Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....
The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.
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.
Spiritual needs
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.
Becoming Protestant
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.
Lessons from the data
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.
I maintain that unless one can cite the OT prophecy that tells Simeon he would not see death before seeing the Messiah, it must be conceded that by the narrative comments therein, and Simeon's own words as "the Holy Ghost was upon him," the Bible is not the entirety of God's word.
Do they not have the word "most" where you come from?
Wrong:
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.Apparently they don't have "ratchets" where you come from, either.Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Do you ever tire of being the fool?
Then I’m back to being unabashed and uncorrected. (sighhh)
Then stop projecting.
I asked first but have received no reply.
Since I don’t accommodate do as I say, not as I do, when the proof and cites are forthcoming about the charges against Protestantism, then the ones about Catholicism will be addressed.
Please don't get drawn into the tit-for-tat exchanges with people with closed minds. I've tried to play that game with them and the result is always the same. Any proof you can produce has already been discounted and rejected a priori. Some believe themselves to be effectively infallible and to them the possibility any information to the contrary is impossible.
"To those with faith no proof is necessary, to those without faith no proof is sufficient" - St. Thomas Aquinas
I preceded that with "I can only surmise". Would you rather that I used a different wording like "it appears" or "All Protestants".
Peace be with you
I understand, dear FRiend.
Nevertheless, some of us serve as witness against the stiff necked.
If you believe I’ve demonstrated the myopia and dogmatism of our opposition on this thread, I’ll take my leave.
“it must be conceded that by the narrative comments therein, and Simeon’s own words as “the Holy Ghost was upon him,” the Bible is not the entirety of God’s word.”
I recalled you made this argument before, however, as then, holding to Scripture as the supreme and sufficient authority does not require that all that can be known is in Scripture, which itself confirms there is more, (Jn. 21:25; Rev. 10:4; 2Cor. 12:4) but that it is the assured established Word of God and supreme authority, and that what is necessary for salvation and growth is formally (very limited) or materially contained therein. And which provided for additional writings being added, as what “the Word of the Lord/God” revealed was normally written down, as a study of the phrase reveals. And thus we know what was revealed to Simeon, versus eons-old textually unverifiable nebulous traditions.
And while Scripture also provides for illumination and communication from God (esp. during the offering:), all such are subject to the Scriptures, as being the established assured word of God and supreme authority.
In contrast is a group of men asserting that whatever they and their successors will ever speak universally on faith and morals will be as sure and faultless as if it came from the lips of the Lord Jesus, and or require the same full assent of faith. This was not necessary for Truth to be provided and preserved as seen by Scripture, nor was that promised, despite attempts to extrapolate this based upon promises of guidance, etc., and which even writers of Holy Writ did not claim, as i previously (654) posted on.
Not at all. I am only cautioning you that the requests for "proof" are rhetorical at best and typically disingenuous. Just don't waste a lot of time or emotional energy in responding.
Peace be with you.
If His teaching is interpreted to mean something against the word of YHWH which came before, then that interpretation is flat wrong - simple as that. The only other option is that He is teaching falsely, and therefore cannot be the Messiah, and cannot be known to be the 'maker of the universe.'
The problem with 'precept upon precept, line upon line' is that the thing said before MUST carry more weight than the thing said later, as the previous word is already uttered, and YHWH does not change.It is the same problem as the Pharisee's laws making the immutable Law of YHWH to be made null. His word will not come back to Him empty. This is unique to YHWH among all the pretender 'gods' and proves He is the I AM.
I will not be quick to throw that away.
Inserting "all that can be known" for my assertion simply evades the core issue of the dilemma I pose to devotees of Sola Scriptura.
We have in Luke 2 text that clearly tells us Simeon, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, calls the promise made to him God's word. A promise further endorsed by the Gospel writer, himself.
Apart from an OT verse outlining that same promise, the inescapable conclusion must be that all gratuitous assertions claiming that which is NOT in the Bible CANNOT be the word of God, is falsified.
There is no other alternative for those positing the Scripture as the supreme authority in faith and practice.
Further restatement of the rationale that forms the basis of Sola Scriptura is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
You aren't really suggesting that we should observe Kosher dietary practices, stone adulterers and those who work on the sabbath, perform animal sacrifices, refuse to eat with Gentiles, and the other 600+ laws of the Halakha are you?
Peace be with you.
Discuss the issues instead of the poster.
Also, the Apostles and more importantly their MESSAGE/SCRIPTURE was authenticated by God via the miracles they performed.
The Popes/Magesterium have no such authentication from God for their extra biblical tradition.
Well seeing as how he made no effort to "explain" himself to those who interpreted his statement as you have and left him, and he is still undoubtedly The Christ, I'd say the one needing a new hermeneutic is you!
Obviously, "God in the Flesh" does not share your dogmatism on the particulars of how this passage is to be understood.
Nothing could be further from the truth! The problem is Protestants habitually declare these miracles, which occur even into the present day, to be "lying signs and wonders."
just the miraculous transformation of discarded consecrated hosts into human flesh and blood is a study in its own right.
There are several points of history that must be considered. You are free to draw your own conclusion, but not free to claim that conclusion is completely valid if the data you considered was incomplete or inaccurate.
- Jesus ministry lasted about three years during which time He taught not only the Apostles and a cadre of Disciples, but preached and performed miracles in front of many thousands of witnesses, both friendly and hostile.
- Following His resurrection Jesus instructed His Apostles and Disciples to preach the Gospel to every nation and people which they diligently did at great personal risk.
- At the Pentecost the Apostles and Disciples were given the gift of tongues, not some incoherent babbling, but the actual ability to fluently speak languages they did not know such that they were able to preach the Gospel to all corners of the earth.
- Nowhere is Scripture does it record Jesus or any of His followers writing anything down, carrying any writing materials, or provide any instructions to actually produce any written documentation after the fact.
- Nowhere in Scripture is there a reference to a Bible, a table of contents of a Bible, or a set Canon criteria or process.
- There are numerous specific references to a Church with a mission, a hierarchy and structure, and an authorization.
- The Church functioned for over 300 years without a Bible, relying on Tradition. In fact, so prevalent were fraudulent and compromised versions of the Gospels and the Letters that the actual production of the Bible was met with a great deal of skepticism and it was only the authority of the Church that made them credible and acceptable to Christendom.
- The works selected for the Bible were based only upon their being judged inerrant when compared to the Tradition of the Church.
- The Canon was set by the Church, repeatedly reaffirmed by the Church and remained unchanged and unchallenged for over 1200 years.
- Now you can form an opinion as to whether the Church deviated over time from its initial teachings, but you cannot credibly claim that the Bible came about ex nihilo and that the Catholic Church never had a role or an association with its production.
- Since we all agree that Scripture is indeed God Breathed and infallible it is evidence that the Church was an instrument of the Holy Spirit.
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.