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.

While “any” Catholic might agree with the newadvent statement (can it be that all, “any Catholic”, would anyone be able to speak for them all?) such agreement would not be based upon any sort of analysis of what is actually being said in this melange of pettifoggery and Orwellian doublespeak.

Looking at this statement under the bright light of the Scriptures that the Catholic church claims it owns by virtue of writing, editing, protection and preservation, and reception, reveals the spiritual bareness of the newadvent pronouncement.

“Regarding the merits of the Utraquist controversy, if we assume the doctrinal points involved — viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds, the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species, and the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary”

(Utraquist simply means “both” here and given the level of writing in the rest of the article stands out out as a pretentious Latin fossil).

“...if we assume the doctrinal points involved....”

Of course! Anything makes sense if only we assume enough but on what basis can anyone assume that is which is purportedly going to be demonstrated by some evidence to be so?
And if we can assume a mouse why not a whale and be done with it?

“.. viz. the absence of a Divine precept imposing Communion under both kinds,...”

That's a ocean of assumption packed into a thimble since the “Divine precept” was “keep doing THIS (bread and wine, eat and drink)in remembrance of me”. Not half of “this” but an inclusive “this”.

“the integral presence and reception of Christ under either species...”

Thus another assumption that the bread and wine, species, are to this degree equivalent or perhaps with the bread somewhat more necessary as no one has suggested taking the wine only to avoid untoward events from trying to swallow a hard wafer.
Yes it is in the blood that life resides and must be poured out for forgiveness of sins not unleavened bread.
If either bread or wine would do we're at a loss to explain why Christ used both and said to “keep doing THIS”.

“.... the discretionary power of the Church over everything connected with the sacraments that is not divinely determined”

Only by tossing the Scriptures into either the guillotine or the rack may it be said that those entitled to drink of the cup could be denied it by fiat when Jesus said both were necessary for eternal life.
“..not divinely determined...”? Please.

“...the question of giving or refusing the chalice to the laity becomes purely practical and disciplinary, and is to be decided by a reference to the two fold purpose to be attained, of safeguarding the reverence due to this most august sacrament and of facilitating and encouraging its frequent and fervent reception...”

Thus may all the dense and dark hedgerows of unscriptural clap-trap that encircle the laity be reduced to one sturdy pale: Do the laity (or some distinct fraction of it) have a God given right and obligation to “keep doing this in remembrance of me” or is it an optional call? Something akin to a spectator sport? You can cheer on the team but stay off the field? So no cup for you since you might spill a drop and whoever heard of straws?

“Nor can it be doubted that the modern Catholic discipline best secures these ends. The danger of spilling the Precious Blood and of other forms of irreverence; the inconvenience and delay in administering the chalice to large numbers — the difficulty of reservation for Communion outside of Mass: the not unreasonable objection on hygienic and other grounds, to promiscuous drinking from the same chalice, which of itself alone would act as a strong deterrent to frequent Communion in the case of a great many otherwise well-disposed people; these and similar “weighty and just reasons” against the Utraquist practice are more than sufficient to justify the Church in forbidding it”

Examine in the above just what is meant by “Catholic discipline”.
Imagine Jesus being told by the disciples that gathering up the fragments of bread after the crowds ate that doing so was ‘unsanitary, inconvenient and would just take too long. They may have been told to do but they felt justified in just saying NO. Imagine that and that's the gist of what is said above. You may (or may not)have an obligation to partake of the wine but convenience decides.

“Catholic discipline”: “There's no way Christ can offer wine to 5000 with shaky handed old people and squirmy babes so we'll forbid it.” Bread yes, wine no.

“when Christ in the words “Do this for a commemoration of me” (Luke 22:19), gave to the Apostles both the command and the power to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice, they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque. This obligation the Church has rigorously observed.

And so has absolutely defrauded the laity by pretending there was an obligation on their part to partake of either when in fact the Catholic doctrine was that “they understood Him merely to impose upon them and their successors in the priesthood the obligation of sacrificing sub utraque.”

Back to the simple question: Were the laity ever obligated to partake of the bread and wine? If they were...who can deny either to them and if not they've been led to partake unworthily.

More careful avoidance of the obvious. Jesus had just compared and contrasted himself with the manna, the bread from heaven that sustained the Israelites in the wilderness. No wine fell from heaven with that “bread” but lest anyone suppose otherwise Jesus says plainly four times in a row, vss. 53,54,55,56, flesh AND blood, i.e., bread AND wine, not flesh OR blood, not bread OR wine.

“In John 6:54, Christ says: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” but in verses 52 and 59 he attributes life eternal to the eating of “this bread” (which is “my flesh for the life of the world”, without mention of the drinking of His blood: “if anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever”. Now the Utraquist interpretation would suppose that in verse 54 Christ meant to emphasize the distinction between the mode of reception “by eating” and the mode of reception “by drinking”, and to include both modes distinctly in the precept He imposes. But such literalism, extravagant in any connection, would result in this case in putting verse 54 in opposition to 52 and 59, interpreted in the same rigid way”

More assumptions. If you do not bend the knee to the “IN TRUTH THERE IS NO WINE” deep thinkers then surely you are imposing “ But such literalism, extravagant in any connection,” upon Jesus words, which like all speech can contain wide degrees of literalness even in a single sentence. And to make sure the ITTISNW will even assume a title for the anti-ITTISNW, “UTRAQUIST”!

Consumption is consumption no matter the mode or fine distinctions between the acts of eating and drinking.

“We are justified in concluding that the N.T. contains no proof of the existence of a Divine precept binding the faithful to Communicate under both kinds”.

But the priests are so bound? Either the laity are required to “keep doing this” or they are not, no communion “light” to be found in the Scriptures.

What are the credentials of all these so-called *prophets* that you keep quoting?

The prophets are usually humble people who love God very much and the exception a great sinner at the time who God chooses to help all of us come to believe.

On what basis are their words considered true?

The messages line up with magisterial teachings, oral tradition, prophecy given the saints and Scripture, which is (right now) non-Catholic Christian's lone authority.

How have they received their *revelations*?

Doesn't Scripture say something about hearing a voice behind thee. The prophets usually hear an "interior" revelation and a few actually hear God's voice and a third, not many, Our Lord and the Blessed Mother appear to them.

Have they been correct 100% of the time as required by God?

God always reveals the truth, that's one 100% but some prophecy already given is changed by man's believing, changed by mankind's prayers and actions. One of the major reasons God speaks to us, to every generation through prophets.

Why should we accept their words as true?

The words in prophecy make explicit God's revelation. prophecy helps the faithful live more fully in a certain period of history.

For that matter, why should we accept them at all?

No one is required to believe private revelation -prophecy-. If they don't, it's their loss. Do not reject your own Protestant messenger. Glynda's messages are shared on a two Catholic sites I know of, her messages line up with Catholic prophecy though not as explicit and that is for a reason. Does this mean Catholics are more open to God's messages? I hope not, it saddens God.

~ The sites are besides her own, shared in the OP.

www.catholicbinder.com

Yahoo Groups - Seers 2

>> True, and using simple words, non-Catholic Christians say things that make no sense.<<

Here’s why they don’t make sense to Catholics.

1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

When Catholics stop listening to the “wisdom of man” put out by the Vatican they’ll begin to “make sense”.

>>I wish Protestants could see without any God given authority, their beliefs contradict Scripture who they proclaim is their only authority!<<

Well, here’s the “God given authority” for all who will listen.

And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16,17

Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

Notice that “no distinction” between the apostles and the lay? The RCC claiming “without any God given authority” applies to anyone but the Vatican is total nonsense and contradicts the clear teaching of scripture. I certainly wouldn’t rely on them.

>> On “making sense” there is one fallen away Catholic lady here who is Protestant now, this is the reason most of her posts aren’t replied to plus all of her replies, are a mock of the true faith.<<

Fallen away? LOL I think the admonition to “come out” of the false “religion” of Catholicism in no way could be described as “fallen away”. Those who have “come out” of the Catholic “religion” have found truth and have become part of the body of Christ rather than some humanistic “religion”.

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.