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.

"Probably when you said:"

Let me just say that I am deeply offended what I read repeated attempts to link Mark 7:19 to the Eucharist. I also expected to get some of this faux indignation for my specific simile. Do you know the number of times that the words "dung heap" and "flies" appear in Scripture? Surely Scripture is not offensive to you.

I introduced that simile as part of an attempt to shock and teach. There are indeed a lot of filthy things in this world, but I don't consider bodily functions to be one of them or the third rail of the Religion Forum. Changing a diaper on an infant, the disabled or the elderly does not disgust me. Bodily functions are properties of the human condition, but they are not what makes us human. God created them too and declared them good. The revulsion you and so many have when a scatological reference is made is incomprehensible in the context of the blasphemy that is not only tolerated but endorsed every day on these threads.

I was addressing how some can remain so obtuse when a discussion of the philosophical terms substance and properties is introduced to a discussion of transubstantiation. As I see it, and you can correct me if I am wrong, most do not engage in these discussions to learn, but to preach, boast and show off.

My conversion is genuine. I spent much of my Saturday taking a group of disabled relatives to an anointing Mass. I witnessed and experienced tears of adoration and joy from some very afflicted persons and when I returned to the FR I saw His name being used in attempts to hurt and harm fellow Christians. Anger is also a property of the human condition that is justified when it attempts to address the injustice and does not seek vengeance. I admit I walked a fine line, but my intention was to teach, not harm. If you were harmed I sincerely apologize.

Peace.

Let me just say that I am deeply offended what I read repeated attempts to link Mark 7:19 to the Eucharist.

Taking the verse in context, which should always be done when reading and interpreting Scripture for a proper understanding of what's being taught.....

Mark 7:14-23 14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” 17 And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

So just what DOES happen to the eucharist after it has been consumed?

Do you know the number of times that the words "dung heap" and "flies" appear in Scripture?

And the term *dung heap* is not even connected to that passage in Mark. There was no reason for you to use it.

And besides, those were Jesus own words concerning the eating of foods. If eating food cannot defile a man, eating food cannot make him holy either. And the principle is simple, it doesn't stay in the man, become part of his intrinsic nature.

Surely Scripture is not offensive to you.

How ironic........

Since the word “estin” in Greek can be translated as “is”, the usual case, or as “represents, means” if one wants to avoid an idiom and be clearer in other cases.

How to know when to translate “estin” as “is” (actually what is described), “is” (the idiomatic expression)or “means” (as in a standing for) depends, then, upon context.

John 17:3 is a good example of estin in the sense of “means” while the wheat and tares parable of Matt. 13 illustrates leaving estin as the idiomatic “is”.

In the context of Jesus remembrance meal the context is clear enough, Jesus words recorded in Greek use the term “estin” as “means”, Jesus’ flesh and blood was right before the disciples talking to them, not in the cup or disguised as bread.

Finally, Jesus sacrifice had not yet been put upon the altar in heaven so no partaking of it would be possible before then.

"Which part????"

With each post of yours I read there is less and less evidence that you were ever Catholic. At best you were nominally Catholic. Catholicism has always referred to the Eucharist as the Host. This was especially true when you were allegedly Catholic. What do you think "host" means in plain, literal English? It is a shame that you apparently rejected the faith because you didn't acquire a proper understanding of it. There is more integrity in a person who says "I fully understand the issue and reject or disagree" than with a person who says "I haven't got a clue, I don't care to know, so don't bother me with the facts".

I'll ask you the question again; "Which part, the divine substance or the physical properties of the specific species?"

If you choose to be obtuse and to obfuscate to mask your inability or unwillingness to answer a tough but relevant question that is your prerogative. Just don't waste my time with mini-lectures and questions while doing so. Dialog is a bi-directional communication, not a hostile interrogation in which you get to ask all of the questions and answer none.

May you grow in Grace and Wisdom.

The blatant biases I am speaking of are from those that refuse to read an article from a man who dared to leave the Church they worship no matter how well researched AND truthful it is.

All Webster does is take out of context from those sources he uses and never brings forth the totality of consistency of the entire writings of Church Fathers.He finds a few writings from sources that he can use to try and make people believe the Church Fathers were not being as clear and ignores the consistency of the Church Fathers.

The way Webster does this regarding the Eucharist and the Church Fathers is downright manipulative and diabolical.

How difficult do you think it would be for someone to go through all of your writings here on FR and pick out a few that you might not be as specific regarding what you believe because you know the people you are conversing with already know your beliefs because you posted them many times? How would you feel if people kept referring back to the few times you were unclear and used it to say your unclear writings raises doubt of your belief?

This is what William Webster does with the Church Fathers.I can see how people like Webster can cause people to become atheist in the way he manipulates Christan history

Time and time again many of us here on FR have shown the consistency of the Church Fathers that leaves NO doubt they believed in The Real Presence,yet somehow you still post from this Charlton Webster as if he is some scholar about Catholicism,which Webster clearly is not.

I wish you a Blessed day!

"Meant to ping you to #1109,my apologies."

NO apologies necessary. We really cannot expect those who selectively excerpt Scripture to support a false doctrine to be any more judicious when it comes to the Church Fathers or even the selective citation of our own posts. In this very thread we have been told that we must "rightly divide Scripture" and run it through the Protestant sausage machine because if we attempt to take it in its totality we end up with "one big mess", which is another reference to the Catholic Church. (Go figure, now we are being accused by those who say we never use Scripture of using too much of it.) I just want to go on record as saying that I love that "one big mess" because it is one created by God and isn't so messy to those who know and believe. It does, however, pose difficulties to those who seek to bend it to their will.

Peace and Blessings to you.

>> Which part, the divine substance or the physical properties of the specific species? <<

According to the RCC you can’t have it both ways. If you claim that the “physical properties” of the bread and wine remain you are anathema.

“CANON II. If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood — the species Only of the bread and wine remaining — which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, 13th session) “The form of this sacrament are the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament. A priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament. For, in virtue of those words, the substance of bread is changed into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his blood. In such wise, however, that the whole Christ is contained both under the form of bread and under the form of wine, under any part of the consecrated host as well as after division of the consecrated wine, there is the whole Christ.” (Council of Florence, 8th Session)

"If you claim that the “physical properties” of the bread and wine remain you are anathema."

I am sympathetic that your ignorance is again displayed in this respect. I implore you to familiarize yourself with the meanings and difference in the terms "Substance" and "Property" The canon clearly and repeatedly refers to the substance of the Eucharist being changed. The fact that your source referenced the presence of a host is evidence that the Church acknowledges the remaining physical properties of bread and wine in the species.

What you are claiming is "transignification" rather than transubstantiation which was definitely rejected by Pope Paul VI in 1965. Transignification, a strawman argument put forth by modernists and Protestant apologists, is the contention that a physical or chemical change in the elements does or must take place for there to be a Real Presence. This is in opposition to the doctrine of the Catholic Church that there is a change only of the underlying reality or substance of the species, but not of anything that concerns physics or chemistry properties of the species.

Peace be with you.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things offered.202

and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:

Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature.203

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."204

1378 Worship of the Eucharist. In the liturgy of the Mass we express our faith in the real presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine by, among other ways, genuflecting or bowing deeply as a sign of adoration of the Lord. "The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession."206

1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"210

Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.

Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.211

Aside from the worst poetry ever composed, there's so much else wrong with it that one hardly knows where to start.

*worship* the eucharist, eh?

Exodus 20:4-6 4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

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.