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.
Eloquently stated! Thank you.
No, no mistake. Obviously, Jesus WAS talking about a "second" birth, was he not? Nicodemas thought Jesus was talking about a repeat of the "physical" human birth, but Jesus was speaking about - AND he corrected Nicodemas on it - another kind of birth, a spiritual birth, a birth that was "from above" and not physical human birth. So, Jesus did say you MUST be born again and that birth was from above. When we come to saving faith in Jesus Christ, we are born again into the family of God - we become His children through faith and we have a new spirit nature within us. In order to go to heaven we MUST be born again.
Nicodemus didn't make a mistake...He knew that to be born from above meant to be 'born again'...And he quailified this statement by referencing the fact that how can he be born twice from his mother's womb...
I don't understand your problem with the word 'again'...
We can all pray that, when Natural Law presents his students with his revised list from your comment and they study together what Catholics are and are not “allowed” dissension on, a few will come to Free Republic and read these dialogs for themselves and the truth of the gospel shines through to those who sincerely seek it.
Jesus was talking about Spiritual conversion. Birth is a metaphor.
No one on Free Republic converts anyone. That is done only by the Holy Spirit and only when the time is right. All any of us can hope to accomplish is to prepare the way for the Holy Spirit and only that with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. So then, if the fruits of the Holy Spirit are not manifest in your words, deeds and intents you may well succeed in hindering the conversion.
Peace be with you.
From the context Nicodemus understood Jesus to be saying “again” as in a repeat and hence a Greek word, anothen, was chosen to translate what Jesus said.
A simple statement, “born again”.
Thayer’s Greek/English Lexicon might be helpful.
Something we agree about. One person plants, another waters, but God gives the increase.
JESUS IS THE WORD - your 'natural mind' CANNOT understand the spiritual things of God! Say it over and over - "The WORD always was..."
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was WITH God, and the Word was God."
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
How did HE do it? HE SPOKE it into existence.
Genesis 1:3 And God SAID, "Let there be light," and there was light".
Psalm 33:9 "For HE spoke, and it came to be; HE commanded, and it stood firm".
Psalm 148:5 "Let them praise THE NAME OF THE LORD, for He commanded and they were created".
"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us." Jesus was God’s perfect revelation of Himself in the flesh. Jesus is the living Word.
"For the Word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires". Heb 4:12
Peace be with you.
I have the peace of God that lives within me. Peace is the fruit of the Spirit.
God's Word is the Final Authority!
It's obvious you are 'RCC taught and not Spirit taught' - Individuals are HIS Church. God is a personal God. He knows the number of hairs on my head, He calls me friend, He lives within me and never will leave nor forsake me. Do you really think HE would leave His children in the hands of men? NEVER John 10:28 "I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of My hand."
You speak of humble? What is humble about planning to use Daniel's work?
We are never going to agree
WRONG. One day you will agree and WILL BOW at THE TRUTH while the RCC's teachings are no more. ONLY God's WORD is everlasting!
Your scholarship pales in comparison to that of the Early Church Fathers, the doctors of the Church, the Episcopacy that forms the Magisterium, and the various saints and intellectual giants upon whose writings I have based my interpretation of Scripture.
You just proved Daniel has EXCELLED in his work! The HOLY SPIRIT inspired WORD cannot be understood by the natural man for it is spiritually discerned. Seems you failed in the interpretation of that one, also.
1 Cor 2:14 "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned". And The Holy Spirit lives within God's own. You base your knowledge on 'men' you never knew while Christians base their knowledge of God's Word on the Holy Spirit. You want to talk pale?
I respect you and your right to have your own opinions, I just don't respect them
God's Word is NOT an opinion - it is TRUTH! The catechism is an opinion of man/the RCC and used to control.
“Has the Catholic church published a commentary yet?”
Not an infallible or papal one, or anything as comprehensive as evangelical classics such as by Matthew Henry, Keil & Delitzsch, Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Barnes, Clarke, etc.
Various excuses are offered as to why it has not, but it has at least a few approved, if contradictory, commentaries on the whole Bible, and from the stamped notes in the official RC Bible for America, the New American Bible, (NAB, 1970) we learn that,
that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babe are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.
the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, while the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are “historical at their core,” but overall the author simply used “traditions” to teach a religious lesson.
For their understanding that “Inspiration is guidance” means that Scripture is “God’s word and man’s word.” What this means is that the NAB rejects such things as that the Bible’s attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, “cannot be qualified as revelation from God,” and states,
Think of the ‘holy wars’ of total destruction, fought by the Hebrews when they invaded Palestine. The search for meaning in those wars centuries later was inspired, but the conclusions which attributed all those atrocities to the command of God were imperfect and provisional.” (4. “Inspiration and Revelation,” p. 18)
It also holds that such things as “cloud, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”
(Thus engendering doubt as to the torment of Hell being also literal, while if the suffering of purgatory, which may be something someone experiences but in a moment, (Ratzinger, Akin; www.ewtn.com/library/answers/how2purg.htm) is applied to Hell, then it drastically impugns the motivational effect of the Lord’s words in such texts as Mk. 9:43-48, right after warning against offending one of these little ones that believe in me.)
The footnotes regarding the Red Sea (Ex. 10:19) informs readers that what the Israelites crossed over was the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters!
It likewise explains as regards to the sons of heaven [God] having relations with the daughters of men, (Gen. 6:1-4) “This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology.” The NAB footnotes go on to explain the “sons of heaven” are “the celestial beings of mythology.”
In addition, even the ages of the patriarchs after the flood are deemed to be “artificial and devoid of historical value.” (Genesis 11:10-26)
All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if Jonah did not spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale then neither did the Lord, while Israel’s history is always and inclusively treated as literal.
Regarding the Gospels, the NAB notes speculate that some of the miracle stories of Jesus in the New Testament (the fulfillment of of the Hebrew Bible) may be adaptations of similar ones in the Old Testament,” while He may not have actually been involved in the debates the gospel writers record He was in, and thinks that most of which Jesus is recorded as saying was probably theological elaboration by the writers.
It does allow that the slaughter of the innocents by King Herod, was “extremely probable,” and that people leaving Bethlehem to escape the massacre, is equally probable, but outside the historical background to this tradition, “the rest is interpretation.”
It additionally conveys such things as that Matthew placed Jesus in Egypt to convince his readers that Jesus was the real Israel, and may have only represented Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, to show that Jesus was like Moses who received the law on Mount Sinai.
The current edition will not use render “porneia” as “sexual immorality” or anything sexual in places such as 1Cor. 5:1; 6:13; 7:2; 10:8; 2Cor. 12:21; Eph. 5:3; Gal. 5:19; Col. 3:5; 1Thes. 4:3; but simply has “immorality,” even though in most cases it is in a sexual context.
It is true that the liberal scholarship who Rome abounds with causes angst among her more traditional sect, and who relegate such to being CINOS in their judgment, but as said, Rome counts and treats them as members in life and in death.
BINGO!!
Like this from NL..... Your scholarship pales in comparison to that of the Early Church Fathers, the doctors of the Church, the Episcopacy that forms the Magisterium, and the various saints and intellectual giants upon whose writings I have based my interpretation of Scripture.
Actually, that is EXACTLY what he has done. "...vessels of clay..." and all that
EXCELLENT WORK
Though . . . as I awaken to my emails and other stuff . . . I’m beginning to wonder ALMOST seriously . . . if the globalists are lobotomizing sane thinking patriots and Christians in our sleep . . . given some of the utterly idiotic things written by some such folks on the net the last month or 3.
It appears that the black-ops psych folks have been working overtime quite successfully.
Authentic Christians need to be quick to agree together on supporting The Lord Jesus AND HIS PRIORITIES and letting all other chaff fall by the wayside.
Time is rapidly going down the drain.
Night is falling.
Work diligently under Holy Spirit’s guidance while there is still light.
From the group that demands a literal interpretation of *This is my body* and doesn't recognize the symbolism even when Jesus says that the words He is speaking about eating His flesh are Spirit and truth?!?!?!
Now THAT'S FUNNY!!!!
The height of irony .....
And hypocrisy
AMEN!!!
YOUR interpretation of Scripture?
That's allowed?
Since when?
I sure hope that's the last time we are castigated for YOPIOS by you, (although realistically ....)
Indeed, but there was a reason why lay Catholics were forbidden in engage in such debates as these, while too often there is a “firewall” in place that disallows objective seeking of the truth by examining both sides of the question, though this can be the place on both sides. We must be willing to go wherever the truth will lead, with hearts like the noble Bereans. (Acts 17:11)
WOW! Bottom line, they don’t believe God but lean unto their own understanding. They are just like ‘the world’. That doesn’t end well! Without the intervention of the Holy Spirit, I’d be a ‘victim’ of Catholicism/deception. Now that I’m out of that bondage, I can see, daily, how blessed I am and for eternity!
God’s Word ALONE reigns! Thank you, JESUS!
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.