The hidden exodus: Catholics becoming Protestants

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....

We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.

While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.

Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.

Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.

Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.

Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.

One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.

In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.

Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.

The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.

People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.

Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.

Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.

Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.

Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.

If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.

Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.

Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.

Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).

What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.

Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.

Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.

There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.

First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.

While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.

Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.

The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.

Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.

Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.

The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.

What do you mean by no hint of that?

Just what I said.

You seem to have mistaken your systamization for Holy Writ, itself.

For example, your very first citation (2 Tim 3:16) is no where near as comprehensive nor concise as the summation you attribute to it...not for the least of which reason is it doesn't define exactly what is and is not Scripture.

You must infer your doctrine and that inference is extra-biblical, no matter how you slice it.

Further still, codifies absolutely no hermeneutics by which that exhortation is to be carried out, the weakness of which is proven beyond dispute by the multiplicity of Protestant denominations.

A blitz of Scripture verses in not so impressive when one compares what the text actually says, and what Protestants attribute to it.

The human body of Jesus, although perfect, was 100% human in its properties. Jesus' divinity was substantive and not discernible from the properties of His human body.

Now, understand me here: I am not putting the above statement into contention - We are in reasonable agreement in this part. HOWEVER, the concept is simply declared - it is not supported by evidence. No one KNOWS the particulars of Yeshua's humanity and divinity. Therefore, I find it insufficient AS EVIDENCE bolstering the concept of Eucharist. There is no end to what one can imagine if one continues to declare one thing and then another, using the first to support the second. It brings this to mind:

Col 2:18 Let no man rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels, dwelling in the things which he hath seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
Col 2:19 and not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together through the joints and bands, increasing with the increase of God.

...It is a caution.

It is indeed comprehensive “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” thus whatever was established as Scripture at that time (most of what we refer to as Scripture already was when 2Tim. 3:16 was written) was the only distinct class of Divine revelation (versus the amorphous class of oral transmission) that was assuredly wholly inspired of God,” and thus by extension whatever else would be.

If Scripture did not exist as that class of revelation then Paul could not have referred to it thusly, and even then it manifestly was the transcendent supreme material standard for obedience and for the testing and establishment of Truth claims, all of which is established by Scripture.

Thus a concise list or table of contents is not necessary for Scripture to be that supreme authority, as whatever was written was the standard by which further truth claims would conflate with, and it reveals how truth was established as being of God. Thus Scripture does not truly contradict itself.

As Scripture provided for the writing of Divine revelation and the means of establishing truth, thus it provided for additional revelation being written and recognized as such, and which writings would be established in time like as prior Scripture was (which did not necessitate not by an assuredly infallible magisterium of men, as per Rome), due to their enduring Divine qualities and attestation. And thus it also could become evident in time that there was no more like it.

As for not defining exactly what is and is not Scripture, Rome herself did not have an indisputable canon until the year Luther died, about 1400 years after the last book was written, and she also without such a canon for the writings of their supreme authority, that being an infallible list of all the infallible teachings of her supreme magisterium, and to which she commands full assent of faith. Thus Roman Catholics must also discern such based upon fallible human reasoning, but which means they submit to Rome in the first place.

The larger issue here is that of knowing Truth, and it is in Scripture that assurance of truth being realized without an assuredly infallible magisterium of men as per Rome, but upon

You must infer your doctrine and that inference is extra-biblical, no matter how you slice it.

No, it is Scriptural, unless you hold to the view that only what is expressly set down in Scripture or formally defined is admissible, excluding what may “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” by precept and principle.

Further still, codifies absolutely no hermeneutics by which that exhortation is to be carried out, the weakness of which is proven beyond dispute by the multiplicity of Protestant denominations.

Rather, it establishes that whatever is Scripture is the supreme standard, and which itself testifies to how Truth is established, and reveals hermeneutics involved in interpretation, such as in doctrinally treating historical narratives as literal events, unlike approved major liberal Roman scholarship that relegates such things as the story of Jonah and the fish and Balaam and the donkey to being fables.

A blitz of Scripture verses in not so impressive when one compares what the text actually says, and what Protestants attribute to it .

While that is so often manifest in Catholic attempts to support tradition of men by Scripture, an examination of the provided references at issue does indeed substantiate that Scripture was the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and in so doing, it also reveals how that was done, and thus writings were established as Divinely inspired (Scripture).

"Therefore, I find it insufficient AS EVIDENCE bolstering the concept of Eucharist."

Hence the error of Protestantism. When you place your limited capabilities and capacity to reason as the governing authority over what is and is not scriptural you place yourself above faith.

The Church teaches that faith is our response to God's call. Responding in faith requires we trust in the authority of God as the cause of our belief. As Blessed John Henry Newman said; “Faith is not a conclusion from premises, but an act of the will following on the conviction that to believe is a duty”. Intellect, education, and reason can assist, but they cannot substitute for faith. We ultimately must choose to believe.

Catholics believe that being born again is not an event as is proclaimed by many Evangelical and Protestant denomination, but for many a life long process we call Conversion. Conversion is not always easy or rapid. It can often includes set backs based upon difficulties and doubts that challenge our faith. It is only when we confront these difficulties and doubts with faith can we progress.

Even when counter to reason, we must reconcile what the experts call cognitive dissonance. Catholicism requires that, in faith, we hold a number of opposing ideas at the same time; God and Man, Mother and Virgin, Sacrament and Sacrifice, Sinner and Saint, death and eternal life, mystery and reason, the secular and the spiritual, faith and understanding, rationalism and fideism, free will and submission. Without Faith these contradictions form an absurdity. For too many these absurdities form an obstacle to conversion remain absurdities until we superimpose Jesus upon them.

Saint Paul tells us in his epistles that the Cross was seen as a scandal to the Jews and as folly to the Greeks. It was an insult and repulsive to the Romans. To Archbishop Fulton Sheen the cross was an absurdity. “It is the vertical symbol of life contradicted by the horizontal symbol of death.” The Archbishop then completed his thought with the essence of Catholicism when he went on to say; “It is absurd until Jesus is superimposed upon it.”

Revealed truth is never counter to reason because the authority is God himself who reveals it and He can neither deceive nor be deceived. He is both author and authority. Therefore, Faith is not opposed to reason but is required by reason. Faith is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very Word of God who is Truth. No matter the degree to which Revealed Truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives."

CCC164 - Now, however, "we walk by faith, not by sight"; we perceive God as "in a mirror, dimly" and only "in part". Even though enlightened by him in whom it believes, faith is often lived in darkness and can be put to the test. The world we live in often seems very far from the one promised us by faith. Our experiences of evil and suffering, injustice and death, seem to contradict the Good News; they can shake our faith and become a temptation against it.

"You will never convince those who hate Catholicism that they are wrong and should return or enter the Church."

~ ~ ~

It's true, there hasn't been any change of belief. You give Scripture and explain true Catholic teaching and it's like you never shared it. The same protests come up in the next reply.

I keep on with discussion because people will remember when the Great Warning happens. They won't be waylaid. I hope they recall. It's so iffy though, will they forget after God shows them, the true faith is Roman Catholicism during the Great Warning? Especially when the persecution of the Church gets worse and from within the Church, holy Truth is changed by the anti-Christ. I am talking about the Real Presence. It's prophesied, the anti-Christ will abolish the Eucharist. The Holy Mass will go underground and later, be offered at the refuges.

Here's an excerpt, the last words to a Protestant messenger, Priscilla Van Sutphin on May 29th, 2012. We have to keep proclaiming the Truth!

Notice Our Lord's words about Manna. There's a double meaning besides reminding you God provides. The Eucharist is spiritual manna. The Holy Eucharist is prefigured in the Old Covenant, how much greater, yes, we receive God Himself in the New Covenant.

To: Priscilla Van Sutphin May 29, 2012

Our Lord:

...It is time for WAR. SPEAK the TRUTH, and I will establish it !

Do not hold back your voice ! SPEAK WITH CONVICTION AND CONFIDENCE, AND I WILL ESTABLISH MY KINGDOM AS YOU DO !

Compassion will not be mocked any longer. No longer will my intercessors with compassionate hearts be held back or tormented by the jealousy in the church, for when they speak the truth in love and compassion, all hell will tremble and religious spirits will flee. ONLY step out ONLY as I tell you to step out. Speak only as I lead you to speak. Speak in love, and not in the pride of I know it better, or I would never have done that. Without My grace having guided you, you don’t know what you would have done !

Kings I said, will come to the brightness of your rising ! ARISE and SHINE as I make you to shine like the stars in the heavens, as I pour out My glory in you ! TURN your heart to ANTICIPATE THIS! Lay down all bitterness and strife, all turmoil and fears. PUT AWAY ALL JEALOUSY! Where envy and self seeking is, every sort of evil is. When I finish your preparations no one will ever go back to these things. You will be changed, no longer bound by earthly things or the demons.

I will always love you. I will not grow tired of talking to you or answering your questions. I AM A GOOD FATHER. TRUST ME and not the world systems.

For EVERY SYSTEM WILL FAIL. There is an iceberg for every titanic system of men. I am making you into My lifeboats ! Turn to ME in trust. TURN to ME for all you need. If you can’t store food, will you go hungry when I have promised that like the Israelites in the desert, I can pour down manna. I WILL POUR DOWN MANNA THAT HEALS AND KEEPS YOU STRONG. Ask and it shall be given you, no matter the circumstance, I AM STRONGER than anything that can come against you. What is the loss of earthly things, when I have said, that even the lily of the fields are arrayed more beautifully than Solomon ? Can I not do anything with the clay I am molding ? Surely My arm is not too short to save ! Life consists of more than food and drink.

I can provide water when there is drought or rationing. I CAN DO IT.

I created the heavens and the earth with a WORD!”

http://www.ft111.com/eagles.htm

Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

The only people who need saviors are sinners and the only people who know they need a savior are those who know they are sinners.

Her song here is her own tacit admission of her own sinfulness.

If she had been born without sin and committed no sin during her life, then she would not need a savior.

And if God could cause her to be conceived without sin and live without sin, then He could do it for anyone and everyone. SO why didn't He. Why does He then let the world go through what it's been through when He could likewise protect all of us?

What kind of God who could do that for someone would let the world go to hell in a handbasket and allow all the sin and suffering that it brings when He has the power to prevent it, as He did with Mary?

Of course, there's also the issue that if Mary really were born sinless and remained sinless her entire life, then when she called God her savior, she lied.

Sinless people don't need to be saved, they already are (would be).

There's just no way that works.

Natural Law said:
“Catholics believe that being born again is NOT an event as is proclaimed by many Evangelical and Protestant denomination, but for many a life long process we call Conversion. Conversion is not always easy or rapid. It can often includes set backs based upon difficulties and doubts that challenge our faith. It is only when we confront these difficulties and doubts with faith can we progress.”

~ ~ ~

Beautifully said. It’s true, our justification is life long,
persevering till the end. I am not sure which Evangelical
or maybe it was a Pentecostal who came up with “born again”
means accepting into your heart Our Lord Jesus Christ as
your personal Lord and Savior, one time.

Why does Jesus explain to Nicodemus it involves “water and
Spirit?” A physical thing and the action of God. Where
is the water in the above new definition of “Born Again?”

"I am not sure which Evangelical or maybe it was a Pentecostal who came up with “born again”"

Actually, it is a beautiful and scriptural description for the conversion of a person from who he/she was to who/she has become by accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. There are a few fools who will try to argue what it is, but that is not in dispute among those who have or are experiencing it. The only contention among Christians is whether or not it is a single event or a process and whether or not it ensures Salvation for those who later fall away. Again, to those of us who have experienced or are experiencing it do not think that insisting on a ubiquitous belief is worth losing our souls over. Those who insist that Salvation once gained can never be lost have no apparent compunction over acting rudely in demanding an endorsement of their particular orthodoxy.

Peace be with you

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.