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.

For all the grilling of lupie about the Reformed church, of which you are not even a member, how about answering some questions about your own church?

Hardly grilling. I am not as vain as some and will seek to find answers if I do not know the answer and would like to find out. Ask away.

Like why it allows child molesting priests to continue to serve as priests and represent Christ to the parishioners?

Do you know of any convicted child molesters in a court of law that still serve as priests? I don't.

Why hasn’t the Catholic church defrocked those priests? Why the mentality of *Once a priest, always a priest?*. when Catholics scorn OSAS?

See above.

Why serve communion to pro-abortion politicians? Why doesn’t the RCC enforce it’s OWN rules on its OWN congregants before throwing stones at others?

Do you guys serve communion to pro-abortion politicians? I'll bet that your denomination does.

Why doesn’t the Catholic church ex-communicate those who are in sin by supporting abortion and homosexual marriage instead of granting them Catholic funerals?

You mean the Kennedys? We don't know what went on between them and their confessors. Luke 18: 9-14. We see the ones even here of FR that hang out in the front and those who hang out in the back, thankful to be in the presence of almighty God at all, instead of loudly proclaiming their own salvation.

Why the double standard of expecting absolute perfection out of others and giving themselves a pass in their own corrupt and immoral behavior?

You keep saying that you were Catholic then say things like this. You must pardon me if I find it difficult to believe.

Or is it just too much a matter of *Do as I say, not as I do?*

You see?

Catholics who hold to double standards, giving themselves and their church a pass while condemning others for the same behavior are the epitome of hypocrisy.

Agreed. Same goes for others who misrepresent the Faith.

Physician, heal thyself.

Only with God's help. I cannot declare my own salvation.

Nobody owes you any answers as we answer to God for what we do, not men.

That is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen on FR.

"My reformed church is also filled with ex RC’s"

"We ought to remain in the Church that was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians … you may be sure that you have not the Church of Christ there, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have scriptural authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received in the Church."

St. Jerome (342-420AD)

Once again, I see the reason that people leave the Faith.

Nobody leaves *the Faith* (capital *F*) because there is no such thing as the *Faith* (capital *F*).

Once again, I see the reason that people leave the Faith. It is like freedom. Unless you know that something exists, it is of no importance.

People leave the Catholic church, just as they leave other churches, but leaving a church is not abandoning faith, it is not leaving Christ.

Look at the testimony of those who have left the Faith.

Faith is a very simple thing. It's just taking God at His word and what He says is really is in spite of the fact that we can't see it.

As Pilate said, 'What is truth?' What is faith? Faith in what? Either you have faith in what God has taught us, or you have faith in what you come up with.

I suppose in one sense, you are correct. I left faith in the Catholic church for faith in Jesus and got saved in the process because it's faith in HIM that saves, not faith in the Catholic church.

Sure. Buddy Christ, at anyone's beck and call. We of the Faith know who is the Creator and who is the created.

In other words, without the definition of the Church's teachings, anything goes. Thanks for the confirmation.

Another valiant try and another crash and burn fail. Without the authority of and adherence to Scripture, anything goes. That explains why so many of the Catholic church doctrines are so off base.

I think that you might mean, rather, the personal interpretation of selected snippets of Scripture. How else can you explain the differences between, say, Luther and Calvin?

The Church's definition of something is meaningless. It's what the word of God says that matters.

I think that you ;might mean, rather, what you define for yourself today, at this moment, in this emotional state. Next hour or next morning, who knows what'll develop, right?

“So, no, your “interpretation” of this one verse, implying that it is speaking only of sins committed prior to baptism as being remitted, but future sins needing the application of the grace received at the performance of the Mass, is plain wrong. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ perfected FOREVER those that are sanctified - made holy/set apart. By His ONE OFFERING - forever, for all who receive Him as Savior.”

~ ~ ~

“The sacrifice of Jesus Christ perfected FOREVER those that are sanctified” -

boatbums, Your words are not true.

Heb 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Hebrews 10:12
But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God.

The second is from the Douay-Rheims Bible. Notice where the coma is placed, one coma comes after the word forever and in the DR, the comma is placed before the word forever. Sure changes the meaning of the verse.

Man’s sins are ongoing, past, present and future. Look at the sins of the world. Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross does not perfect a person. His death on the Cross does not sanctify you, His grace does.

How could you say “His ONE OFFERING” be only one time?

All Christians accept Jesus is our High Priest. Our Lord states His priesthood is everlasting in Hebrews 7:24. Our Lord continues to offer His sacrifice on Calvary to the Father for the sins of mankind in an “UNBLOODY” manner in Heaven and in the Mass here on earth, Our Lord is offered to the Father, the same, in an unbloody manner.

Baptism cannot remit one sin because it is not a blood sacrifice.

Without the shedding of blood, there is NO remission of sins.

Scripture is very clear that what Jesus is doing in heaven RIGHT NOW, is sitting at the right hand of the Father, interceding for the saints. He is NOT being continually offered for sin for all eternity. The effectiveness in the sacrifice is due to the death of the sacrificed, not the act or process of being sacrificed.

If Jesus is still in the process of being sacrificed, the sacrifice is ineffective because death has not yet occurred. It’s not the dying that works, it’s the death, past tense.

I belong to Jesus.

Galatians 2:20-21 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

My identity is Christ and being in Him, not the local assembly which I attend for services.

Since churches and religions cannot save, membership in them is meaningless. I've attended all kinds of churches from GARB (Baptist) to OPC to Pentecostal, and my identity is not with any of them because they don't save.

I suppose that if someone is of the school that churches save, this WOULD go right over their heads.

Romans 1:16-17 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Without the authority of and adherence to Scripture, anything goes.
That's a good description of Protestantism and its offspring. For them, it isn't really about the authority of Scripture or the adherence to Scripture. It's about the authority of their interpretations of Scripture.
It's what the word of God says, according to MY interpretation, that matters.

That's really what it comes down to.

You have really hit the nail right on the thumb. Very apt commentary.

Mormons believe in Christ as Lord, King, God and Saviour

You need to brush up on your vacant knowledge of Mormonism. Your ignorance is showing again. While Mormons believe Jesus is the son of God, they do not believe He is God.

I pointed out quite accurately that your definition of Christianity includes all these cults. While we do agree that the LDS are a cult, we do not agree on the idea that broken cults of men scattered about the landscape with names like 'Orthodox Presbyterian' actually follow the words of Christ, whereas Christians believe they really follow the words of the god in the mirror and whatever and however he interprets whatever snippets of Scripture that happen to waft by this evening. Tomorrow, all bets are off...

Big difference.

Yup.

“I checked our library system, and it’s not there, but I saw it on amazon.com.”

Suzi,

You can read it on line, I know, it’s not like having the book in hand. The way the author speaks about sanctifying grace, I read it in an afternoon.

http://www.archive.org/stream/gloriesdivinegra00scheuoft#page/n5/mode/2up

“The term “Sanctifying Grace” is not used in Sacred Scripture, but Sanctifying Grace is referred to in Scripture time and again, and Fr. Scheeben points out to us in this marvelous treatise many of the passages from the Bible that refer to this precious gift of God. Some Scriptural terms for Sanctifying Grace and its effects are “living water,” “born again,” “wedding garment,” “new creation,” “children of God,” “divine adoption,” “life,” “justice,” “just,” “charity,” etc. In The Glories of Divine Grace, the author speaks almost always simply about “grace,” but by this term he means “Sanctifying Grace,” which is “life,” spiritual life—the life of God imparted to the soul, which causes the soul to be (as we say) “in the state of grace.” This is to distinguish it from “Actual Grace,” which is a passing “help” from God to do a certain good thing or to avoid an evil thing. Indeed, the author speaks occasionally about Actual Grace, but for the most part in this book, when he speaks merely of “grace,” he is speaking about Sanctifying Grace. And when he speaks about “the glories of divine grace,” he is always speaking about Sanctifying Grace, the grace of God that gives life to the soul—supernatural life, the life of God.”

Why do you attribute shame to MM just because she doesn't give some affillation? As if any membership she has is any one elses business?

“I am not ashamed of my religious beliefs”.

Then why attribute such feelings to others?

“Even sick twisted John Travolta.......”

Who has paid out billions for it's sick, twisted priests?

“I am not ashamed of my religious beliefs”.

And yet the origin of so many of them are “man made doctrines”, that which you say others have fallen away to.

Hebrews 10:14
For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

“The sacrifice of Jesus Christ perfected FOREVER those that are sanctified - made holy/set apart. By His ONE OFFERING - forever, for all who receive Him as Savior.”

~ ~ ~

Then, boatbums added his personal interpretation of Scripture which is false.

You are not made holy by accepting Jesus into your heart at one moment as your personal Lord and Savior. OSAS, professing John 3:16 don’t make you holy either.

The “altar call” maybe for some a moment of conversion but it does not justify -save- anyone.

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.