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.

“Couldn’t agree with you more.”

Newt took advantage of Catholics, bought an annulment (or two) and then used the church as a shield when the moral issues came up.

He’s a neither a religious, nor a cultural Catholic, he’s a political Catholic.

You RC boys should never trust a Protestant politician showing up on your doorstep requesting an annulment, Then again, you ought not trust Catholic politicians requesting annulments either.......but you always do for some reason.

That probably sends plenty of Catholics the rest of the way to becoming Protestants.

“I have more confidence in some Protestant politicians than Catholic ones when it comes to matters of life & family; Bush was more “Catholic” than Kerry.”

This isn’t really about Protestant or Catholic politicians, though Catholic politicians for national usually have to make it clear one way or another that Rome won’t have a voice in things beyond basic religious underpinnings. I guess we’ll find out soon if Mormon candidates for national office have to do the same thing. Protestant religions are generally more decentralized and the independence is implied in politicians - fair or not. I’m guessing that a Jewish national candidate would be more-or-less treated like a Protestant in that regard.

Personally, I’m happy for folks when they find their own religious home, no matter which direction they are swimming the Tiber.

But divorce shenanigans are not the exclusive domain of Protestants.

Hi metmom,

The two links you gave me are Protestant links. I am going
to go by the English translation of the 1st Bible, I cannot read Latin, the common language of the 4th century.

Here is a falsehood at your http://bible.cc/john/6-66.htm
They listed the various versions of John 6:66. They falsely
put the Douay-Rheims John 6:66 to be the same verse as
found in Protestant bibles. It’s NOT. In the Douay-Rheims,
it is verse 6:67. The Douay came before all these translations, a word for word translation the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

Here’s part of the Bible.com list...check the last one for the Douay-Rheims Bible:

New International Version (©1984)
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

New Living Translation (©2007)
At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him.

English Standard Version (©2001)
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

International Standard Version (©2008)
As a result, many of his disciples turned back and no longer associated with him.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
Because of this saying, many of his disciples went back and were not walking with him.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus’ speech made many of his disciples go back to the lives they had led before they followed Jesus.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

American King James Version
From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

American Standard Version
Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Douay-Rheims Bible
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

_ _ _

http://www.drbo.org/

John 6:66-67
And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

The reason for the difference ~

Catholics BELIEVE in the Holy Eucharist. Maybe God is trying to get your attention. Those who walked away rejected Our Lord’s words...JOHN 6:66. 666 is a famous number.

Then and now, you all reject the Real Presence.

The Holy Eucharist is the summit. If you would come to believe in the Real Presence, all your misunderstandings about the faith will fall away.

Matthew 5:16-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

The bread and cup of the Last Supper, the first communion service, could NOT have been literal flesh and blood. The commands against eating blood, ever, for any reason, are strong and clear. The blood in the sacrifices offered by the Jews was NEVER to be eaten, always poured out because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins.

Jesus could not have and did not change anything in regard to eating blood at the last supper, as many Catholics have claimed. If He had and they did drink His blood in the cup, He did not fulfill the Law, which forbade such an activity, which would have made Jesus a liar. In order for the Law to be fulfilled, the bread and cup must have remained bread and wine, only symbolic in its representation of His broken body and spilled blood.

“The oldest manuscripts used for translating the Bible are in Greek.

The Latin Vulgate is a translation from the Greek. If you are using it for the English translation, the English version you’re using is a translation of a translation, greatly increasing the likelihood of error.”

~ ~ ~

The first Bible was translated from the Greek and the Hebrew
into Latin.

Are you saying you can read Greek and Hebrew or the first
translation, Latin? Someone decided the Canon and someone translated the Greek and the Hebrew original manuscripts into the first Bible.

Pope Damasus chose the Canon in 382 A.D. and St. Jerome was the translator metmom. I can’t go with the KJV, the King’s translator’s made thousands of changes.

How come you don’t comment on John 6:66 in the Protestant Bible? I am teasing you. Seriously though, there are no coincidences.

_ _ _

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a scrupulously faithful translation into English of the Latin Vulgate Bible which St. Jerome (342-420) translated into Latin from the original languages. The Vulgate quickly became the Bible universally used in the Latin Rite (by far the largest rite of the Catholic Church).

St. Jerome, who was one of the four great Western Fathers of the Church, was a man raised up by God to translate the Holy Bible into the common Latin tongue of his day. He knew Latin and Greek perfectly. He was 1500 years closer to the original languages than any scholar today, which would make him a better judge of the exact meaning of any Greek or Hebrew word in the Scriptures. Besides being a towering linguistic genius, he was also a great saint, and he had access to ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the 2nd and 3rd centuries which have since perished and are no longer available to scholars today. St. Jerome’s translation, moreover, was a careful, word-for-word rendering of the original texts into Latin.

“In every case I can recall, I found that if you took a devout Catholic and put them in an ecumenical setting of bible studies, they’ll become a Protestant.”

~ ~ ~

I disagree. To be kind to my beloved Methodist neighbor,
when I was first converted...reverted to the faith. I went
with her to a ladies’ Protestant weekly Bible study.

The speaker was a woman..not a good idea. I lasted three
weeks. I was convicted, she shared in that short time,
man is COMPLETELY depraved. That’s not true.

God the Holy Spirit put on my heart, do not return. The problem is you have no authority to interpret Scripture. Private interpretation of Scripture...you see it’s fruits, division and error. All of Scripture has to line up. Old and New Testament. God gave the authority to interpret
Scripture to the Church.

Read a Catholic Bible...it will be help, especially the footnotes for difficult verses. http://www.drbo.org/

“...it is “supersubstantial” bread, meaning the higher substance brought about by transubstantiation...”

It is not about ‘transubstantiation’ or ‘transliteration’. Jesus said, ‘This is my body...’ and ‘This is my blood...’

It is...IT IS...it does not become, nor does it represent...it is My Body...it is My Blood...

When Catholics and Protestants and all Christians who are neither, fully understand that, the walls come down, and then it is time to rebuild the ‘walls’ according to God’s Plan, not any of our man-made plans.

And the peace of the Lord be also with you...

“God gave the authority to interpret
Scripture to the Church. Read a Catholic Bible...it will be help, especially the footnotes for difficult verses. http://www.drbo.org/ “

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible is far and away the last desirable Catholic Translation...the best one is the Jerusalem Bible (Not the ‘New Jerusalem Bible).

I have been using the Jerusalem Bible for nearly the last 40 years as my favorite translation...and I am not ‘Catholic’, but I am catholic...one holy catholic church...

God gave each of us who know and love His Son, Jesus, as personal friend and savior, the Holy Spirit to ‘interpret’ Scripture...to understand what Scripture says. There are NO misteries in the Word of God...except those created by theologians, both Catholic and Protestant.

We do not need men to interpret for us...Jesus said, when I go I give you another Comforter...the Holy Spirit. The Church is not some hierarchy, it is the body of those who are a part of the bride of Christ. The Holy Spirit will make it clear, if we are not already quick enough to understand what God wrote in the Word.

If you ask God, and it is not made plain to you, then ask yourself...who did you ask...the Real God will make it plain to you.

It is...IT IS...it does not become, nor does it represent...it is My Body...it is My Blood... When Catholics and Protestants and all Christians who are neither, fully understand that, the walls come down, and then it is time to rebuild the ‘walls’ according to God’s Plan, not any of our man-made plans.

It IS God's plan and when the disciples held the bread that Jesus had broken at that Last Supper, it was BREAD. When they put it in their mouths, it was STILL bread. When they chewed and swallowed it, it NEVER changed from being bread. The same thing with the cup of wine. It is so obvious that these "elements" represented Christ's broken body and shed blood and that partaking of these elements in the like manner was to be done...what did Jesus say? IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME. It was an object lesson for those there. It's that simple. Jesus used such lessons and stories and parables all the time to teach them.

How do we receive the sacrifice Christ made for us so that we HAVE eternal life? By faith. We believe on HIM. We RECEIVE Him by faith. A person can attend Mass twice a day and take "Holy Communion" every single time he's there, but without faith in the Savior Jesus Christ, he is as lost as one who never heard of Christ. It is NOT the taking of communion that saves, it is done in commemoration of the fact that we HAVE received him already by faith.

We are saved by grace through faith and NOT by works, not by righteous deeds we have done, not by our own merit or works, but ONLY through faith in Christ - in what HE did for us. Those religions that try to demand and insist that no other Christian churches have "legitimate" communion services BUT them are sadly mistaken. What it usually means is that those who state that are the ones who are missing out on the true intention and meaning behind the observance. Like the Apostle Paul said, as often as you do this, you do show the Lord's death until he comes. You do it in remembrance, to remind you, of what our precious savior has done for us. It is to remind us that we HAVE been given eternal life when we trusted in and received Christ. It is not a doling out of parcels of grace that together with all the other things we do gains us eternal life. We HAVE BEEN redeemed, by HIS blood, and we ARE SAVED right now! He did it ALL because of His great love and mercy.

“It IS God’s plan and when the disciples held the bread that Jesus had broken at that Last Supper, it was BREAD. When they put it in their mouths, it was STILL bread. When they chewed and swallowed it, it NEVER changed from being bread. The same thing with the cup of wine. It is so obvious that these “elements” represented Christ’s broken body and shed blood and that partaking of these elements in the like manner was to be done...what did Jesus say? IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.”

So, you do not accept what Jesus said. And that is the problem we continue to have between Christians. I understand both of the ‘arguments’...yours and ‘theirs’. Think how much easier it is if we just take what God says, what Jesus says, at face value. It is only in your mind if you do not believe that it is still ‘bread’ or still ‘wine’.
It does not ‘become’ it does not ‘represent’...it is...Jesus said so. Is that a lie?

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.