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.
I see. So it's using scripture like a magic spell or charm.
I've heard there's a lot of that in third world countries, too; mixing Christianity with Voodoo and such.
Guess I shouldn't be surprised....
Are you saying you don't understand the difference between "using Scripture" and basing the Church's authority from it?
tsk, tsk, tsk. Sounds like a bit of a shell game being played there.
God made it available to everyone but those who are in bondage to man/i.e., the RCC are left in the dark because they don't value HIS WORD ALONE. So let's not say what 'God did not'!! HE DID IT ALL! God's Word is spiritually discerned, so the HOLY SPIRIT is the TEACHER. It's HIS Word, HE teaches HIS WORD!
It would result in division. Terrible, terrible fruit.
There is no division with God's people - as they are 'in HIM'. Who would say being 'in HIM' is terrible? Only those who aren't spiritually discerning (the natural man) because they are in bondage to man.
1 Cor 2:14
"A person who isn't spiritual doesn't accept the teachings of God's Spirit. He thinks they're nonsense. He can't understand them because a person must be spiritual to evaluate them".
"But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Romans 15:15,16
"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust IN HIM, so that you may overflow with hope by the POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT".
"I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another."
"I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them, again, because of the grace God gave me"
"to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, SANCTIFIED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT".
It's ALL about Jesus. God's Holy Spirit inspired Word is the FINAL Authority.
Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:And that while the scripture clearly states "the Holy Ghost was upon him" in verse 25.
Maybe you need a better Bible.
Mat 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.I don't know about you, but when Jesus Christ, creator of the universe says "This Is": I believe it.Mar 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake [it], and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Mixing God's Word with anything brings deception.
The ONLY TRUTH is GOD'S Holy Spirit inspired Word ALONE!
Do you not believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate?
Do you REALLY want to claim that any edifice of man has authority over that?
The Church is not "of man."
I should think you would know that....
They are not in the Scripture as you well know, but we've already established from Luke 2 that there is more to God's word than what is contained in the Bible.
Christianity is together - God's Word ALONE brings them together.
It is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" Romans 14:11
So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God". Romans 14:12
NOTICE It is Written which means HIS WORD - not man made teachings. And an account of 'himself' and not a church or what it taught!
I didn't approve of the practice.
I'm only making an observation.
Perhaps you should review the story of the "brazen serpent" for a fuller understanding of using sanctified objects as idols.
Excuse me, do you think there is something magical about writing things down?
We have already established Luke 2 proves God's word is more than just what is written in the Bible.
Thank you. I stand abashed and corrected.
For something to be "making it personal" it must be speaking to another Freeper, personally.
"Protestants are heretics" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal. "Catholics worship Mary" is not making it personal. "You worship Mary" is making it personal.
However, when a poster paints with a brush that accuses an entire religion of criminal behavior - his post will be pulled as flame bait. For example, posts that say "Protestants kill babies" or "Catholics molest children" will be pulled. However, if the post is specific about a non-Freeper, I will not pull it. For example "Rev. Doe says abortion and infanticide are not sin" or "Father Doe was convicted for molesting those kids" would not be pulled.
Statements formd as questions are rarely "making it personal."
"Are you a heretic" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal.
Forms of "making it personal" include mind reading, attributing motive, accusing another Freeper of telling a lie (because it attributes motive, the intent to deceive) - making the thread "about" individual Freeper(s), following a Freeper from thread to thread and badgering a Freeper over-and-again with the same question.
When in doubt, avoid the use of the pronoun "you" and Freeper's names - or put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
However, this ignores the means which such is authenticated as being from God, and thus it is stated that Scripture derives it's authority from the Church. But the church is not God either, and the fact is that the authentic authority of the church itself is established upon Scriptural substantiation (Divine writings being supernaturally established as per below), as was true of the itinerant preacher of Galilee (Jn. 10: 37; 5:36,39; Mt. 22:29; Lk. 24:44, etc.) whose authority was challenged by those who sat in the valid seat of authority. (Mk. 11:28-33)
And thus from the beginning Peter, Paul and others labored to substantiate the truth claims for and of the church by Scripture and the attestation it promised. (Acts 2:14:-36; 4:33; 5:12; 7:1-53; 13:16-41; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Going back further, God established the authenticity of the faith and morals of men like Abraham by supernatural means, and thus men followed Moses who was likewise testified to, and who thereby affirmed the faith of Abraham in the One True and living God. And under whom God gave the Law, and which became the standard for obedience and for testing truth claims, as is evident, and by conflation and complementarity in text and power more was added, and such was progressively established as being of God and authoritative due to their Divine qualities (often manifest by those who believed/obeyed them, or on their behalf). Likewise it would become evident in time that there was no more like it.
And contrary to the premise that without an infallible decree establishing an indisputable canon then it would not be credible or widely accepted, conciliar decrees recognizing what is Divine — as warranted and helpful as they can be — are not the reason for the enduring popular establishment of the Divine writings, but this is due to the inherent enduring qualities of these writings, which the corporate body comes to recognize, having “eaten” the Word from Heaven by which life-giving faith comes. (Rm. 10:17) By the same principal souls believed on Christ even without official sanction. The long-established 66 book Protestant canon of Scripture, which is different from that of Trent, the EOs (these two being different themselves) and Luther, serves to example this means of establishment. Likewise most of the writings of Scripture were established as authoritative by the time of Christ, and thus Scripture was abundantly invoked as such, without any evident formal decree as to which ones were.
And by conformity with Scripture in word and in power, men of God and the church of the Living God were and are established as being so.
|
Replacing Scripture as the supreme authority, as the assured Word of God, and asserting that Scripture derives its authority from the church, which derives its authority directly from God, renders the church to be autocratic, infallibly defining itself to be the assuredly infallible one true Church©, and Truth being whatever she says it is, and is not dependent upon the weight of Scriptural warrant, with whatever Scriptures are invoked only having weight because she says so. Thus the church effectively is as God. And unlike even a Divinely inspired writer of Scripture, she thus asserts that she ever will be infallible whenever speaking according to her infallible defined scope and subject-based formula. |
In effectively asserting that the church of Rome is the supreme authority, justification for the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome is argued based upon the premise that it is necessary for the establishment of Scripture and preservation of Truth, and is derived from the commission of God to teach all things and promises of God's presence and guidance to believers.
However, to reiterate what i previously have said, Israel was the instrument and stewards of Holy Writ, and recipient of the Divine promises, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) And those who sat in the seat of Moses were also commissioned to teach all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken, as supreme teachers and magistrates, and to Israel were also given promises of God's presence, guidance and perpetuation as they walked as believers. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; cf. Mt. 23:2 etc.)
And by them writings were established as being Divine, Truth was given and preserved, and through whom Christ came, all of which did not require an assuredly infallible magisterium of men, not did it assure unconditional perpetuation directly through them by formal succession.
But yet Truth was preserved, for as God is able to raise up from stones children to Abraham, so He raised up men who did not have the sanction of those who sat in the seat of Moses, often being done in order to reprove them when they presumed too much. And thus the church was established in dissent from those who laid claim to valid authority and historical decent, but who presumed a level of assured veracity and authority that made their authority and the “tradition of the elders” equal to Scripture. (Mk. 6:3-16)
And according to this principle upon which the church was established, so it is preserved as the body of Christ, the church of the Living God, versus its institutionalized counterpart, though as in Scripture, a mixed multitude exists in its varied organic bodies.
God's WORD is SUPERNATURAL unlike man made teachings.
It is WRITTEN are the words of JESUS - It means everything to HIS OWN and NOTHING to those who aren't.
The Vatican/the RCC does.
I suppose that is why you would have been among those to desert Him at the synagogue in Capernaum.
Peace be with you.
John 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
By taking that passage literally, that MUST mean that He is made of bread dough. And by taking that passage literally, that must mean that those who eat Him will never hunger or thirst again. Give me one case of someone who partook of the eucharist who never got hungry or thirsty again.
John 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Taking this literally, Jesus is teaching salvation by faith, simply by believing one attains eternal life and they are eternally secure in Him as He Himself said that He would lose none of those who the Father gave Him.
John 6:47-48 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life.
John 6:63 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
He comes out right here and tells us that He is speaking spiritual words, spiritual truth.
The flesh counts for NOTHING. It is the Spirit which gives life.
Thinking you're eating Jesus flesh is going to do nothing for you. Jesus said what we do in the flesh counts for nothing.
Like in predominantly Catholic countries like Haiti?
Yeah, I'm not surprised either. Catholicism is very accommodating to superstition.
It's the difference between myself, and my Protestant opposition on this thread.
I, coming from a background both Protestant and Catholic, can discourse cogently about the Christian faith.
These others, who just keep talking trash like they are rooting for their favorite ball team, and ignoring pertinent questions to yet again repeat their sanctified cliches, are merely expressing superstition dressed up in Christian garb. i.e. "magic."
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.