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.

I don't appreciate being called a liar. If you genuinely care about the truth, then you will understand that the many times this issue has been discussed here the point has NOT been about whether or not a "canon" was compiled or by whom, but that one "ecumenical" and "official" canon did NOT exist until the Council of Trent established the 73 book canon in the sixteenth century. No matter what other councils attempted to do, they were not ecumenical, but local; they did not all agree on all the books to be included; and there were many church fathers who firmly disagreed with the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books being considered as equal to divinely-inspired AND recognized as Holy Scripture. In most of those canons, those books were in seperated sections - that you cannot deny. Even today the Orthodox Church's canon differs from the Roman Catholic's. So, contrary to the broad brush with which you seem to want to paint all those who stand up for and defend the Holy Bible WITH its integrity and authority intact, you simply cannot seriously think bullying and feigned outrage will stop us.

WRT the RCC asserting its authority just as that of "the seat of Moses", you need only look to this very thread and those of your "side" who asserted such. Also, there are many Catholic apologists who also assert such. See http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp, who says:

Turn to Matthew 23, verses 1 and 2, "Then said Jesus to the crowds and to His disciples, 'The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat. So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do, for they preach but they don't practice.'" They preach, but they don't practice what they preach. What's he saying? Jesus says, "The scribes and the Pharisees." Now, what does Jesus think of the scribes and the Pharisees? Well, read the rest of Matthew 23 and you will discover it. He goes on in this chapter to call the scribes and the Pharisees "fools, hypocrites, blind guides, vipers and whitewashed tombs." He doesn't think too highly of the scribes and the Pharisees, does He?

But what does He say here? "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat." Therefore, "you have to," it's in the imperative tense, "You have to practice and observe whatever they tell you." "Whatever they tell you," you have to practice and observe. Why? Because they sit on Moses' cathedras. The Greek word is "cathedra". The Church, when it speaks of Peter's authority and the Popes speaking ex-cathedra are simply borrowing from Jesus' teaching.

The whole idea of "ex-cathedra" from the chair/seat of St. Peter came about from the very idea of the Seat of Moses. So, I'm NOT making anything up here, NL. Though the church, Paul said, is supposed to be the support and upholder of the truth, whatever it teaches MUST be backed up by the revealed word of God. What the Apostles taught those first believers is in there and, no matter what authority a church has by anointing, it becomes worthless if the truths are not upheld. There is no automatic approval of everything the "church" says if it goes against God's word. We believe the Roman Catholic Church HAS abandoned that holy truth in some of the major areas of the Christian faith so that is why we have left. It has nothing to do with hatred but only with speaking the truth in love, when and where ever we are led by the Lord.

I totally get it that you are a good and faithful Roman Catholic and you have a lot riding on them being right about everything they say is right, but sometimes I wonder if the reason why you so adamantly defend against any and all who dare to criticize the Catholic Church is because so much of what we say makes sense and maybe there is a glimmer of truth that bothers you. Perhaps that is your reason, I don't claim to be reading your mind nor questioning your motives. But, by the same token, why can't you also respect the motives we who have been Catholics have - that of leading others to the light of truth and that is nothing that I need nor want to lie about.

Simply ask yourself this, if the Canon did not exist prior to Trent how was the statement of work established for St. Jerome in 383 AD to produce a Bible identical to the Bible reaffirmed some 1200 years later in Trent?

I accept your apology. I am not "uncomfortable" about verifiable history, in fact, I love learning about all kinds of history. Concerning the canon, I think a few things keep being left out of your responses back to me.

I have NEVER stated that canons compiled by the "church" excluded the Apocryphal books. What I have said repeatedly is that they were not considered on par with the already established, divinely-inspired Scriptures of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament by MOST of the church theologians. Some more so than others. Even Jerome hesitated to translate them because he did not consider them inspired Scripture and, when he was commanded to, did so but separated them in a section.

It is part of history that the various canons were NOT dogmatic, official, nor ecumenical else the decrees of Trent would not have been necessary. Even now, the canon the Orthodox Church uses is different than that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Finally, there is no real going around the truth that these books were never sanctioned by the Jewish leaders, historians, Targums, etc. Though they were included in jars found in the Dead Sea, they were not complete, not included with the other OT books and not written in Hebrew - which would have been a sure sign that they were not used in Temple worship. If you want to accept these books as fully inspired as Scripture and you want to believe they came from the breath of God, go ahead, just try to hold off on condemning others who hold the Word of God to the high standards He, himself, set up. God's word will never fail.

"...God opens the eyes of those who seek for Him with all their heart"

Amen bb!

We can fool others,we can even fool ourselves but there is no way in heaven or earth that we can fool Him!...."...all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do." (Hebrews 4:13)

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

...and keeping the following in mind...

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

....that can be an unpleasant thought to say the least!.I'd wager the carnal mind wants to stay as far away from anything that might "discern the thoughts and intents of the heart" as possible.

Speaking for myself,I know that being totally honest with God is not as easy as it might sound.Because I have a heart that can deceive me,a heart that I do not fully know but I also have a God-given conscience that tells me when I am fudging His Word.

Our 'baggage' can lie to us and we'll not be rid of it until we allow God to tip us upside down.

What is thy servant, that thou shouldest look upon such a dead dog as I am?
Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord.
I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee

He knows...and He loves me still!

God bless

bb: "Hmmm...yet the Roman Catholic Church insists that it has replaced such an authority for all Christians."

NL: No it doesn't. Jesus fulfilled the Old Law and established the Church endowed with the power to teach. It did not replace anything.

And yet in your previous post you said this:God gave us the Catholic Church in order to, among other things, to give us a Bible.

Do try to keep track of what you are saying and be consistent.

The Catholic church is trying desperately to put its claims of spiritual authority over EVERY one on the planet beyond dispute. Their bogus claims to have *written* the Bible, that without the church the Bible would not exist, that since they're the ones responsible for *writing * it, they can be the only ones to *properly* interpret it, etc, ad nauseum, are more than transparent.

The problem they have is that too many people have more than enough discernment to see through it. The Holy Spirit will see to it that people see through the lies of the enemy and see the truth, revealed in Scripture for all to read themselves.

It's really pathetic to see the Catholic church still promulgating the lie that the individual believer is incapable of being led by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture as Jesus promised we would be.

metmom, you don’t read other people’s post and your replies are repeats...some sentences, word for word.

That's the beauty of Scripture. It never changes.

You never gave an answer. It’s the Word of God but it didn’t come complete from Heaven, so...

The Word of God IS complete.

It's delusion, plain and simple, that anyone who thinks that simply compiling the Bible into one volume makes them responsible for *writing* it.

No. The Catholic church did NOT give us Scripture. God the Holy Spirit did and Scripture was recognizes as such well before the Catholic church compiled it and put its stamp of approval on it, as if the Word of God NEEDED the RCC stamp of approval.

What hubris.

Notice the last few sentences, you gotta ask the three questions.

The Council of Trent was called in 1545 in response to the protestant reformation. One of the things they accomplished at Trent was a “reaffirmation that the 7 disputed books were indeed inspired and would continue to be included in the canon of the Old Testament”. They did not add them. They merely reconfirmed that they should be there. All Christian Bibles for the first 1500 years of Christianity had 46 books in the Old Testament, and all Catholic Bibles today continue to have them. I have noticed that even some King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?

History of the canons of the Old Testament can be confirmed by checking the records of the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Trent. They are readily available, as is St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint.

Christianity was in effect for between 35-65 years before the Jewish Council of Jamnia was called. As such, the Jewish Council had absolutely no authority whatsoever over Christianity. Suppose that next month of this year, the Jews decided to call a council in order to remove Isaiah and Jeremiah from the Old Testament and then voted to do it.

> Would Protestants also remove these books from the King James bible? It would seem they have already set a precedent. Why do Protestants accept the ruling of the Jewish Council of Jamnia, and at the same time reject the ruling of the Christian Council of Carthage regarding the Old Testament canon? Further still, why do they accept the canon of the New Testament which was decided at the same Christian Council? <

It’s really pathetic to see the Catholic church still promulgating the lie that the individual believer is incapable of being led by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture as Jesus promised we would be.

“INDEED.

HOWEVER, POWER MONGERING, particularly !!!TRADITIONAL!!! and RELIGIOUS power mongering

ALWAYS have a long list of rationalizations to self-servingly support said power-mongering.”

~ ~ ~

“Indeed”....

What are you agreeing for, please explain? Scripture
states there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

It can’t be God the Holy Spirit leading the individual to understand Scripture. If that were true, all of them would believe the same.

Protestants are inconsistent in belief. How many denominations and non-denominations are there now?

Power mongering is a lame protest. Everyone has free will,
no on can make you do anything.

It is noteworthy that one of the gifts of the spirit Paul listed was the ability of some individuals in the congregations to distinguish between true and false writings. (1 Cor, 12:10)

Thus something like the gospel accounts might be accepted as part of the Bible canon immediately as they were quickly circulated while other writings like Jude's might take far longer but it through the operation of God's spirit that the cnon was set not the imprimatur of councils.

This same spirit of discernment would weed many false writings such the numerous pseudo-gospels and frauds such as The Infancy Gospels of James or Thomas.

With John's writings we have the completed canon to compare anything that purports to be scripture with and so that special gift of discernment is no longer needed as Paul foretold. (1 Cor. 13:8-13)

Councils, whether Jewish or Catholic could only give their approval to what already existed. But as Josephus commented in “Against Apion” the Jewish canon recognized some 27 books as Scripture, 27 since some books were combined.

THERE WERE TWO JEWISH OLD TESTAMENT CANONS. MARTIN LUTHER REMOVED THE ALEXANDRIAN CANON AND KEPT THE PALESTINIAN CANON. THE PALESTINIAN JEWS NOT ONLY REJECTED THE SEVEN BOOKS, THEY REJECTED THE NEW TESTAMENT!

What constituted Scripture in Jesus day was broadly divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, (Luke 24:44,45) with no recognition of any apocrypha by any Bible writer.

SO WHAT, THE REJECTION OF THOSE 7 BOOKS THE FIRST TIME BY THE PALESTINIAN JEWISH COUNCIL CAME AFTER OUR LORD’S DEATH.

The apocrypha were never “taken out” of the Bible, they were never part of it.

THERE WERE 73 BOOKS THAT INCLUDES YOUR TERM, APOCRYPHA AND CALLED THE DEUTERO-CANONICAL BOOKS BY CATHOLICS IN THE FIRST BIBLE.

ST. JEROME CONSIDERED THE SEVEN DEUTERO-CANONICAL BOOKS TO BE not INSPIRED BY GOD, BUT HE WAS COMISSIONED BY POPE DAMASUS TO TRANSLATE ALL 73 BOOKS INTO LATIN. POPE DAMASUS CONSIDERDED TH 7 DC (apocrypha) BOOKS TO BE INSPIRED BY GOD. LATER IN 1946, AFTER THE FINDING OF THE DEAD-SEA SCROLLS, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THESE 7 DC BOOKS WERE USED BY THE JEWS IN ALEXANDRIA, EVEN IN THEIR SERVICES. THIS VERFIES THAT POPE DAMASUS WAS CORRECT.

“I have noticed that even SOME King James Bibles now have them. Why is this?”

THE SEVEN BOOKS REJECTED BY LUTHER WERE INCLUDED IN THE 1611 KJV, BUT NOT IN LATER KJV BIBLES.

You might ask the publishers since the 1611 edition of the AV had the apocrypha included. Of interest too in the 1611 edition are the translators’ comments.

ONLY FOUND IN THE 1611 KJV.

What are you agreeing for, please explain? Scripture states there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. It can’t be God the Holy Spirit leading the individual to understand Scripture. If that were true, all of them would believe the same.

That is not true unless you are looking at CHURCHES to save you. *Faith* does not equate to Roman Catholicism.

Believers who have put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation have been baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit. Once is all it takes to be saved.

And yet Catholics continue to choose to ignore the numerous rites of Catholicism. There is no unity amongst them as the Roman rite demands submission to the Roman pontiff and the EO don't recognize his supreme authority. There are differences in doctrine between the rites, likely as a matter of INTERPRETATION of the writings of the church fathers./

Imagine that.

The pretense by Catholics of the kind of unity that they demand of Protestantism is a sham. It simply dos not exist and the number of rites in Catholicism demonstrates that.

Power mongering is a lame protest. Everyone has free will, no on can make you do anything.

*Inquisition*.

The Catholic church makes claims to be the only path of salvation, which can be substantiated by the Catechism of the Catholic church and writings of its popes through the ages. It hangs people's eternal destiny over their heads for not capitulating to its teachings.

Some *free will*.

Blackmail is never ethical.

Any church that claims salvation is through it is wrong and guilty of the same kind of power mongering.

Salvation is through faith in Christ and faith in Christ alone. That leaves people free to worship with whichever assembly they choose.

There is unity IN CHRIST, not in denominationalism. Churchianity never saved anyone.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the logic behind the premise that being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ makes one the assuredly infallible interpreter of it, and that promises of God’s abiding presence and guidance, and historical decent of office assurance perpetuation thru them, effectively nukes the church.

For to Israel were such promises given, (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34, etc.) and was that instrument and steward, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (Romans 9:5)

And thus they challenged the authority of the itinerant preacher of Galilee, (Mk. 11:28-33) faith in Whom the church began, in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) but who presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation by them that Scripture did not afford them.

And thus the Lord reproved them by Scripture, that being the manifest transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims, and established His own authority upon Scripture and the attestation it provides for, as did the apostles. More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2885062/posts?page=185#185

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.