Of course, no responsible person would make such a statement without being careful to make sure it was true. So you must have done considerable research and have reams of data. Otherwise how could you meaningfully and responsibly characterize so large a group?
May we see your data?
I note that you characterize only those who convert to "Romanism". By this term do you mean to include only those who become Roman Catholics, or also those who become members of rites which are not Roman but which are in communion with the See of Rome?
It occurs to me that your conclusion has a corollary, that I haven't quite formulated yet. When I converted the Church where I worshipped was a little cinder block monstrosity without a bell to be found anywhere, and "smells" trotted dout only rarely. Therefore since I cannot be in the "smells and bells" crowd, according to your theory, I must be in the "work their way to heaven" group.
this probably has evangelical consequences. You could scout out the habits and usages of the parish where your "prospect" worships. If it's beautiful and the worship is ornate, then you could make your pitch on the basis of the beauty of Holiness. If it's ugly, like the church where I used to worship was - where we sang hymns translated badly from foreign languages by people whose native language was anything but standard English, and the draft translations were all given to third grade boys for style checking - then you could conclude that all the worshippers were into "works-righteousness" and make your pitch accordingly.
Or, just as a suggestion, the evangelist might take care to avoid making sweeping generalizations which suggest more about the lack of either rigor or courtesy in his thought and expression than about the people whom he is hastily sweeping into little prefab boxes.
But, no. Who would do that? Thought is hard. Courtesy is boring.
Well, that was quite a diatribe.
You’ll need to excuse me as I dismiss your false sensitivities towards putative discourtesies in light of the grandstanding and backslapping of the Catholic Caucus whenever an Evangelical falls to the wiles of Romanism.
My data? That’s simple. My data is your data. I simply read your own ballyhoo and deconstruct the Converts motives and deduce the conclusion from the evidence.
I doubt any other “rigorous” reading outside of Catholic propaganda would lead to a different conclusion.