with participation in a church. 25%

Did that poll ask them about ecumenism? Did those polled even know what that meant? They wouldn't cite that as their answer if they didn't know what it meant.

So if the pope interprets scripture for you... who interprets the pope?

I mean some say Francis is a conservative... others say he's a liberal.... can we not simply read the "plain meaning" of the pope for ourselves??

While I don't dispute the merits of what anyone else has written, those reasons have not been my experience. The people I know who have left are mostly tied up in marriage difficulties. They are divorced, remarried, legally married but not in a Church sanctioned marriage, and the list goes on.

Pardon me while I indulge a little anecdotal musing. My parish of post-60's architecture is getting a sanctuary overhaul. Gone will be this unsightly and enormous bas-relief sculpture or Our Lord doing the "touchdown" pose. Gone will be the plaster tabernacle that is off to the side and looks like a remedial art project. It will be moved to the center and be something of better artistic quality. Gone will be the colored-glass windows to be replaced by stained-glass depicting saints.

It occurred to me that this building was originally constructed with ecumenicism in mind, so Catholic distinctives were softened or blurred. The crucifix is too much a reminder that the Mass is primarily a sacrifice, so a resurrected or ascending Lord is depicted. The Eucharist is summit and center of the Mass, but let's move it to the side so that it is not too much in the face of our separated brethren. (an aside: our parish has long since returned to precious metal patens and chalices, but there was a time when it was stuff that looked like pedestrian dinnerware for that "sharing of a meal" feel at the expense of sacrificial understanding.) And depicting saints in stained glass was obviously a no-no.

But what has happened is that most mainline denominations have veered into secular Politically Correct looneyland, so the need to do all these things for the sake of ecumenicism simply isn't there anymore so many Catholic churches are starting to recover Catholic distinctives.

Now, I'm not blaming the Catholic exodus on ecumenicism, but I think a substantial portion of it might be that when we were in a mode to not offend others, the unintended consequence was an overall trivialization of the Faith, and we got a lot of what MaryAnn described: an "impression that going to Mass, and Mass itself, didn't seem that important".

What Chonak said.

Ecumenism doesn't mean attending a Protestant church. To understand what I mean above by ecumenism, read Blessed John Paul II's encyclical on ecumenism Ut Unum Sint.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

Self-reported reasons for such question as ones leaving the Church are notoriously inaccurate, from what I understand.

Who is going to say to a pollster, "I like to sleep late"? or, "I don't like to commit to anything, ask my girlfriend, she'll tell you..."?

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Self-reported reasons for such question as ones leaving the Church are notoriously inaccurate, from what I understand.

Everyone knows people stop attending Mass because of the music.

By uplifting and vibrant I assume you must mean this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGG3Zcc7yqw

That would have been so much more "upbeat" if he had played it on the piano! :)

Above all, be "welcoming."

(By the way, can anyone tell me what a "special" welcome is, as opposed to a plain old welcome? Until the pastor replaced the commentator's introduction with a bell, we had "Good morning. Welcome to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish, and a special welcome to those visiting us today...")

"Ecumenism" is a term which is poorly understood, I think. As a whole, it refers to relations with other Christian communities and churches. "Interreligious affairs" is the term used to describe relations with non-Christian religions.


USCCB Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs

So, what do you mean when people say they left the Church because of "ecumenism"?

Does that mean:

a) They believe the Church to be totally or largely wrong?
b) They have no objection to Catholic teaching, but they feel they can get the same thing in other Christian groups or even non-Christian religions which are not as "exclusive"?
c) Do they have an objection to organized religion?
d) Did they intermarry into another Christian group or non-Christian religion and "forget" to come back to their own Church?
e) Two or more of the above.?
f) none of the above?

Paul, I think it's most often a whole mess o' "b."
It's relativism.
It's "it's all the same God, just a different roof."
It's "oh, I' m sorry I missed my server assignment yesterday, my family went to the Baptist Mass this week."
It's "what does it matter, as long as you're a nice person?"

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

Baptist Mass? Wow. Reminds me of a local paper's gaffe about a local synagogue that had been vandalized. The reporter wrote that despite the damage, the synagogue would hold "all weekend Masses" as usual. Yikes-o-rama!

" It's "what does it matter, as long as you're a nice person?"

Here we've got Pelagianism, perhaps the most common heresy held by poorly instructed Catholics! "

Hey, that's deeply unfair to Pelagius. Pelagianism, in its original form, involved a painfully rigorist form of moralism.

Back to Sola Scriptura:

The simplest way I know to illustrate the heresy (read fallacy) of Sola Scriptura is to ask the question: Who put together the Table of Contents of the New Testament?

Although most Christians agree that the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired by God, who was it that chose which letters and gospel accounts were to be included in this list of inspired writings?

History tells us that there were many Christian writings circulating in the near East for more than a couple of centuries before the Council of Carthage (read Council of the Catholic Church authorized by a Pope) made an authoritative decision in 397 A.D. about which of the many Christian writings in circulation would not be regarded as inspired and which ones would be. In other words, the Council decided which of the various lists of inspired writings would not be regarded as correct and which list would.

If the authoroity of the Catholic Church is accepted for something as important as the Canon of the New Testament, and in Christendom it is almost universally accepted, why would one choose not to trust her in hermeneutics (scriptural interpretation) and other important matters of doctrine and morals?

You mean the Almighty didn't drop a complete King James Version from space directly into the reformer's front yards? :)