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.
Augustine (354-430): “They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” For He had said to them, “Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life.” “What shall we do?” they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent.”
This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate 25, §12.
~ ~ ~
Hi,
And your point? So silly, to use the saints and Catholic writings to try and disprove the faith.
The end times we’re in and the soon Great Tribulation,
Jesus isn’t returning to reveal to the world you can
believe what you wish. That sums up Protestantism.
Which of the 30,000 plus Protestant sects is Our Lord going
to reveal to the world is the one?
I recall reading something to that effect a few years ago, but frankly I never give them much thought and even less credence. I find a lot of their theology and practices to be more directed towards differentiating themselves from anything mainstream and thus attention whoring, than anything theological in nature. It is just another obscure group of people trying to be noticed.
Frankly, I wish they were more like the Amish, Menonites or Hutterites who rejected 21st century technology and remained off the internet and the theological forums.
Where Augustine agrees with scripture, that works for me too!
"Which of the 30,000 plus Protestant sects is Our Lord going to reveal to the world is the one?"
The ones who believe "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
“The word ‘this’ (touto) is a neuter adjective. The word ‘bread’ (artos) is a masculine noun. This means that the neuter adjective ‘this’ is not referring to the masculine noun ‘bread’, because their genders do not correspond” (emphasis mine).”
He overlooks what is described. Jesus broke the bread before ottering it to the disciples, saying “This”.
“This” was not the unbroken loaf (masculine) but a piece or a fragment of the loaf (neuter).
Hence a fragment or piece of a loaf was literally “a break”.
offering! what’s ottering?
The above, absolutely not true. It conflicts with the “continual sacrifice.” You need a priest to offer sacrifice. There is a New Covenant priesthood. There’s that mix of using a few Jewish terms with Protestant heresies. And, why is an “altar” spoken of in Revelation? See the verses which conflict and there are more.
NAsbU Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: Anyone who performs any thing else has blasphemed Altar ? Who is standing there ? Our High Priest - Yah'shua. How do you read the words of Rav Sha'ul ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
NAsbU Hebrews 10:12 but He (Yah'shua),
Our High Priest, Yah'shua has commanded us to have compassion not SACRIFICE.
having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time,
SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, NAsbU Matthew 9:13 "But go and learn what this means:
The continual sacrifice occurred once and for all on Calvary.
'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,'(Hosea 6:6)
for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,'(Hosea 6:6)
for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
that Yah'shua's sacrifice was insufficient !
You're not being truthful!
The cup was not removed it was given to Priests at one point during the reformation and the rest of the congregation still received the full Body ,Blood ,Soul and Divinity of Christ in the Eucharist. Nobody missed out on the full Christ
Your problem is that there are too many of us former Catholics who remember quite clearly the time when BOTH elements of communion were NOT offered to snow us.
I always remember the cup being offered and I am 51 years old.
I don't see modernism as a legitimate theological reason to leave. Certain theological points of protestantism is exactly that,modernism, that does not resemble early Christians pre reformation.
That said, most of mainstream protestantism still adheres to Catholic Doctrine like Infant Baptism,Divinity of Christ etc..
This very church, which at one time had temporal power and did not hesitate to use it to murder and plunder all who dared to rebel
The church did not kill anyone,people kill, and there is no Catholic dogma that condones killing anyone for not agreeing with Catholic Theology. I could point the same finger at the reformers and protestants that killed because they interpret the Bible for allowing it as well as you well know
Why not allow people to speak, let others consider their words and proofs and let the Holy Spirit do what HE does best - convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment?
You are being allowed to speak,I too pray the Holy Spirit opens the hearts as well and also to see error in people like William Webster in his theological misrepresentations of the Church Fathers.
Wow! Do you ever have a surprise coming.
The problem non-Catholics have with the Church isn't censorship, it is the Church not allowing just anyone to speak for the Church. Imagine if we did, we would have more than 33,000 official versions of the Catechism and rampant parish shopping.
Its funny that all of those folks who have at least four Protestant churches (the church I used to attend, the church I'm attending now, the church we are checking out, and that other church I won't set foot in again) all poll as Protestant in all of the surveys we see referenced here and all profess lockstep unanimity on doctrinal issues in this forum.
Peace be with you.
CC to boatbums, not because this post is directed at her, but because I lifted one of her quotes from stfassisi's thread)
None of them. Christ didn’t institute an institution and neither did the apostles. The body of Christ consists of all true believers regardless of where they worship.
“Explain why Jesus didn’t say “This IS a SYMBOL of My body?”
Why should he? He had said, “Take eat this is (estin) my body.”
“Why did He not run after the disbelieving followers and correct them? Stating “no you are wrong, don’t go away, I was speaking symbolically, I was using a metaphor.”
Again, why should he? He didn’t go after the wealthy man that was keeping all the commandments but just couldn’t part with his wealth. Jesus didn’t go back to the ungrateful men he had cured of blindness, did he?
IN EACH CASE THOSE WHO WENT NO FURTHER DISPLAYED THEIR UNWILLINGNESS TO GROW IN THE FAITH.
All displayed a degree of hard heartedness so unlike the Samaritan women or the disciples that stayed with Jesus.John 6:62
~ ~ ~
You repeat Our Lord’s exact words and reject them with
a mocking comment.
The in-caps.
Wow! A mouthful, how telling. I have a feeling still, the
person who wrote the above will say “yes” at the Great Warning. Just as prophecy states, you can’t “grow”, mature in the faith without the Eucharist. You need the “grace” of the Real Presence.
On the rich young man, the disciples who walked away in John 6, the two can’t be compared. The young man understood but they didn’t. They are similar to the Protestants objecting here. Catholics tell you the Eucharist is supernatural, it isn’t cannibalism and it gets ignored. The “spirit and life” verse means just that, you have to think supernaturally. Accept that God can come to us in this manner.
John 6:61
Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
The comparison is the reaction of Jesus toward the above and the blind men not their reactions to his words. Why do I have to explain the obvious? “Mocking comment”??? Nonsense!
“They are similar to the Protestants objecting here. Catholics tell you the Eucharist is supernatural, it isn’t cannibalism and it gets ignored.”
As well it should be. I don't genuflect and kiss the ring of either here.
“The comparison is the reaction of Jesus toward the above and the blind men not their reactions to his words. Why do I have to explain the obvious? “Mocking comment”??? Nonsense!”
~ ~ ~
Two different situations, one understood and the other, the
disciples didn’t so you can’t compare them.
AMEN!!!
That’s why I didn’t.
John 6:53-58 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever FEEDS ON my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”
OK, this is the passage that Catholics use to justify transubstantiation. Why do Catholics die? JESUS SAID THAT WHOEVER ATE (CATHOLICS SAY IT MUST BE DONE PHYSICALLY) WOULD NEVER DIE. If someone is going to be consistent in their Bible interpretation then it must mean that whoever physically eats of the physical body and blood of Jesus will never physically die.
It is the height of hypocrisy and points to deception to interpret verses literally or not on a line by line basis. It violates general principles of interpretation of ANYTHING, much less Scripture.
~ ~ ~
Correction `~(~!.
Catholics don’t say it, Christ does. And the term Our Lord used was “eat” not FEEDS ON.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Non-Catholic Christians reject the Eucharist because the cannot confect it. Protestantism broke away from the faith in the 16th century, they have no priesthood.
And the rest of the comments above don’t require a response,
they obviously can be left.
Very true,dear brother.The cafeteria Catholics also seem to think they can speak for the Church as well but thankfully we have a very Blessed Holy Father in Pope Benedict XVI to shut them down openly in public which gives them a chance to repent and change to conform to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
That’s why I didn’t.
~ ~ ~
I know, I asked, explain the below, the 4th time now. Instead, Protestants always bring up another verse, like
you did, the one about the rich young man and the blind
man healed. Where do you get the authority to say, sometimes Jesus is speaking literally in John 6 when He
says “flesh” and other times the word “flesh” is only
a symbol, a metaphor.
John 6:51-52
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my FLESH, for the life of the world.
Jesus says that the bread which He will give for the life of the world is His flesh. When did He give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross. Was that symbolic? If you think Jesus is speaking symbolically here when He says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, then you must also conclude that Jesus’ death on the cross was symbolic...it wasn’t really Jesus hanging up there...it was symbolic flesh and symbolic blood.
Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something. - Plato
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.