People I know personally were strongly ostracized after leaving Jehovah's Witnesses (in the US) and the Catholic church (in Latin America). Cut out of their existing social circles, immediate family members refusing to attend their wedding over it, etc.
JWs do i as a matter of policy, but I would not call them mainstream.
Not my experience of the Catholic Church at all, having left it myself (and getting married in a registry office etc.), and having friends who have done so in more than one country. Not one of us as had any friend or relative hold it against us.
It might be a feature of a particular region or culture, or reflective of controlling family, but not of the Catholic Church in general.
My ex-Catholic's friend's mother refused to speak to him until his first child was born, at which point the draw of a grandchild overcame her aversion I guess. They've (mostly) reconciled now.
JW was the first one I thought of by that definition.
I was raised Southern Baptist. When I stopped going, the church contacted me a couple of times to say they missed us and asked if everything was OK, and to say they'd love to have us back if we wanted to come back sometime. My parents weren't thrilled but that's less religion, more family dynamics: it was much the same when they found out I didn't support their preferred political party anymore. That was about it, though. The church didn't lean on us in any way, or tell people to stop talking to us, or use any other means to cajole or punish us.
My thinking on cults is very similar to all this, plus another distinguisher. A cult typically requires you to join before you get all the information about what you're signing up for. I've never been a Muslim, but know that if you walk into a mosque, someone will cheerfully greet you and load you up with a Koran and all kinds of other reading material. Same with any mainstream Protestant church, or the Catholic church, or Hindu, or Buddhist, etc. In fact, many/most churches won't let you join until you've shown that you understand that church's beliefs. Compare and contrast with, say, Scientology, which is notoriously different.
>The church didn't lean on us in any way, or tell people to stop talking to us, or use any other means to cajole or punish us
Southern Baptists officially teach that eternal damnation is a literal, conscious, and everlasting punishment in Hell for anyone who dies without personal faith and salvation in Jesus Christ. If the threat of eternal torment is not coercive control, I'm not sure what is.
I also disagree that Catholic church happily gives you all the information upfront. I didn't grow up Catholic but my parents did, and at least back then Catholic teachings (they both went to Catholic school) very heavily discouraged individuals from reading the Bible. My parents also grew up going to mass in Latin, a language they don't understand. Things are different nowadays.
Southern Baptists don't specifically believe you have to be a Southern Baptist to be saved though, do they? And they believe in salvation by grace alone. Plus, the whole "once saved, always saved" thing. It's hard to argue it is coercion if they say you can be saved independent of being a Southern Baptist or obeying them, because they don't seem to be holding a whole lot of power then.
I was raised in an SBC church, though I've long since come to my senses. I have plenty of issues with such places, but your average Baptist church -- even ones still proudly tied to the SBC -- does not meet any of the criteria usually offered for cult status.
astura says ..."Catholic teachings (they both went to Catholic school) very heavily discouraged individuals from reading the Bible. My parents also grew up going to mass in Latin, a language they don't understand. Things are different nowadays.
" Almost completely wrong (ask your parents, astura).
It is true that the Catholic Church did not emphasize the Old Testament (OT). They instead emphasized the New Testament (NT) (both NT and OT are parts of the Bible). We were educated about the Protestant Reformation and the differences in faiths. I think the problem is that the Catholic Church has generated so much structure and associated doctrine that they barely have time for OT! In any case, much of this fell into one or more of my Church History classes, hardly my favorite subject.
FWIW I had a completely Catholic education from grade school thru university and nobody ever refrained from referencing the Bible. I've long since left the faith but I kept my sense of humor. Here's my favorite OT joke:
Q: Who's the strongest man man in the Bible (hint: it isn't Samson)?
A: Abraham. He tied his ass to a tree and walked up a mountain!
As for the Latin mass, yes it was there, and if you wanted to know what was said then you could always find out - nobody was hiding anything. I was an "altar boy" (assisted the priest in the rituals) so I learned the Latin mass and, since I went to Catholic schools, I later studied Latin. Latin is a useful language to know as an English speaker and it helps in understanding the so-called "romance languages" (it even aids in understanding English - many word roots are from Latin).
FWIW the traditional Latin mass is still celebrated! Some have stuck to the old Latin rites b/c of their love of the old rituals, the music is better in Latin (got to agree on this one!), etc.
> As for the Latin mass, yes it was there, and if you wanted to know what was said then you could always find out
Latin prayer books usually have the translation side by side. Attendants of the traditional Mass find value in it - it's truly Catholic since you take part into it like anybody else worldwide, praying the same prayers, regardless of your native language, that have been prayed over the last ~5 centuries, some of which are 10, 15 or almost 20 centuries old.
<conspiracy_theory> The Vatican Council II's original purpose wasn't in fact to abolish the traditional Mass, but to help with increasingly difficult evangelization. What happened was instead largely due to the worldwide infiltration of the Church by the freemasons. </conspiracy_theory>
<reality_check>
Pope John Paul I publicly declared upon being elected, that he'd expose and get rid of them - freemasons weren't in fact allowed as members the Church - priests, bishops, cardinals - and have never been, since they are obviously against the Church, but he knew they were there still.
On the evening before he died, the Pope received Pecorelli, a journalist that was a member of the masonic P2 lodge, who famously gave him a list of Catholic bishops and cardinals that were members of the freemasonry.
The Pope died a few hours after reading his list, his death never really investigated. The list disappeared; Pecorelli died a few months later in a car accident.
The P2 lodge was involved in other scandals, and as a consequence, some of its then members' names were exposed, and are now public - including some of the most powerful Italian politicians, entrepreneurs etc. of the time; now, after four decades, most of them are dead anyway - everything else is history.
Freemasonry in Italy came well before they entered the Vatican though - it's not even too far fetched to think that Italy itself was created by them - Garibaldi was the founder of the main Italian FM branch, of which he became the Grand Master (with the "33th degree") - the Grande Oriente d'Italia. Mazzini and other famous "fathers of the country" were also freemasons as well.
Ironically, Freemasonry - probably the most powerful, concealed, deceiving cult in the world - has not even a minor mention in this list. <sad />
</reality_check>
You can read about all of this on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
>Almost completely wrong (ask your parents, astura)
Dude, My parents are in their 70s and haven't been practicing Catholics in 50+ years, they don't know the current teachings. It's a fact that at the time they went to Catholic school they very heavily discouraged individuals from reading the Bible. That's a fact.
"Southern Baptists officially teach that eternal damnation is a literal, conscious, and everlasting punishment in Hell for anyone who dies without personal faith and salvation in Jesus Christ. If the threat of eternal torment is not coercive control, I'm not sure what is."
You have to be careful with blanket statements like this. Southern Baptist churches are entirely self-run enterprises with no top-down doctrinal control from anyone else. Consequently, there are congregations who would qualify as high-control, culty organizations and there are congregations who welcome LGBTQ folks and such (although it's increasingly true that welcoming / progressive congregations are self-sorting into their own categories/groupings such as the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship).
I don't know of any SB churches that preach specifically that THEIR church is the One True Church, which is usually what that kind of control requires.
Certainly many folks in the SBC church of my youth moved from church to church, or even to other denominations, and nobody thought that was soul-risking behavior. A central tenet of MOST Baptist churches is the primacy of the adherent's personal relationship to the almighty, which is unknowable to others by default, so this tracks.
Furthermore, the SBC believes that you have to have a personal relationship with God, but doesn't obligate you to join any church. If you go there and "get saved", then never return, they'll still be delighted that they helped to get you into Heaven (in their beliefs). Their main goal is to get you on the right foot religiously, not to get you to join their church.
Its more accessible nowadays, as everything is on the web for free, but the Catholic Church has a long history of publishing its doctrines. I agree the Latin mass was an impediment, but everything else was very open and public.
> If the threat of eternal torment is not coercive control, I'm not sure what is.
If you cease to believe in it why would it bother you? If they do not try to cut you off etc. after you leave its very different from cults that order you family to cease contact.
I think a difference would be a Cult focuses on making the cult congregation member feel like their real family is the Cult, which could or could not be related to your biological family.
Leaving whatever you define as your family is always difficult.
The rhetoric from the DNC and Republicans can get pretty out there but I don't think anyone thinks of DNC or Republican party members as their actual family ( I hope )
Not really. Both mainstream political parties don't like each other, but by and large they don't attack someone for leaving the party (from what I've seen).
Perhaps if you are saying attacks of politicians switching parties, which I could see. But I don't think I've ever heard of republicans talking about exrepublicans or democrats talking about exdemocrats. I personally have switched from voting republican to voting democrat. It's not something my family really cares about and I still have good relations with them even though a number of them are pretty MAGA.
Cults will actually have lessons and classes about the evils of ex members. Someone brought up JWs and that's a pretty good example of what I'm thinking of.
I think you’re correct that mainstream leaders of the parties try not to talk about each other in that way and mostly succeed. But I absolutely do know family members and friends treat it with that level of zeal.
I think that's true of just darn near everything. People are tribal and tend to get uncomfortable when people around them change:
* Their political parties
* Their religions
* Their diets (meat => vegan, or vice versa)
* Their music
* Their computer OS
None of those compare to cult shunning, which is more systematic and absolute. I mentioned in another comment that my parents were sad when I stopped going to church. That's got nothing on having one's entire family and support groups ceasing to publicly acknowledge their existence.
