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.

“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.”

It does no such thing at all. First we don't know who set down the Dead Sea Scrolls, one possibility is the Essenes sect. Plus clearly the use a particular writing by one or more of Jewish groups in an apostate nation hardly proves it God inspired. There were lots of writings, about a third, not from the Hebrew Scriptures, found at the same location.

So perhaps I should rephrase: The apocrypha were not “taken out” of the Bible, they never belonged there.

Whether the first copies the LXX contained them is unknown but since they have never enjoyed the acceptance of the inspired Scriptures they must be rejected, Damasus or not. Martin Luther or not.
The Bible canon is not dependent upon either.

The apocrypha were removed from most English editions of the AV in the late 19th. Cen. and most AV editions are basically reprints of earlier editions.

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

There was no Jewish equivalent of a Magisterium. There were competing Qahals, none of which spoke for all Jews. The closest thing you could say to support your premise is that Jesus replaced a people with a Church, but no Church had existed before it.

"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."

Please provide me some objective evidence that individual interpretation does not lead to a splintering of Christianity or lead to error because when two denominations disagree on interpretation they both cannot be right. When 30,000+ disagree you have sufficient objective evidence to establish a conclusive proof that is counter to the stated will of God.

Pathetic means having sympathetic sadness and compassion. Your tone suggest anything but sympathy and charity. Disdain, derision, ridicule and condescension are not Fruits of the Holy Spirit. Their predominance in your rebuttals makes whatever point you are attempting as believable and well received as weight loss advice from a 400 lb person over a bucket of chicken and half gallon of Hagen Daas. A more appropriate word than pity would have been schadenfreude.

Peace be with you.

God gave the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church, the RCC not “some individuals in the congregations.”

And that kind of thinking is where ignorance or Scripture will get you. Paul is talking about individual believers here, not congregations. And even if he were, it would be enough to blow out of the water the idea that all churches have to be the same and agree. Because at the very least, congregation would differ from congregation as to which gifts each had. So much for the criticism of the number of denominations of Protestantism. The Body of Christ is not all one organ although if the Catholic church had it's way, that would be the case. Thank God that Christ is head of the church, not some man or group of men.

This is what Scripture says...

1 Corinthians 12:4-31 4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone.

7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.

These gifts and offices are WITHIN the assembly (aka church) individually to each believer as the Holy Spirit determines is best for edifying the body, clearly showing that it is people who have been given the gifts of teaching etc, not *the *Church*, as an organization.

The body of Christ is an organism, which we are, not an organization which we belong to.

stpio:
“God gave the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church, the RCC not “some individuals in the congregations.”

~ ~ ~

You left off my question for CYC metmom.

Count-your-change, friend, you didn’t answer my question.

= = =
CYC:
“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)”

~ ~ ~

1Cor 12:10
To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches.

Which ONE of the gifts is the gift to distinguish between true and false writings? God gave the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church, the RCC not “some individuals in the congregations.”

“Which one of the gifts is the gift to distinguish between true and false writings? God gave the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church, the RCC not “some individuals in the congregations.”

CYC:
“Not so, not so.
“ to another, the discerning of spirits;” refers to the ability to determine inspiration of prophecy. But you should know this just as you should be able to see that when Paul said “one” the unsaid “man” or person was understood. This is the most basic English.”

~ ~ ~

I just now saw your response to my question, sorry.

You first said “the gift to distinguish between true and false writings” is one of the gifts Paul spoke of in 1 Corinthians 12:10. The above, your answer to my asking which gift are you referring to in that verse?

What?...now...

You come up with a different meaning that has nothing to do with “distinguishing between true and false writings.” You
can’t defend the heresy of private judgment. Paul did not
name the Church’s God given gift to interpret Scripture in
1 Cor 12:10.

“You come up with a different meaning that has nothing to do with “distinguishing between true and false writings.” You can’t defend the heresy of private judgment.
Paul did not name the Church’s God given gift to
interpret Scripture in 1 Cor 12:10.”

This was not “private judgment”, it was a gift from God to the individual like Paul's ability to heal or raise a dead person.

And you know this how? Perhaps you will explain what Paul meant at 1 Cor. 12:10?

“Paul did not name the Church’s God given gift to interpret Scripture in 1 Cor 12:10.”

That's what I said, he pointed to gifted individuals within the Christian church not some magisterium or infallible pronouncements of Popes.

“You come up with a different meaning that has nothing to do with “distinguishing between true and false writings.”

Prophecy, true and false, the inspiration (spirit) of writings....all would fall under what Paul called ‘diakriseis’, making a judgement or distinguishing one purported inspiration or one spirit from another.

“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.”

CYC:
“It does no such thing at all. First we don’t know who set down the Dead Sea Scrolls, one possibility is the Essenes sect. Plus clearly the use a particular writing by one or more of Jewish groups in an apostate nation hardly proves it God inspired. There were lots of writings, about a third, not from the Hebrew Scriptures, found at the same location.”
~ ~ ~

Hi,
The IN CAPS is NOT about “who set down the Dead Sea Scrolls” but what did the DSS reveal about the Alexandrian Canon. This early group of Jews, one of the first converts to Christianity accepted and used those 7 books which the Palestinian Jews rejected and Martin Luther in 1517 rejected too. The 7 Books tossed called the Septuagint, Jesus referred to them many times in His teaching, this is how you know they are “God inspired.”

CYC:
“So perhaps I should rephrase: The apocrypha were not “taken out” of the Bible, they never belonged there.”
~ ~ ~

Trying to correct your error because Christian history and all but one Protestant Bible, the 1611 KJV say something else. But, you’re still going with Martin Luther.

"That contradicts Genesis 1:19 [1:27].

I'm sure that you have a really good point you are trying to make, but its too late at the end of a rough week for me to see what it is. Forgive me if I go off on a tangent.

As my screen name would indicate I am familiar with the concept of natural law and the basic universal knowledge of the existence of God and the difference between right and wrong that is essentially buried within our human DNA. The capacity for knowledge, wisdom, and understanding that I spoke of and the potential for a lack of the gifts is not an absolute that would render a person human or something less than human. That said, every sentient person possesses some level of knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of the world sufficient to survive.

My point is that spiritual gifts come from the Holy Spirit. In Isaiah 11:2-3 the Hebrew Bible lists six gifts and the Catholic (Septuagint) lists seven. These are (1) wisdom, (2) understanding, (3) counsel, (4) fortitude, (5) knowledge, (6) piety, and (7) fear of the Lord.

St. Paul tells us that although all in the Spirit receive gifts not all receive all of the gifts;

"Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines." - 1 Corinthians 12:7-11

So my question remains that if one is not blessed with the gift of knowledge and wisdom to whom should they turn for the correct interpretation of Scripture and how are they to know if the one they are turning to has the gift?

Peace be with you.

“The 7 Books tossed called the Septuagint, Jesus referred to them many times in His teaching, this is how you know they are “God inspired.”

Jesus quoted from a version of LXX but not from the apocrypha therein. But you're free to provide examples if you have them.

“Hi,
The IN CAPS is NOT about “who set down the Dead Sea Scrolls” but what did the DSS reveal about the Alexandrian Canon. This early group of Jews, one of the first converts to Christianity accepted and used those 7 books which the Palestinian Jews rejected and Martin Luther in 1517 rejected too”

This early group of Jews? First converts to Christianity? The Essenes? They were a Jewish sect not Christian and an apostate one at that so what they used is neither here nor there.

“Trying to correct your error because Christian history and all but one Protestant Bible, the 1611 KJV say something else. But, you’re still going with Martin Luther”

What all this means is unclear...

stpio:
Hi,
The IN CAPS is NOT about “who set down the Dead Sea Scrolls” but what did the DSS reveal about the Alexandrian Canon. This early group of Jews, one of the first converts to Christianity accepted and used those 7 books which the Palestinian Jews rejected and Martin Luther in 1517 rejected too

“This early group of Jews? First converts to Christianity? The Essenes? They were a Jewish sect not Christian and an apostate one at that so what they used is neither here nor there.”

stpio:
Trying to correct your error because Christian history and all but one Protestant Bible, the 1611 KJV say something else. But, you’re still going with Martin Luther

“What all this means is unclear...”

~ ~ ~

CYC, “Here no there” again so it doesn’t matter? And...

You’re always trying to divert, change the discussion, we weren’t talking about the “Essenes” or wondering which group. You protested the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls showed the Alexandrian Jews, early converts to the faith accepted and used the 7 Old Testament books. The DSS findings confirm Pope Damasus was right in his choice of divinely inspired writings for the Canon. The Holy Father’s authority is God given.

Martin Luther and before him, the Palestinian Jews who
REJECTED Christianity, out of fear removed 7 books from the Old Testament Canon, the books which Jesus taught and quoted from most often. I can share other facts.

There never was anything akin to a Jewish Magisterium.

There most certainly was...

Neh 8:4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.
Neh 8:5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:
Neh 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.
Neh 8:7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
Neh 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Ezra was speaking from the 'seat of Moses'...

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.