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 had to chuckle at his list of three. All three are pagan in origin.
Every drop of the Consecrated cup and every piece of the consecrated bread contains the Full Resurrected Christ in tact- Body ,Blood, Soul and Divinity.
Perhaps you should realize that Jesus was Resurrected and Ascended-He did so intact. There is no Blood left on earth that was shed from the crucifixion.
One would think that someone who believes they are following the true faith would not want to hold anything back in thier beliefs and proclaim the good news if they were confident in those beliefs
Very telling,dear sister, that you don;t answer,but also very promising for you to be open to change
I realize you're not the author but really...you do have the discretion of posting or not.
“So show me how it’s taken out of context. The context is that the disciples were discussing putting the gentiles under the law like Catholics try to put people under the law.”
THE ABOVE IS NOT WHAT YOU, CYNICALBEAR FIRST STATED!!!!
CynicalBear previously posted:
KJV Bible:
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.
CB said, his private interpretation:
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.
~ ~ ~
You didn’t include the verses surrounding, people would see you took out of context, the fruit, you misinterpreted the two verses. That is not what those verses are talking about. Who is the “us” and the “them” in Acts 15:8? What is the “DIFFERENCE” Peter is speaking of? I wasn’t sure so I looked it up.
It’s not the difference between the authority of the Apostles, the first priests and your term the “lay” people. Peter was talking about a disagreement, some believed everyone should be circumcised, Gentiles too. Peter set them straight because of His authority. If you take into context all of the verses, you see in verse 7 Peter speaks of God’s choice, giving Peter the authority, “by my mouth”, the Gentiles should hear the Gospel. Peter, the first Pope.
p.s. The Gospel was changed, the word in the KJV is
Distinction. “Difference” and “Distinction” do not mean the
same. Wonder why King James’ translators would use another
word? They also changed “priests” to “elder” in Acts 15:2, Protestantism has no priesthood, the obvious change.
+ + +
* [15:1–35] The Jerusalem “Council” marks the official rejection of the rigid view that Gentile converts were obliged to observe the Mosaic law completely. From here to the end of Acts, Paul and the Gentile mission become the focus of Luke’s writing.
* [15:1–5] When some of the converted Pharisees of Jerusalem discover the results of the first missionary journey of Paul, they urge that the Gentiles be taught to follow the Mosaic law. Recognizing the authority of the Jerusalem church, Paul and Barnabas go there to settle the question of whether Gentiles can embrace a form of Christianity that does not include this obligation.
* [15:6–12] The gathering is possibly the same as that recalled by Paul in Gal 2:1–10. Note that in Acts 15:2 it is only the apostles and priests, a small group, with whom Paul and Barnabas are to meet. Here Luke gives the meeting a public character because he wishes to emphasize its doctrinal significance (see Acts 15:22).
* [15:7–11] Paul’s refusal to impose the Mosaic law on the Gentile Christians is supported by Peter on the ground that within his own experience God bestowed the holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his household without preconditions concerning the adoption of the Mosaic law (see Acts 10:44–47).
Acts 15:1-10
A dissension about circumcision. The decision and letter of the council of Jerusalem.
[1] And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. [2] And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and PRIESTS to Jerusalem about this question. [3] They therefore being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice, and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. [4] And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them. [5] But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.
[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no DIFFERENCE between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Holy Scripture doesn’t interpret itself. God gave the
authority to interpret Scripture to the Catholic Church,
it’s her book.
Returning in post 1380 to say you said something else to cover up your
first comment, giving everyone the meaning, your private
judgment of Acts 15:8-9.
The constant fruit of Private Judgment, a heresy, is ERROR.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act15.pdf
The word translated *elder* is *presbuterous*.
It is not the Greek word for *priest*.
That word is *hiereis* as in Acts 4:1.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/act4.pdf
CB’s words convict him. Trying to correct or hide his
private interpretation of Scripture. There you go, tell
everyone how the heresies are from God.
The heresy of Private Interpretation of Scripture, it’s fruit is error and division.
Add to the list, fibbing.
~~~~
CynicalBear:
“So show me how it’s taken out of context. The context is that the disciples were discussing putting the gentiles under the law like Catholics try to put people under the law.”
~ ~ ~
THE ABOVE IS NOT WHAT YOU, CYNICALBEAR FIRST STATED!!!!
CynicalBear previously posted:
KJV Bible:
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.
CB said, his private interpretation:
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.
The word translated *elder* is *presbuterous*.
It is not the Greek word for *priest*.
That word is *hiereis* as in Acts 4:1.
~ ~ ~
Hey metmom,
Geeee...does God mean elder or priest? The original Bible, from the original writings, the word is priest. Protestants, ie, in the KJV, King James’ 16th century translators changed “priest” to elder. Why would they do that?
Oh yes, Protestants have no ministerial priesthood.
Metmom, you are the best Catholic apologist.
Words such as "false" "error" or "wrong" do not attribute motive.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Cynical Bear said one thing when he had previously said something else. What should one call it then?
What’s the correct word to use at FR Religion Moderator?
Private judgment results in lies and error and division.
So...just don’t post whose fibs, right?
No response to my reply, I can share post #1391 again.
Maybe this time?
~ ~ ~
CynicalBear:
“So show me how it’s taken out of context. The context is that the disciples were discussing putting the gentiles under the law like Catholics try to put people under the law.”
~ ~ ~
THE ABOVE IS NOT WHAT YOU, CYNICALBEAR FIRST STATED!!!!
CynicalBear previously posted:
KJV Bible:
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.
CB said, his private interpretation:
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.
“Original Bible, writings” would be what exactly?
“Original Bible, writings” would be what exactly?
~ ~ ~
“The original Bible, from the original writings, the word
is priest”
A question you should already know the answer to since you are a non-Catholic Christian.
But I was attempting to discover what you meant by that statement. Never mind.
Do you see that phrase stpio? The phrase “granting them the same spirit” was talking about the Holy Spirit. They were no longer to be kept “under the law” and that Holy Spirit” gave them the same freedom from the law and the same Holy Spirit that gave the apostles understanding gave the people understanding. The Bereans were commended in Acts for “interpreting” scripture because that is where they were going to “see if these things were true” which the apostles taught. The Bereans were commended for proving the teachers were right by going to scripture just as we are to prove the RCC or any other who would deem to teach us. It’s the indwelling of the “same Spirit” and the scripture which we are given to “interpret” the correctness of those supposed teachers.
>>Peter set them straight because of His authority.<<
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Who was it again who said My sentence is?
Don’t give me that error from the CC that Peter was the leader. If he was it would have been him who made the final decision.
>> Council of Jerusalem, called by Peter<<
How about we read scripture before we believe that RCC error?
Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. 2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they (Who? certain men) determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them (Who? Some of the certain men), should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
It was not Peter who called the meeting. It was the “certain men who decided they should go to Jerusalem to meet with all the apostles to decide. Peter spoke at that meeting as did Barnabas and Paul, it was then that the leader of the group, James made the decision and said wherefore my sentence is. There is no way anyone could conclude from that passage that Peter was in a leadership position in any way. It’s another lie from the RCC.
The entire basis of the hierarchy of the RCC is built on a lie. As a matter of fact they cannot prove that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome let alone the first Pope. Paul wrote to the Romans and never once mentioned Peter being there. No one did. He was NOT the leadership in Rome.
With the help of the Holy Spirit it most certainly does.
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.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
>>God gave the authority to interpret Scripture to the Catholic Church, it’s her book.<<
You still haven’t shown any scripture to prove that.
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.