Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why.....
The number of people who have left the Catholic church is huge.
We all have heard stories about why people leave. Parents share stories about their children. Academics talk about their students. Everyone has a friend who has left.
While personal experience can be helpful, social science research forces us to look beyond our circle of acquaintances to see what is going on in the whole church.
The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life has put hard numbers on the anecdotal evidence: One out of every 10 Americans is an ex-Catholic. If they were a separate denomination, they would be the third-largest denomination in the United States, after Catholics and Baptists. One of three people who were raised Catholic no longer identifies as Catholic.
Any other institution that lost one-third of its members would want to know why. But the U.S. bishops have never devoted any time at their national meetings to discussing the exodus. Nor have they spent a dime trying to find out why it is happening.
Thankfully, although the U.S. bishops have not supported research on people who have left the church, the Pew Center has.
Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant. Only about 10 percent of ex-Catholics join non-Christian religions. This article will focus on Catholics who have become Protestant. I am not saying that those who become unaffiliated are not important; I am leaving that discussion to another time.
Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant? Liberal Catholics will tell you that Catholics are leaving because they disagree with the church’s teaching on birth control, women priests, divorce, the bishops’ interference in American politics, etc. Conservatives blame Vatican II, liberal priests and nuns, a permissive culture and the church’s social justice agenda.
One of the reasons there is such disagreement is that we tend to think that everyone leaves for the same reason our friends, relatives and acquaintances have left. We fail to recognize that different people leave for different reasons. People who leave to join Protestant churches do so for different reasons than those who become unaffiliated. People who become evangelicals are different from Catholics who become members of mainline churches.
Spiritual needs
The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent) and they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent). Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.
In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.
Dissatisfaction with how the church deals with spiritual needs and worship services dwarfs any disagreements over specific doctrines. While half of those who became Protestants say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teaching, specific questions get much lower responses. Only 23 percent said they left because of the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality; only 23 percent because of the church’s teaching on divorce; only 21 percent because of the rule that priests cannot marry; only 16 percent because of the church’s teaching on birth control; only 16 percent because of the way the church treats women; only 11 percent because they were unhappy with the teachings on poverty, war and the death penalty.
The data shows that disagreement over specific doctrines is not the main reason Catholics become Protestants. We also have lots of survey data showing that many Catholics who stay disagree with specific church teachings. Despite what theologians and bishops think, doctrine is not that important either to those who become Protestant or to those who stay Catholic.
People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.
Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic. While 42 percent of Catholics who stay attend services weekly, 63 percent of Catholics who become Protestants go to church every week. That is a 21 percentage-point difference.
Catholics who became Protestant also claim to have a stronger faith now than when they were children or teenagers. Seventy-one percent say their faith is “very strong,” while only 35 percent and 22 percent reported that their faith was very strong when they were children and teenagers, respectively. On the other hand, only 46 percent of those who are still Catholic report their faith as “very strong” today as an adult.
Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.
Some of the common explanations of why people leave do not pan out in the data. For example, only 21 percent of those becoming Protestant mention the sex abuse scandal as a reason for leaving. Only 3 percent say they left because they became separated or divorced.
Becoming Protestant
If you believed liberals, most Catholics who leave the church would be joining mainline churches, like the Episcopal church. In fact, almost two-thirds of former Catholics who join a Protestant church join an evangelical church. Catholics who become evangelicals and Catholics who join mainline churches are two very distinct groups. We need to take a closer look at why each leaves the church.
Fifty-four percent of both groups say that they just gradually drifted away from Catholicism. Both groups also had almost equal numbers (82 percent evangelicals, 80 percent mainline) saying they joined their new church because they enjoyed the worship service. But compared to those who became mainline Protestants, a higher percentage of those becoming evangelicals said they left because their spiritual needs were not being met (78 percent versus 57 percent) and that they had stopped believing in Catholic teaching (62 percent versus 20 percent). They also cited the church’s teaching on the Bible (55 percent versus 16 percent) more frequently as a reason for leaving. Forty-six percent of these new evangelicals felt the Catholic church did not view the Bible literally enough. Thus, for those leaving to become evangelicals, spiritual sustenance, worship services and the Bible were key. Only 11 percent were unhappy with the church’s teachings on poverty, war, and the death penalty Ñ the same percentage as said they were unhappy with the church’s treatment of women. Contrary to what conservatives say, ex-Catholics are not flocking to the evangelicals because they think the Catholic church is politically too liberal. They are leaving to get spiritual nourishment from worship services and the Bible.
Looking at the responses of those who join mainline churches also provides some surprising results. For example, few (20 percent) say they left because they stopped believing in Catholic teachings. However, when specific issues were mentioned in the questionnaire, more of those joining mainline churches agreed that these issues influenced their decision to leave the Catholic church. Thirty-one percent cited unhappiness with the church’s teaching on abortion and homosexuality, women, and divorce and remarriage, and 26 percent mentioned birth control as a reason for leaving. Although these numbers are higher than for Catholics who become evangelicals, they are still dwarfed by the number (57 percent) who said their spiritual needs were not met in the Catholic church.
Thus, those becoming evangelicals were more generically unhappy than specifically unhappy with church teaching, while those who became mainline Protestant tended to be more specifically unhappy than generically unhappy with church teaching. The unhappiness with the church’s teaching on poverty, war and the death penalty was equally low for both groups (11 percent for evangelicals; 10 percent for mainline).
What stands out in the data on Catholics who join mainline churches is that they tend to cite personal or familiar reasons for leaving more frequently than do those who become evangelicals. Forty-four percent of the Catholics who join mainline churches say that they married someone of the faith they joined, a number that trumps all doctrinal issues. Only 22 percent of those who join the evangelicals cite this reason.
Perhaps after marrying a mainline Christian and attending his or her church’s services, the Catholic found the mainline services more fulfilling than the Catholic service. And even if they were equally attractive, perhaps the exclusion of the Protestant spouse from Catholic Communion makes the more welcoming mainline church attractive to an ecumenical couple.
Those joining mainline communities also were more likely to cite dissatisfaction of the Catholic clergy (39 percent) than were those who became evangelical (23 percent). Those who join mainline churches are looking for a less clerically dominated church.
Lessons from the data
There are many lessons that we can learn from the Pew data, but I will focus on only three.
First, those who are leaving the church for Protestant churches are more interested in spiritual nourishment than doctrinal issues. Tinkering with the wording of the creed at Mass is not going to help. No one except the Vatican and the bishops cares whether Jesus is “one in being” with the Father or “consubstantial” with the Father. That the hierarchy thinks this is important shows how out of it they are.
While the hierarchy worries about literal translations of the Latin text, people are longing for liturgies that touch the heart and emotions. More creativity with the liturgy is needed, and that means more flexibility must be allowed. If you build it, they will come; if you do not, they will find it elsewhere. The changes that will go into effect this Advent will make matters worse, not better.
Second, thanks to Pope Pius XII, Catholic scripture scholars have had decades to produce the best thinking on scripture in the world. That Catholics are leaving to join evangelical churches because of the church teaching on the Bible is a disgrace. Too few homilists explain the scriptures to their people. Few Catholics read the Bible.
The church needs a massive Bible education program. The church needs to acknowledge that understanding the Bible is more important than memorizing the catechism. If we could get Catholics to read the Sunday scripture readings each week before they come to Mass, it would be revolutionary. If you do not read and pray the scriptures, you are not an adult Christian. Catholics who become evangelicals understand this.
Finally, the Pew data shows that two-thirds of Catholics who become Protestants do so before they reach the age of 24. The church must make a preferential option for teenagers and young adults or it will continue to bleed. Programs and liturgies that cater to their needs must take precedence over the complaints of fuddy-duddies and rubrical purists.
Current religious education programs and teen groups appear to have little effect on keeping these folks Catholic, according to the Pew data, although those who attend a Catholic high school do appear to stay at a higher rate. More research is needed to find out what works and what does not.
The Catholic church is hemorrhaging members. It needs to acknowledge this and do more to understand why. Only if we acknowledge the exodus and understand it will we be in a position to do something about it.
You can say that again!!!
Amen...
As a point of order, while some apocryphal books were found with the DSS, I don't believe all 7 (DC) are present - not to mention the 14 included in the Apocrypha (which includes the DC). Perhaps four of the books were found... I am quite sure Baruch and Sirach are there (which really isn't a surprise).
In addition, the Apocryphal books found were not plentiful - a single copy, or a few of each. It is clear that there were not enough copies to be considered teaching books... Unlike Enoch I and Jubilees which were found in abundance, and which most Christian canons reject, even though they are referred to directly and explicitly within the New Covenant. So the mere presence of a few of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphical books does not prove anything, not to mention proving a definition of canon.
The Hebrew 'canon' as count-your-change partly inferred, is the Torah, PERIOD. Accompanying it are the Writings and the Prophets,. which compose the Tanakh, which the Protestant Old Testament closely follows. There really is no contention among the Hebrews as to what has historically been their Scriptures for time immemorial. I find it LUDICROUS that the Roman church would presume to correct them.
And furthermore, While some of the Apocryphal books are present, and while some biblical texts found among the DSS may follow the Septuagint (Daniel being the only or most important), By far and away The DSS prove to follow the Masoretic (proto-masoretic) strain by a very high percentage... To the degree that among historians it has pushed the Masoretic back from c.600AD to c.250BC. To put it plainly, The DSS nearly defy the Septuagint, and uphold the Masoretic - which you quaintly refer to as the "Palestinian Canon".
And I will take a profound exception to your description of two Jewish canons (not to mention the concept of 'canon' at all, which is a clearly Greek/Roman idea). As long as the Temple stood in Jerusalem, there was only ONE authority for the Hebrew Scriptures, and that being the Temple Scrolls. While the 'seventy' were Temple sanctioned to provide a Greek translation, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the authoritative 'canon' was the original Hebrew one. And that only makes sense - the Temple Scrolls where what the Septuagint was taken from, giving your "Palestinian Canon" a profound precedence. When (EVER) is the copy more correct than that which it was copied from?
The 7 Books tossed called the Septuagint [...]
No, The Septuagint was a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures, and includes the 7 contended books.
Jesus referred to them many times in His teaching, this is how you know they are “God inspired.”
I find that to be a fairly broad claim. I have traced the references claimed to be attributed to the DC, and found for the most part that the reference can be found elsewhere in non-contended Scriptures. And again, Enoch, Jasher, and Jubilees are not only referred to by ethereal quotes, but mentioned explicitly BY NAME... It seems by your standard that these too must be considered "God inspired", no?
That depends entirely upon whether the Roman church had the authority to put them IN in the first place - And every argument toward that authority that I have ever witnessed is invalid and circular in origin.
And the point is moot, not only then, but especially now, with hundreds of years of Protestant research confirming it's canon as it is - Luther has no sway in the matter anymore.
Palestinian Jews also rejected the Gospel.
The entire core of the Early Church were nearly exclusively 'Palestinian' Jews, who, by the way, were instructed from those terrible Temple Scrolls which you consider the 'Palestinian Canon'.
Because the ingestion of human flesh and any blood is a direct offense against the Law - Had Yeshua encouraged such a thing, he would have broken the law, and His sacrifice would have been impure (and unable to save anyone), not to mention that he would be a false teacher, and false prophet.
Certainly, a different interpretation is called for.
Then you have "went back, and walked no more with him." (John 6:66...how fitting)
I can’t keep up with your posts. I must...I’ll skip some.
You are dear but no the word I am trying to remember is not
“Charismata” or if you mean charismatic.
The term I am trying to think of is the divine gift given the Church, the RCC, to interpret Scripture.
You originally said and I replied to a comment you made
to metmom.
Here it is:
To: metmom
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)
What you described above is not on Paul’s list of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:10. You want so BADLY to believe private
interpretation of Scripture. No way, it’s heresy.
Magisterium?
According to Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees occupy Moses’ seat” (Matt. 23:2), having the authority and ability to interpret the law of Moses correctly; here “seat” is both a metaphor for judicial authority AND also a reference to a LITERAL stone seat in the front of many synagogues that would be occupied by an authoritative teacher of the law.
“Well of course it’s a metaphor...Did you think Jesus was speaking of a polished mahogany, gold inlaid throne that the Pharisees passed from generation to generation like your religion does???
The ‘seat’ was wherever Moses sat down (or stood) to teach and judge the Tribes of Israel...
And it can be found all over the OT”...
~ ~ ~
Hi, thanks for replying.
You’re denying there is a “literal” seat of Moses back
then in the synogogue. You exaggerate saying “throne”,
actually, there was a real seat.
The metaphor, the description of Moses’ authority is in Exodus but not the literal.
LOL! Certainly not. Those were folks who turned away from him because they would not think a little further to the spiritual truths He espoused in His statement.
In order to be the Kinsman Redeemer for the Abrahamic Covenant, He has to do what Abraham and no other human being has been able to do, Else He could not fulfill the role. If He were to break the Law (or the prophets), His sacrifice would be nullified. So breaking the Law (which includes changing the law) cannot have occurred, and any interpretation that supposes He did must be false, or our Christ is not Christ.
In my mind, that premise is undeniable - and the resulting conclusion must follow. It is a simple thing.
Partly true - But Yeshua said *not* to follow the Pharisees... Not to DO as they DO, their Ma'asim and Takanot... Their !!TRADITIONS!! which they had bolted on to Moses. So their authority was limited to what was already written. He was hedging them in with Moses just as they tried to hedge in Moses with their additions. So the only way to read the passage is to assume that Yeshua said the Pharisees DO sit in the seat of Moses and have the authority of Moses, so do as MOSES said - which is the inference.
Hence, any claim to authority is limited to what is written.
To borrow from Ronaldus Magnus: It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant; it's that they know so much that isn't so.
That rationale is as absurd and contrived as the denial of Matthew 16:18.
Certainly, the Pharisees who accused the disciples of "harvesting on the Sabbath" though they had a rabbinical "slam dunk'" too.
BTW, how is the denial you posit NOT applicable to being "born again" aside from the fact that no one left him, with his approval, over it?
Conversely, how is our denial of your dogma any less legitimate?
You can't have it both ways.
That is an odd assertion, as what I made mention of is the essential mechanics of His primary purpose.
Certainly, the Pharisees who accused the disciples of "harvesting on the Sabbath" though they had a rabbinical "slam dunk'" too.
I am not speaking of any legalism, but rather observing the legal instruments which are the contracts (covenants) - To do otherwise means that YHWH's Words are empty, which cannot be. These contracts simply must run their course, because He has uttered them... Or God is not God.
Your words are hitting me in a convoluted fashion. Please reiterate or explain your thought a bit more... IOW: Huh?
No hurry though... Heading for the crib. I will catch up w/ you tomorrow.
Good night.
And therein lies your problem....
If that is so then please, explain what discernment of spirits is, what did Paul mean?
It's ever so easy to sit back and cry “Heresy!” when you have nothing to offer other than, “No way, it's heresy”.
“The term I am trying to think of is the divine gift given the Church, the RCC, to interpret Scripture.”
That word is “fantasy” like the flying house tradition.
Sure, no problem.
You take a, for lack of a better term, philosophically literalist position on being born again. I do so with regard to the Body and Blood, though in point of fact neither of us are pointing to an action recognizable by a third party as what we describe.
You. can not, at least while maintaining any kind of intellectual integrity, claim your "second birth" is in any sense literal, while also denying my assertion consuming the bread and wine is literally consuming the Body and Blood, without cutting off the interpretational limb you're standing on.
Not to mention that if Christ had cone that, He would have been a liar because of what He said here.
Matthew 5:17-20 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Catholics always end up in such a mess because they don't know Scripture.
Then they spew some more nonsense that it's just *a mystery* of *the faith*.
Long and short of it is the bread and wine remained bread and wine as a symbolic representation of the new covenant, just as the bread and wine of the Passover was a symbolic representation of the Passover.
That shows that you still do not understand Catholicism. The Catholic Church is not just another human organization among many that we can choose to join or quit or to selectively and conditionally follow and to self declare our adherence to. It is who we are, not what we are. The Church as an organism is an old Catholic analogy predicated upon it being both visible and structured.
The Church has a standard of legitimate membership, that in concept, is very simple; if one believes in and lives the doctrines and dogmas of the Church, they are members of the Church (in Communion). If individuals act in conflict with those doctrines and dogmas they are not in Communion and have excommunicated themselves. That does not require a formal action or recognition by the Church as God Himself is the judge. Those who place their need to be the masters of their own theology place self over unity.
"As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." - Ephesians 4:1-4
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.