Posted on 03/01/2008 7:26:21 AM PST by Alex Murphy
WASHINGTON — In the marketplace of American faith, Catholicism is the big loser.
No other religion in the United States has lost more members to other faiths, or to no faith at all, than Catholicism, according to the new survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. The survey, conducted in 2007, found that 31 percent of Americans were raised Catholic, but less than 25 per cent of them still identify as Catholic.
Roughly 10 percent of all Americans have strayed from Catholic roots, the study reported.
Despite the loss, the survey shows that Catholics still represent nearly a quarter of the American population – just as surveys conducted in the early 1970s found.
So how does a religion lose so many members and continue to break even?
“It may well be that a factor in the Catholic numbers are the repeated waves of immigration,” said John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum.
The study found that almost half of all immigrants coming into the U.S. are Catholics, most of them from Latin-American countries.
The wave of immigration is changing the make-up of Catholicism. Latinos represent 45 percent of all Catholics aged 18-29 years, while only accounting for 20 percent of Catholics aged 50-59.
Much of Catholicism’s loss can be chalked up to previous generations of immigrants assimilating into American culture and remaining less faithful to their ethnic identities and religions, Green said.
“That kind of assimilation is typical for any ethnic group,” said Mary Gautier, senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research and Apostolate, at Georgetown University. “And it affects all religions – not just Catholicism.”
Her research indicates the Catholic Church is positioned in a dynamic and vital place in time, Gautier said. But there are challenges to keeping the faithful in the pews. Intermarriages, dwindling numbers of priests, and insufficient church facilities are reasons why people might go elsewhere, she said.
The Rev. Allan Figueroa Deck, S.J., was not surprised by the study’s findings.
“The Church is falling behind,” said Deck, executive director of cultural diversity for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “We don’t have enough foot soldiers.”
The Church’s teachings are not out of place with the times, Deck said, but there is a shortage of priests and lay ministers to spread the word, and effectively link parishoners to the Gospel.
“It’s our mission to evangelize and we are failing that,” said Deck, explaining that the term ‘evangelize’ includes the “conversion of the human heart and the promotion of social justice.”
The Catholic Church also struggles to reach out specifically to the needs of minority communities, such as blacks, Asians and Hispanics, said Deck, who has spent his career in the Hispanic ministry. And the assimilation of immigrants into the Church and also American culture is a tricky balance, he said.
“We have to be very careful,” Deck said. “Our role is to promote the Gospel, not any particular culture – not even American culture.”
I think it takes a special focus and even a special work of Holy Spirit to emphasize common goals etc. . . . maybe prayer and fasting. Few pay that price for that priority.
I think at some point, God will correct that . . . probably through lots of traumas. Sadly.
. . . in the fox holes, catacombs, prison camps . . . etc. . . . the Christian Club distinctives don’t seem to matter much.
The larger point is that the RC community isn't the only church losing members--just look what is happening to "Yuppie catholics" (Episcopalians) since Vickie Gene became bishop of N.H. and the EUSA governing council thought it cool to appoint a far-left-of-Hillary Clinton liberal woman to be the presiding bishop.
I, for one, believe the American RC losses, though admittedly while started more than a score ago (due to cultural changes rather than VII), had reached its peak under JP-II but began to decline again after the church's College of Cardinals chose Ratzinger as pope.
You won’t - because Eusibius’ History will reveal to you and your protestant friends the error of your ways.
What “valid source” do you have that is 16 centuries old?
There have been a few translations get them all to see for yourself that the differences amount to a hill of beans. It is on Amazon, you can have it in two days, and read it in another two.
You won’t, you can’t - since it will put the same thoughts into your head as it has many converts to Catholicism.
Talk is relatively cheap - investing the time to read the book - counts. It would take cajones on your part.
Lurking’
If one is a faithful and believing Catholic, the Word of God and His Holiness are on the same page.
“It’s not a raging priority. If convenient sometime, I might.”
another point - you feel free to bash Catholics ad nauseum regarding apostolic succession - yet you find little motivating you to read about the errors of your beliefs from someone who was there 1600 years ago.
If your read the authors from just the first 200 years from Christ’s death and Resurrection you would be dumbfounded.
I’ll bet you five pounds of hot peppers or three jars of Louisiana hot sauce - that you have never read even one of the 1-3 century authors.
Again you can’t read any of them as it will change your world view.
Lurking’
The "spirit" killeth, the letter giveth life! I'm all over VII, from the little I've read of the documents. But I have heard the most amazing BS offered as somehow in the spirit of VII.
And what if one does not believe that the pope is infallable?
You seem to think I’ve never read such sources.
Decades ago, when I wandered through such docs . . . they were not remotely as convincing as those on the Protty side.
And, I’ve noticed hereon that the better sources on the Protty side do not phase or influence the RUBBER sources on the RC side the least.
Sooooo, I have no great motivation to play that futile game.
Holy Spirit will foster ears to hear and eyes to see amongst whomsoever HE WILL.
Cheers.
HOGWASH.
Another All Hat, No Cattle Protestant.
You and your friends tell the Catholics show us some proof.
So we direct you to a 3rd century generally recognized (even by protestants) as an authority and YOU are too busy.
Not too busy - just afraid at what you’ll find.
Lurking’
Lurking’
HOGWASH.
I’ve read sufficiently of them to know their ilk.
And the bankruptcy of their positions.
I have no need to “prove” it to you or anyone else.
You are welcome to skip my posts, as suits you or whatever.
Dream on.
“then you are NOT Catholic”
You win the kewpie doll.
Political power? How many armored divisions DOES the Vatican have at its disposal? Inquiring minds want to know. Still waiting to hear your "authentic" history of the Pope spearheading wars of conquest. Renounce your American citizenship yet? just wondering...
LOL.
Hardly. I am guessing that you accept the abridged "Martin Luther Bible" where he assumes the authority to choose which books are biblical. I wonder what stops present-day Protestants from including gnostic gospels or essene writings as authentic Scripture since no Church or Pope could stop them. Then of course you would have to explain why Luther had the Authority to decide the Canon of Scripture rather than some four year old child.
True. Meanwhile I urge you to give it some thought.
**And what if one does not believe that the pope is infallable?**
What specifically are you speaking about. The Pope has only proclaimed two infalliable dogmas, The Immaculate conception and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven.
There are other things, however, from the Magisterium. So again I ask for your specifics.
Have you ever read the story of St. Macimillian Kolbe and the impact he had at Auschw3itz? I think you would be amazed.
Just asking a question, I am no expert on Catholic dogma. I honestly believed that you folks thought the man to be infallable.
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.