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.

Unscriptural but not uninspired, the question is by whom?

Not much doubt. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

If a prophet is not correct 100% of the time, he/she is a false prophet. "Prophecies" such as those are so vague as to be meaningless and almost impossible to verify.

How convenient for those labeling themselves *prophets*.

Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.

Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?

Not knowing Scripture leads to error. Period.

"Unscriptural but not uninspired, the question is by whom?"

The status of Mary is a mystery that presents a difficulty to many. She is who she is ONLY because He is who He is.

If you are indeed a believer in Scripture then you have to acknowledge Mary's unique presence with Jesus at essentially every step of Jesus' life and ministry is indeed Scriptural. She was the first Christian, the first evangelist. She was present at the Annunciation and at the meeting with Elizabeth and the unborn John the Baptist. She was present at the birth, the flight to Egypt and the return to the Galilee. She raised Him. She found Him teaching in the Temple when He was 12 and feared lost. She was at His side when He performed the first miracle at Cana.

She is referenced throughout His ministry, at the Last Supper, at His trial and scourging. She accompanied Him through the stations of the Cross, was at His feet when He was crucified died and was buried. She was there at the Resurrection and the first Pentecost.

We Catholics believe Mary was assumed into heaven and has appeared to the faithful on numerous occasions. In this context to state that Mariology is unscriptural only because it conflicts with Protestant theology is to deny Scripture and the rich tapestry of the Gospel. She knew Him first and loved loved Him first with the completeness that only a mother could. She was chosen by God. I trust His judgment.

Peace be with you.

We Catholics believe Mary was assumed into heaven and has appeared to the faithful on numerous occasions.

Catholics believe that because they are taught it, not because it is true.

In this context to state that Mariology is unscriptural

Maryology is unscriptural is any context.

is to deny Scripture and the rich tapestry of the Gospel.

Anyone not believing God's Word is the Final Authority is denying Scripture.

She knew Him first and loved loved Him first

Wrong God The Father did.

with the completeness that only a mother could.

We are ONLY complete in Christ.

I trust His judgment.

Judgement? Trust HIM, obey HIS WORD and not man made teachings.

"You are sadly mistaken about the disputed books of the Old Testament called the Deuterocanonicals or Apocryphals. Here is but one link to help you better educate yourself if you seriously seek to know the truth:"

Do you find it just a little bit odd that those who would have you reject the Canon of Scripture direct you to Protestant apologetic websites for "proof" of their reasoning? That is hardly an inerrant source on which to base a decision to reject the affirmed Word of God.

Continue to stick to the facts:
- The Deuterocanonicals were THE Scriptural source for the Greek speaking Jews of world in the first century, of which there were many more than there were Hebrew speaking Jews living in Palestine.
- There was NO single Jewish canon until sometime around the beginning of the 2nd century AD when the Council of Jamnia (if it ever really was held) met to address the growing Christian presence.
In addition to the Septuigent, there were also the Pharisee, Saddusee, and Essene canon, the later of which has been found to contain Hebrew versions of several of the Deuterocanonical books.
- Lastly, the "7" books were universally accepted as Canon until they were found to be in conflict with Luther's and "reformed" theology. Luther also tried to remove the Epistles of James (which he called an Epistle of straw) and Jude, but ran in to too much opposition.

Peace be with you.

“It appears the author at catholicbinder has gone from one error to another by substituting a tradition for God’s Word of truth. He writes:

“And here I am, now a converted Catholic. I came to realize that some souls that are severely troubled, such as my own, are given by Jesus to his Mother to help lead us back to Him. And for me that was the only way I would ever had found Him fully. For anyone who reads this work, I pray that the Holy Virgin Mary may also lead you as she leads all her children to the altar of her divine son where he is daily called down by the hands of the priest into the bread and wine in fulfillment of his promise that if you eat of His body and drink of His blood, you will have eternal life.”

~ ~ ~

What is the “higher” that Protestants do not want or
desire? The Holy Eucharist. The EUCHARIST is the summit
of the faith. In this same paragraph, Jesus states people will reject, even when I show them.

Believe instead CYC and everyone. You’ve heard ahead of time.

May 24, 2012

To Susan O’Marra, Protestant messenger, today.

Our Lord:
I say to you, look in the mirror, My Children, and see. See My reality! For I am revealed to you through the mirror of My Word. And if you will look into the mirror of My Word and ask Me to open it unto you, I shall open it new. I shall disclose to you those things that are true. Those things that have waited for their revealing, THAT OTHER GENERATIONS DID NOT WANT OR DESIRE, AND COULD NOT RECEIVE TO GO HIGHER. I say to you, My Children, you shall conceive, because you shall believe, and those that believe shall cleave to My Word, and My Word shall do it. For I am watching over My Word to perform it, saith the Lord. I am doing it in a manner and in a way that most of My People will not do and obey. I say to you, few, will look into My mirror and see My way. Because many do not yet want My way, but I cry out to you, My Church, everyday. Want My way! Look My way! Listen My way! Speak My way! Live My way! Hear My way! Obey My way! And everyday, more and more open to Me. I am your reality!...

“It appears the author at catholicbinder has gone from one error to another by substituting a tradition for God’s Word of truth. He writes:

~ ~ ~

Believe instead CYC and everyone. You’ve heard ahead of time.

May 24, 2012

To Susan O’Marra, Protestant messenger, today.

Continue to stick to the facts:

Yes, let's:

- The Deuterocanonicals were THE Scriptural source for the Greek speaking Jews of world in the first century, of which there were many more than there were Hebrew speaking Jews living in Palestine.

The Jewish "magesterium" NEVER considered these extra-scriptural books as divinely-inspired. As the ones to whom were given the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:2), it is only reasonable that what they consider the Old Testament canon, IS the OT canon. These disputed books were written AFTER the last book was accepted as the word of God. From the link http://carm.org/why-apocrypha-not-in-bible, we learn:

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

- There was NO single Jewish canon until sometime around the beginning of the 2nd century AD when the Council of Jamnia (if it ever really was held) met to address the growing Christian presence.

False. From the same link:

The Dead Sea scrolls provide no commentary on the Apocrypha, but do provide commentary on some of the Jewish Old Testament books. This probably indicates that the Jewish Essene community did not regard them as highly as the Jewish Old Testament books.

Many ancient Jews rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture. Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha and listed the Hebrew Canon to be 22 books. 3 In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written.

In addition to the Septuigent, there were also the Pharisee, Saddusee, and Essene canon, the later of which has been found to contain Hebrew versions of several of the Deuterocanonical books.

Also false. See above.

- Lastly, the "7" books were universally accepted as Canon until they were found to be in conflict with Luther's and "reformed" theology. Luther also tried to remove the Epistles of James (which he called an Epistle of straw) and Jude, but ran in to too much opposition.

Blatantly false. Even many of the church "fathers" rejected the Apocryphal books as inspired Scripture. Again, from the link:

Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.

The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after, but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.

You'll have to do better than fussing about my choice of sources if what they say is uncontested. It should be obvious that some things CAN be unbiased.

I'm interested, right now as merely an object of curiosity, if you have proof of this claim. I'm not interested in debate at this time, so if you don't, I won't think/claim it is a "weakness" on your part.

The CARM article you have cited cites as its source of such a claim, "There are various divisions of the Hebrew canon. The Protestant Old Testament Canon contains 39 books while the Hebrew canon has 22 or 24. These are the exact same books as the Protestants have, but they are just arranged differently and some of the books are combined into one. For example, Kings is one book. There is not 1st Kings and 2nd Kings. Also, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) are one book in the Hebrew Canon."

I either do not understand how this supports the claim above (if so, perhaps you could explain it to me) and/or find it unconvincing.

To be clear, I'm interested in knowing how the following 3 statements can be claimed and/or what the original (primary) source of such claims is/are: "Philo never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture" and "Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha to be 22 books" and "In fact, the Jewish Community acknowledged that the prophetic gifts had ceased in Israel before the Apocrypha was written".

Again, I don't find the source cited on CARM to be convincing in this regard; it seems to be just a restatement of the original claim.

Thanks in advance if you find it,

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.