The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionIn America's religious marketplace, the real Catholic problem is new sales
by John L Allen Jr on Feb. 11, 2011
Try as we might to remind ourselves that the Catholic church isn't Microsoft and that quantitative measures of success or failure don't always correspond to the logic of the Gospel, most of us take that lesson to heart only selectively. Some Catholics can't resist touting the huge crowds at World Youth Day as an endorsement of their version of orthodoxy; others cite polling majorities in favor of reform on birth control and other issues as proof of the sensus fidelium.
The most powerful recent instance of that temptation has been Catholic reaction to the 2008 "Religious Landscape Survey" from the Pew Forum, which documented a remarkable fluidity in religious affiliation in America -- almost half of American adults have either switched religions or dropped their ties to religion altogether.
For Catholicism, the banner headline was that there are now 22 million ex-Catholics in America, by far the greatest net loss for any religious body. One in three Americans raised Catholic have left the church. Were it not for immigration, Catholicism in America would be contracting dramatically: for every one member the church adds, it loses four. On the other hand, the study also found that the Catholic church has a higher retention rate than other major Christian denominations, and that 2.6 percent of the adult population is composed of converts to Catholicism, representing a pool of nearly six million new Catholics.
Naturally, critics of various aspects of Catholic life, such as the sexual abuse crisis or what some see as an overly conservative ideological drift, see the defections as proof of malaise. (A prominent American theologian recently claimed the Pew data reveal a "mass exodus" from the church, which he linked to a preoccupation by some bishops with the culture wars.) Equally predictably, Catholics content with the status quo play up the good news.
Given the disparities in interpretation, I turned to the director of the Pew Forum, Luis Lugo, to try to understand what the data really have to say. I spoke to Lugo by phone Thursday morning, and we were joined by Pew senior researcher Greg Smith.
Here's the bottom line: In comparison with other religious groups in America, the Catholic church's struggles aren't really with pastoral care, but missionary muscle. Overall, Catholicism serves existing members fairly well, as measured by the share that chooses to stick around; what it doesn't do nearly as well is to evangelize. The data do not reflect widespread dissatisfaction in the pews, at least to any greater extent than other religious bodies face. Instead, they reveal a problem with getting people into the pews in the first place.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
To put all that into crass capitalistic terms, in America's highly competitive religious marketplace, the real Catholic problem isn't customer service but new sales.
Even if one were to focus just on defections, it's not clear which ideological camp in today's church could claim vindication. While many former Catholics object to church teachings on issues such as abortion and homosexuality, one in ten Protestant Evangelicals in America today is also an ex-Catholic, many of whom deserted Catholicism because it wasn't conservative enough. Finally, there's a clear plug for youth ministry implied in the Pew data: Roughly two-thirds of those who abandon Catholicism do so before they're 23, which means the make-or-break period is adolescence and early adulthood.
The following are excerpts from our conversation.
* * *
What reactions do you get when you discuss these findings with Catholics?
Lugo: People are often a little befuddled when I present the full range of evidence, which puts a different light on things. From headlines, they may have the impression that the Catholic church is just bleeding members, but that's out of context. You have to compare it to retention rates of other religious groups, and see it in terms of retention plus recruitment. It's the net relationship between those two factors that's so crucial.
Everybody's losing members in this country, some even more than Catholics. In percentage terms, Catholic losses are not out of line with other groups. It's on the recruitment side that Catholics are not doing as well. Protestants are losing lots of members too, but for every four Americans who are no longer Protestant, there are three who are Protestant today who were not raised that way. Protestantism is declining as a whole, but the recruitment rate is pretty good. Catholics are not replenishing their ranks through conversion in the same way.
There are two other key variables. One is immigration, and the other is higher-than-average fertility rates among Hispanic Catholics. If the only factor driving a religious group's share of the population were conversion, the Catholic church would be declining.
Smith: One of the things I was struck by, especially with regard to the Catholic church, is the degree to which apparent stability masks enormous change just below the surface. If all you look at is the percentage of the population who told us they're Catholic, it's exactly what we've found for four decades, and you would think nothing much is going on. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In his recent Murray/Bacik Lecture at the University of Toledo, noted Catholic theologian Richard Gaillardetz said the Pew data confirm a "mass exodus from the church." Is it accurate to talk about a "mass exodus"?
Lugo: In the context of American religion as a whole, it's not really accurate. In fact, Catholic losses are right in line with what we see overall in terms of people changing affiliation in this country. Look at the fastest-growing religious group in America, the unaffiliated. Even there, half of all people who were raised without an affiliation have since joined a religion! Or take the group that everybody considers to be the most dynamic, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Those results blew me out of my chair. Two-thirds of those raised as Jehovah's Witnesses say they're no longer members, which is double the losses of the Catholic church in percentage terms.
What really strikes me about the Catholic numbers is on the recruitment side. The Jehovah's Witnesses grow because they recruit even more than they lose, which is not the case for the Catholics.
Smith: It's not fair to say there's a "mass exodus" from Catholicism more than any other faith. You have to bear two things in mind. First, because so many people were raised Catholic, it means that in terms of raw numbers, there are a lot of former Catholics out there. It's not because Catholics do a worse job keeping their members, but because so many were raised Catholic. Second, if all you looked at is retention, you would probably say that Catholics are doing just as well as other groups, and even better than many of them. But one of the points of the report is that to understand the dynamics of American religion, you have to see retention and recruitment together. It's the churn, the ratio of leaving to joining, which matters. It's the recruitment side that sets Catholics apart. Four people leave Catholicism for every one who joins, and there's no other religious group where you see a similar ratio. Baptists, for example, also have more people leaving than joining, but their ratio of 2-1 is twice of what we see for Catholics.
Is the take-away not that Catholics have a problem serving existing members, but that Catholics need to ramp up their missionary efforts?
Lugo: In terms of sheer numbers, that's right. I wouldn't want to say that the church shouldn't be thinking about pastoral strategies to retain its current members, especially young people. The retention side can't be overlooked, and there are important pastoral implications there. Yet the bottom line is that if you're a religious group in this country, you're going to lose members in significant numbers. Half of all Americans say they've changed affiliation at least once, so churn is the name of the game. Even if the Catholic church did a markedly better job of retention, if it can't make up a significant share of its membership through recruitment, its ratio will not be very impressive.
I know that all the RCIA people will probably be mad, because they're already over-burdened, but your question nails it: The most striking thing about Catholicism in America isn't that it's losing people, but that it's not recruiting them as successfully as other groups. I should add that when I'm presenting this data, I always say that the 2.6 percent of American adults who are converts to Catholicism is a huge pool of folks, so it's not like nothing is going on.
What do we know about why those 22 million ex-Catholics left the church?
Lugo: It's very interesting, because we have to break it down between those who have joined the ranks of the unaffiliated and those who have become Protestants. When you do that, it's by no means clear, from a purely retention point of view, whether the church ought to become more liberal or more conservative! Bear in mind that among those becoming Protestants, a majority are Evangelicals. One out of ten Evangelicals in America today is a former Catholic, and many of those folks say the Catholic church isn't conservative enough.
Smith: It's impossible to say in broad strokes why people leave, because it depends on where they're headed. Among former Catholics who are now unaffiliated, 65 percent say they just stopped believing the religion's teachings. A majority also cites unhappiness with specific teachings; 58 percent say they were unhappy with the teaching on things like abortion and homosexuality, and 48 percent or so were unhappy with the teaching on birth control. However, even more say they just gradually drifted away. 71 percent of former Catholics who are now unaffiliated say that.
Lugo: For that group, one gets the sense of gradually, almost imperceptibly, stepping away from the church. Many were already fairly "secularized" before they stopped identifying as Catholics. It's less for highly principled theological reasons, that they just can't take this church anymore, and more for the drift factor.
Smith: For those who have become Protestants, 71 percent say their spiritual needs weren't being met in the Catholic church. The same number, however, say happiness with their new religion was more important than dissatisfaction with the old one. What's interesting is differences between those former Catholics who have become Evangelicals, and those who have joined one of the mainline Protestant churches. More than half of those who are now Evangelical cite Catholic teaching about the Bible as a factor in their decision, and most say that the Catholic church does not view the Bible literally enough. Only 16 percent of former Catholics now in mainline Protestantism cite the Bible, and those who do are about evenly divided between those who say Catholicism takes the Bible too literally and those who say it's not literal enough.
Lugo: We also find that where ex-Catholic Evangelicals tend to cite reasons of belief and theology, those in mainline Protestant churches tend to be influenced more by what we might call "life cycle" factors, such as marrying someone of a different faith, or they didn't like the priest at their parish, and so on.
For those who leave the church, when do they do so?
Smith: In 2008 we did a follow-up survey, and we found that switching is something that usually happens early in life. Most who left Catholicism did so prior to reaching the age of 24. For those Catholics who are now unaffiliated with any religion, half left Catholicism before they turned 18, and another three in ten left during the college years, between ages 18 and 23. Among Catholics who are now Protestants, half left before 18 and another third left between 18 and 23. This is something that happens early in the life cycle.
Catholic membership is being replenished largely through Hispanic immigration. Are those Hispanics likely to remain Catholic?
Smith: People often assume that fewer Latinos leave Catholicism as compared to non-Latinos. There's something to that, although the difference is not as large as you might expect. Among non-Hispanics who were raised Catholic, 66 percent are still Catholic. Among Hispanics raised Catholic, it's 73 percent. That's a statistically significant difference, but we're not talking about night and day. Among those who have left, it's just like the non-Hispanic Catholics -- roughly half are now unaffiliated and half have become Protestants, mostly Evangelicals.
Lugo: We know there's a generational difference. The conversion rates are lower among first-generation Hispanic immigrants than in the second generation. However, the percentage in the third generation is identical to the second, so there doesn't seem to be an escalating defection rate generationally.
Latino Catholics also have by far the highest fertility rate of any ethnic religious group in the country. Among American Catholics under 40, half are now Latinos. Even if immigration rates were to ebb, therefore, it's "baked in" demographically that the Latino share of the adult Catholic population will increase.
Just wondering...did Jesus
Just wondering...did Jesus ask for statistics when the disciples returned home from mission??? Were Apostles promoted based on numbers that came over to Jesus' "side"?
no, he wasn't a salesman - in
no, he wasn't a salesman - in fact he ended up nailed to a cross. paul, on the other hand, was a salesman par excellence. he sold the product to an entire empire.
Hi
Hi
This should not be news.
This should not be news. Catholics don't talk about their faith much and don't witness like other faiths do. Let's begin by inviting someone to Church. No pressure, no hard sell, just a simple invite. Lent is coming up, so invite someone to Easter Mass.
My three kids have all
My three kids have all abondoned the faith.....for now. The oldest goes to a much younger protestant church with many young families. My next is too busy and focused on work. My youngest is adamant about being an atheist - even has an atheist boy friend. We pray that all will return. I think they will.
I wouldn't want to do that,
I wouldn't want to do that, especially if the person is not a baptised Roman Catholic because he would either read in the Missalette or be told from the pulpit that "sorry, you can't partake of the Eucharist"....not a very good selling point. No pressure, no hard sell, just a simple invitation and a possible hurtful experience for both the host and the guest.
What a non-sense. If you
What a non-sense. If you enter a university, you don't start at the president's office making decisions, you learn first.
And for your information: there is a book that could interest you. It is called Bible. We the Christians take it as a rule of life, and learn to obey it. And inside this book, in the 1st Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, in the 11th chapter we read:
"Whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks his condemnation."
When we read it in the Church, we add: "Word of the Lord". The priest, the Pope, and even the misalette just remind us what the Lord and His Church teach.
Entering the church building does not mean an automatic disposition and right to receive the Holy Communion.
If most of the people who
If most of the people who leave do so in their late teens and early twenties, could it be that they are rejecting the simplistic version of Catholicism that we have to give them in their religious education classes when they are not yet able to absorb the adult, more abstract version of our religion. More exposure to writers like James Martin SJ, who can communicate with adults might help.
I think that this is a big
I think that this is a big factor. The Church prefers to present child-like versions of its beliefs even to adults.
I think it's more of a
I think it's more of a "community" issue. Protestant churches do a much better job at youth ministry through activities that encourage kids to discuss topics that are relevant to them (note I'm not saying "be lectured to by someone"), to serve their communities, to be involved in planning and leading worship, and to just hang out and have fun. Many of these activities are scheduled with Sunday school or held Sunday evening. In my area, the few youth activities that are held in Catholic parishes are scheduled during the week when school activities are scheduled and many of them are adult driven rather than youth driven. It was like this when I was growing up. I often hung out with Protestant friends at their churches because my parish offered nothing.
The question now is: How does
The question now is: How does the Church hold on to the members it has? The way this reads, it looks like the reasons people leave for mainstream Protestant churches could be the easiest reasons to fix. Things like better training of clergy and staff to work with the laity in understanding the community's needs and wants for services could likely go a long way toward retention. Better transparency of what the hierarchy does that affects local parishes and therefore, the laity who fill the pews, will go a long way toward retention, too.
If this church would treat
If this church would treat the laity more as adults than "sheep" and work with them to ensure that they feel part of things, rather than slack-jawed pew potatoes, maybe they wouldn't join other churches that DO treat them as adults and value their participation.
Another problem is the "mini-dioceses" that pass for parishes in way too many instances. You can't talk about community in a milieu where the most action is getting into and out of the parking lot between masses.
I'm perplexed . . .It seems
I'm perplexed . . .It seems as if we Catholics are all pin-balls in a pin-ball machine, spinning around and slamming into each other, with no understanding of the forces propelling us. . .
IMO -- I think the folks @ Pew are missing a huge component to this analysis. . .
It's been said that all decisions -- emphasis on ALL = emotional. I agree wholeheartedly.
I believe the same is true for membership in any religious denomination.
And far more than any negative aspects to any organization (families, workplace, clubs, schools, etc), which people overlook and forgive and "move past" all the time (in deference to the positive aspects) --- it's a lack of (heaven forgive me for saying this) "positive energy" that is slicing and dicing membership in the Catholic Church.
There are two aspects to this, I believe: (OH -- BTW -- I'm a devout, practicing, nearly-daily communicant, Pro-Life-in-the-Seamless-Garment-Tradition Cradle Catholic who was educated throughout her life in Catholic Schools and whose family was very devout, too. Whew!)
1. From a marketing perspective (as crude as that may sound) -- (brace yourself & keep on reading, cause this is going to sound so retro!) -- Catholics literally threw off external "signs" of their Catholic identity at the time of Vatican II -- Manifested chiefly by avowed religious who tossed aside habits and collars -- at the very same time Americans were rushing to embrace "logos" and "brands", in a pattern which has grown exponentially over these decades.
And brand affiliation isn't merely about materialism --- it's about "BELONGING" -- it's about PUBLICLY IDENTIFYING with whatever group, tastes, brands that help to "explain" a person's identity.
2. For the last dozen years or so, we've been most definitely moving into another age -- not merely "collecting" things we like --- but CONNECTING with those we identify with. Hence -- the skyrocketing success of social networking places like Facebook.
(And the more hi-tech our society becomes, the more "connecting" will accelerate!)
People are now seeking products and EXPERIENCES in every facet of life (buying from socially-responsible companies, traveling on vacation to work for a not-for-profit, etc) that will enable them to connect with others who share their values and that will enable them to DEMONSTRATE their concerns.
3. The "problem" of Church membership isn't as much about "conservative" vs. "liberal" --- it's about which experience -- IF ANY --- offers people the chance to connect with one another FIRST and foremost, so that they can then connect with God.
I was once recruited rigorously to join a Baptist congregation ---- and believe me --- the emphasis wasn't on Bible reading. The emphasis was ALL ABOUT connecting with other people in the congregation so that I could "belong" to this new geographical community (where I had no other ties).
(This turned out to be a great opportunity for me to educate others about Catholicism -- as these recruiting efforts amounted to nil, which clearly bugged those recruiting me. . . .But I clearly saw that THIS is why forlorn Catholics (as I call them) are drawn into the open embrace of certain fundamentalist churches, whose concentration is more on community (IMO) than worship, much less liturgy. IF you are lonely, at sea, out-of-step, newly relocated -- you long for community and you are eager to embrace it.)
Having traveled all over America and having attended Catholic Masses in countless churches --- contrast this push from Fundamentalist Churches to "reach out", with the mumbled responses and lackluster welcomes (if any at all) as you walk in the door at a huge number of Catholic Churches. . . .Small wonder that younger people are slipping out the back door, in search for an experience of connection and joy, belonging and promise.
If we really REALLY want to turn around the numbers --- however anyone interprets them --- the answer is clear:
We have to concentrate on our brand --- infuse it with joy and real celebration -- not an obligation laced with heaviness and weariness.
And the way to do this = so simple, in my view ---- it astonishes me that no one in the Hierarchy has ever thought to do it (to the best of my knowledge):
Instead of concentrating on rewriting the Roman Missal (sorry -- not a segue or a rant -- just an observation) --- it's a huge pity that the following 3 SIMPLE elements are not added to every Sunday Mass (at least), at every single Catholic church in America:
1. Take 1 minute (literally) of every homily to EXPLAIN the origins of Catholic rituals like genuflecting (a fascinating story) -- or the origins of the 12 Days of Christmas Song -- or why bells were/are rung during the Consecration. People DON"T KNOW this stuff any more --- But it's fun, it's trivia and it INFORMS the congregation -- AND it helps the congregation CONNECT to 20 centuries of Christians before us. It helps Catholics understand that there IS a reason for everything we do -- that it's not just because "father said so".
2. Devote 3 minutes (literally) during every Communion meditation to the "personal testimony" of a Catholic-in-the-pews, to tell a quick story of how Jesus is working in his/her life. (Take a look at the denominations attracting ex-Catholics: they all celebrate personal testimony/witness -- enabling people to lift one another up in encouragement, enabling people to get to know one another, lessening a sense of "embarrassment" that faith should somehow be "private", enabling people to connect with one another AND with the Church as a whole. THIS IS EVANGELIZATION and Catholics need to do it first and foremost in our own houses of worship -- then, we can spread the Good News more effectively than ever.
3. I'm 56 years old, with several fabulous relatives who are avowed religious & I've had friends my whole life who are priests and nuns. I cannot ever remember a time when a priest gave a homily where he shared his own faith journey -- where he openly shared his own desert experience and how God walked him through the desert. But, Why????? (I think this is one key reason so many "people" were shocked at the revelation that Mother Teresa struggled in her own desert experience!)
All I know is that when I faced the biggest Sahara of my entire life, it was a dear friend who is a nun, who shared her own experience -- and which led me to the most marvelous spiritual journey, which continues to this day, almost 17 years later.
At the end of the day, this isn't a perplexing problem of stemming the tide of defections. It's not about the scandals (as much as I abhor them) or about whether the Church is "conservative" or "liberal".
All we have to do is incorporate new ways to connect, to share, to "see" Jesus in our daily lives -- and if we build that Church, they will come at a run.
Thank you for providing this forum for me to share my views (and forgive my long-windedness!!)
Peace be with you!
Margaret Mary, You are
Margaret Mary,
You are soooooo spot on!
If only we could get the hierarchy to LISTEN then they might hear what you are saying. However the illness of patriarchy is so rife I doubt this will ever happen.
Mary, You have just put words
Mary,
You have just put words to a huge reason I left the Church in my early 30's for a vibrant lived out discipleship I saw in Evangelicalism.
I hadn't realized how powerful a motive emotion and a desire to be around people who loved God out loud was in my spiritual journey.
Public identity... connecting with others OF LIKE MIND (not just bland "fellowship")
I needed people to show me how Jesus impacted their entire lives. I always intuitively knew that if you had a genuine encounter with the Lion of Judah He would rock your world. I too love the personal witness of others.
When I returned to the Church after becoming convinced of Her truth claims (much to my dismay) I was actually afraid that I might loose Jesus again if you can believe that?!
I'm printing your comments so I can study them in more depth as so many things you said struck a chord with me.
I am in a family with many ex-Catholic Protestants who I am trying to reach and your comments have helped me understand their (and my) motives for leaving.
I agree with most of your
I agree with most of your suggestions, but mention that what seems to “bug” many people about our liturgy is that it is “too wordy.” Explanations of rituals that you mention would be an interesting part of a homily, but not if this extends the length of time that it takes Father to get his idea(s) across. At many liturgies, the homily becomes the most important part of the Mass BY ITS LENGTH. We’re all had to endure homilies that lasted 20 to 30 minutes, even longer. I would welcome “witnessing” statements occasionally as part of the Liturgy, but only if the homily time is shortened. When we are admonished “Can’t you give the Lord one hour of your week…” what really needs to be said is “Can you endure (put up with) one hour of liturgy…”
Good offerings. Very helpful
Good offerings. Very helpful to move beyond the ideological polarization that exists within today's US church!
And note - we're the same age. In my Catholic high school the religious education we received was purely existential and less institutionally-linked. Why? The catechetical resources simply weren't there. Furthermore, the institution itself was going through a huge sea-change in the aftermath of the council.
For any adolescent in the US at this time - EVERY institution was being challenged.
So it's not surprising there has been an exodus. But the exodus is skin-deep. Evangelical Christianity is all about joy - in the moment. The longterm experience of people's spiritual lives means enduring. And frankly once one begins to ask questions of a theological character - bye-bye evangelical Christianity. No tradition, no standing....
So yes, emphasize joy, but don't become caught up in the "concert-fervor" of evangelical Chrisianity. Developmentally, it's still in adolescence....
Margaret Mary, your comment
Margaret Mary, your comment makes much more sense than any analysis of survey data. First of all, to be valid surveys must set out to prove/disprove some theory(ies; second each question's response has to be quantifiable; thirdly, the sampling must be a randomized amassing of sufficient number of respondents, preferable from representative locales/populations. Then, really all we can say (which is what I read from the remarks of John Allen's interviewee) is that the data either matches/don't match the assumptions/theories set down for proof/disproof. And then we can try to use these results in some rational discernment.
That's not how revolutions occur. Witness the latest - Egypt & Tunisia. In both cases emotions trumped rationality. Both cases illustrated that "against all odds" which result from data-gathering and surveys, people will make and participate in their own destiny. Surveys/data-gathering have their place; however they mostly reveal something of the past, even if the past is a near past. They are no sure predictor for the future, even the near future.
Thank you Margaret Mary from way down deep for your very insightful comment.
WOW! This is great. Jesus
WOW! This is great. Jesus brought people along in the faith - He didn't overwhelm them initially with deep religious discussion. He brought them along with PERSONAL healing, touching, listening then responding.....lovingly.
Great response!
Great response!
As a 56-year old life long
As a 56-year old life long practicing Catholic, I can relate to much of what you wrote. I managed to embrace some of the mystical realities of the Church growing up, as an altar boy, participating in retreats and befriending religious. Unfortunately, my sister (3 yrs my senior) did not escape the loneliness, the lack of community unscathed. She did many corporal works of mercy and at one time as a young girl thought about religious life. At a vulnerable, searching time in her young life, she sought community (with the help of a fundamentalist cousin) and found an outwardly happier, friendly reflection of Jesus' community in fundamentalism. She has continued that identity to this day. I'm not sure the exact reason why she left, but I am sure that it wasn't for doctrinal reasons. As I grew up seeking good Catholic friendship and community, the Church provided a poor alternative in their teen groups and young adult ministries. At Mass, in many churches, I do not see many millenials in the pews. I agree with the writer that connecting in church and out of church, in many forms, are needed to evangelize. It is incumbent upon us seasoned Catholics to know our Faith as well as know our Bible and be prepared to give a reason for the joy within us. (1 Peter 3:15). btw, its not all about outward emotion but you don't keep a bright lamp covered either.
Thank you Mary Margaret. So
Thank you Mary Margaret. So much of what you say speaks my mind. Could we also add that Catholic Social Teaching shows that the Church is concerned about so much more than what we do with our genitals. It is our best kept secret and would be a means of keeping our idealistic youth in the Church
Thanks for this post - I'm a
Thanks for this post - I'm a little older than you, and when I first started travelling the world, around 1970, you couldn't miss the Catholic church - in every departure lounge there were sisters in all sorts of habits and always priests, reading their breviaries [or the racing pages of the local paper if Irish]. There was a subliminal message in this: the Catholic church was everywhere and it was going places - it was on the move. Then, it vanished. I'm sure there are still lots of priests and sisters at airports, but no-one knows, even Catholics don't. And as you say,in a world where brands matter, where presence matters, this was a real loss.
patricia
[in England]
God bless you Mary Margaret
God bless you Mary Margaret for articulating so well what I feel in the depths of my soul. WE ALL are the Church and are responsible to be the Body of Christ, intelligently sharing God's word and welcoming others into the Kingdom. I get so frustrated with the monarchical style of the hierarchy that tries to force everyone back to the mind set of the middle ages where it had more control. The backward looking new Latinized translation of the Roman Missal is almost the last straw for me. How can we be the worshipping community you visualize when our liturgy is forced to become formal and archaic?
This loss made up by the
This loss made up by the "immigration" of Latin Americans does not make a logical presumption, I was also raised and educated through 16 years in Catholic Schools. My great Aunt Irish, tutored me in too much, the known science and astrological planetary placements and an agrarian at her core, while an RN, we had plants aplenty in our back yard. The priests, and monks I came in contact were NOT pedophiles. The Sisters were then and now the religious we all aspire.
As much as I like a certain Nuns writing, it is apparent that two factors of our own lives impacted us more than we would like to admit. Vatican II, which I believe allowed the symptomatic erosion of morality in Seminary life and Betty Freiden(sp)and the Woman's Movement helped eviscerate "Orders" as many accepted them.
Chastity is no longer taught, and that value alone is emblematic of the erosion of the moral compass Catholicism stood firm. The relaxation of rules of those in "Orders" allowed for men and women to abandon discipline for the "whatever feels good" which Catholics were almost alone in professing.
Return to the Latin may be a step in the direction of moral certitude. I pray for its return, and the re-conversion and return of those "lapsed" Catholics and others seeking salvation.
I am Catholic as Dorthy Day, while not a socialist; as the priestly brothers who founded "Swords to Plowshares" while not a pacifist; a fundamental Catholic while not "Opus Dei" and support the Schenk Brothers, priests, in their efforts to eliminate abortions. While in my heart, believe if chastity was as important today and before; abortions less practiced. I cannot answer for that woman who seeks what I desire from "Planned Parenthood" solid guidance.
I am Catholic because of each of these men and women of faith, and the hundred of truly dedicated Priests and Sisters that made my life what it is today.
Sic Transit Gloria
God bless you, Mary
God bless you, Mary Margaret!! You observations on the life of the RCC is very penetrating and helpful. I especially am struck by your obvious deep love for the Church, the Body of Christ, and how we need to reflect on how to be the best incarnation of God's love, redemption and reconciliation in this time and place.
Grace and Peace to you and all,
Harry+
Sorry to say, this is a bit
Sorry to say, this is a bit of jibberish that clings to simplistic and distorted thinking. You may be longing for what was, but it gets us no where really in terms of what is.
FACEBOOK REVOLUTION is
FACEBOOK REVOLUTION is NEEDED
for a STRUCTURAL CHANGE
of the Roman Catholic Church.
In a Democratic Free World no one wants to
belong to a Theocracy... PERIOD.
An elightened, literate, BODY of CHRIST
needs a FACEBOOK REVOLUTION to share their
HOLY SPIRIT inspired VISIONS of how to "be church".
TAKE BACK YOUR CHURCH !!
Hierarchy has hi-jacked our conscience, our common
sense, our theologians, and the HEART OF CHRISTIANITY;
The PATH/WAY of JESUS and THE KINGDOM (here NOW!!)
We shall replace our waving PALMS with vibrating TWITTERS
to ANNOUNCE the coming of CHRIST on PALM SUNDAY.
RISE UP !! RISE UP !! WAKE UP CHILDREN OF GOD.. ALLELUIA !!
yawn...
yawn...
The fact that you want to
The fact that you want to remain anonymous speaks volumes. I much prefer to stand up and be counted in the fight to retain THEOCRACY so Facebook is not going to be my God I can assure you.Whilst Pope Benedict has made a very mute point about modern technology serving the evangelistic dimension of the Church I am sure he does not desire that facebook social networking replace solid Catholic teaching.God bless the Hierarchy!
Very interesting
Very interesting interpretation of these statistics clearly indicating that I am statistically an "outlier". I left the church around the age of 50 primarily because of Pope John Paul's stand on women's ordination. I'm tired of the oppressive and reactionary atmosphere in most parishes. I have an undergraduate degree from a Jesuit university. I just finished reading Hans Kung's book, "What I believe" which I agree with in its entirety. His beliefs, his understanding of what the problems are within the Vatican and the Vatican curia is credible. He has accurately seen and understood the consequences of the changes that have occurred since the end of WWII. His understanding of the worlds' major religions, his ecumenism is a hopeful one. Wish his belief and understanding is something that the Vatican could at least be open to. Even though I don't represent the "norm" of people who have left their church, their denominations, I just want to state that to look and interpret the "norms" doesn't necessarily give you the whole picture.
You are not alone in your
You are not alone in your middle-aged departure. I left in my late 40's, as the role of dissenter or cafeteria Catholic was not attractive to me. The Pew group must have restricted polling methods. There are plenty of former RC in mainline churches, even some in Eastern Orthodoxy. Like you, I'm an RC university and professional school grad who could no longer abide the monarchical hierarchy, the hypocrisy, misogyny, homophobia (with plenty of closeted priests no less!)and (to be blunt) the theological and biblical ignorance of many Roman Catholics of all ages.
My observation of my own neighborhood (NYC burbs) suggests that the lapsed numbers are way higher if you count the wedding/funeral/once a year Mass Catholics as lapsed, as they should be counted. They don't register, don't contribute and their Catholicism is "cultural", whatever that means. If Pew counts them as active RC, the numbers are skewed.
It was not surprising to
It was not surprising to learn that the majority who leave the Catholic church are young. Most of these, I would guess, have not received any worthwhile education in Catholicism. They have been taught to question and not to blindly accept the beliefs of their parents. Those who have gone through our public school system, where the mention of God is prohibited, have really been schooled in the religion of atheism. They have little understanding of the Mass and of Catholicism and believe that God is irrelevant in their lives.
Today, we have a majority of Catholics who are ignorant about their faith. We have parents unable to answer their children's questions on the subject. Many who do have an answer give a very wrong answer. If all they've had is CCD education they, themselves, are still in the dark.
The Catholic schools were established because the immigrants realized their children's faith was in danger of being lost without education in it. Today, because of our secular society I think the same holds true.
Aline, I have to say that my
Aline, I have to say that my six children were raised in the faith, attended Catholic school thru 8th grade, a couple went to Catholic colleges. They identified themselves as Catholic and were proud of the Church's position on social justice and compassion for all. The last few years they are disillusioned with the American bishops and their embrace of right wing political causes and the using of reception of communion as a weapon against politicians who support the law regarding the choice to have (or not) an abortion. They were always aware of the teachings about abortion, homosexuality, and male priesthood, but the fervent yada-yada ing about these issues as definitive for being a Catholic, has left them cold. Is this what our faith has come to? An argument about ethics and morality?
My son left. He said the
My son left. He said the Church bored him. Further, he is gay and did not feel comfortable.
One in six are gay. A theology that leaves out that many people in this world is not universal which means the Catholic Church is is not really catholic. Think of it this way. With our children we start with 16% dropout rate. Of course some of the gay youth think that since marriage is not for them, they should enter religious life. However, brothers, sisters and parents leave with the gay children. That is a big chunk of those vote with their feet.
Fortunately, my son does not think that he is "objectively disordered". He leads a productive life with a partner and a circle of friends and relatives.
The doctrine of "objectively disordered" is a self-fulfilling prophesy leads to real disorders such as sexual abuse, alcohol abuse, suicide, hypocrisy, and others things. The doctrine is very unhealthy to a gay person attempting to practice it. God does not make throwaway or junk people as the interpreted doctrine suggests.
And gays are not responsible for abortion as some say.
A lot is said about Catholics
A lot is said about Catholics who have left and there are millions of them. There are also a lot of Catholics who stay, but are not at all happy with the way things have been going. A reactionary, powergrabbing Vatican, Right Wing Bishops who live in the Middle ages and treat the laity as serfs, fanatic cults such as LC/RC who gained favor with the hierarchy and many other issues.
The Trads will tell us "if you don't like the way things are, get out." The thing is though, this is our Church too. I grew up in this Church, why do I have to get out? Yes, a lot of people have taken the Caholic Right up on their ultimatum, but many of us who have seen the Church hijacked by medieval nuts, are not leaving. We stay and we speak up. It's often not pleasant, but this is our Church too and we are not leaving.
Many of the hierarchy would doubtless love to see a Church which resembles LC/RC comprised of mindless robots who wallow in ignorance, fanaticism and blind obedience. Well, that is not going to happen.
Some of the hierarchy seem to think that they can turn back the clock to the 1550's and the Council of Trent. They seem to think that they are the aristocracy and the laity ignorant, obedient serfs. The modern laity will not stand for be treated like serfs and the Vatican has no Plan B. We are in for some rough sledding ahead, and I probably won't live to see the Church come out of this. Some day it will however, and the spirit of Vatican II will finally be realized, albeit pehaps a century late.
Your approach, Austin, is
Your approach, Austin, is more widespread than you appreciate. It is mine, too, and it is the only way for most who still attend Mass on a frequent basis. A real test is how many, of those beyond grade school who do rather regularly attend Mass, go to confession even once a year. It is a low percentage, and it has to be a function of their (our) disagreement, in well-formed conscience, with teachings of the clergy's hierarchy on practical issues of morality and on their asserted powers to excommunicate and judge.
Those of us still attending who disagree (per above), often do not agree among ourselves: I am against abortion, but I am not certain when a human soul is created; I am against the ever-broader flaunting of sexuality in all the media; I am in favor of birth control (just as were the Catholic theologians whom Paul VI disagreed with, referenced in his encyclical); I am against the gay culture's infiltration of the media, and am against homosexuality in our youth, although I think I accept gay personal unions (between adults). I have heard nuns preach, and my wife and I have attended an Anglican wedding service with a female priest. If I were a young man, which I am no longer, I might guess I could get used to a woman Catholic priest. I know that if I choose now to search out a Mass celebrated by an ordained woman, I would not believe myself to be excommunicated.
I am in favor of the hierarchy teaching on matters of morality with as much authority as they can personally muster and convincingly explain, and I hope that what they teach is based on the word and spirit of the Gospels. Infallibility itself is a recent idea in the Catholic Church, and it is clear from history that one pope has often taught things that other popes have disagreed with.
But we dare not go off half-cocked thinking that whatever we like can (presumably) be supported somewhere, at some time, in the history of Christian teachings. We have to really read up on whatever the issue is, so that we find our own solid basis for agreeing -- or disagreeing -- with the clergy's hierarchy. (And all this with the result that we listen to others when they disagree with us.)
When I attend Mass, I just try to pray to God, and I never imagine myself sitting before any papal throne.
Vincent
What is this "spirit of
What is this "spirit of Vatican II" that you speak of? Where does it come from? Have you read the documents of Vatican II - Lumen Gentium? Gudium et Spes? Dei Verbum? They are beautiful! Truly beautiful! They speak of the Church of Christ and the People of God. They speak of the laity working with the episcopate, no moving against them! I have talked with many people who have talked about the "spirit of Vatican II" not being realized, but what all of them talk about is not actually contained in any of Vatican II. The attitude was all created by individuals after the Council and in fact went aganst what Vatican II taught. Before anyone talks about the "spirit of Vatican II", please make sure you first read the beautiful documents and see what the council was saying and teaching. God Bless.
Chris - MA on Feb. 12,
Chris - MA on Feb. 12, 2011.
You stated:
'What is this "spirit of Vatican II" that you speak of? Where does it come from? Have you read the documents of Vatican II - Lumen Gentium? Gudium et Spes? Dei Verbum? They are beautiful! Truly beautiful! They speak of the Church of Christ and the People of God. They speak of the laity working with the episcopate, no moving against them! I have talked with many people who have talked about the "spirit of Vatican II" not being realized, but what all of them talk about is not actually contained in any of Vatican II. The attitude was all created by individuals after the Council and in fact went aganst what Vatican II taught. Before anyone talks about the "spirit of Vatican II", please make sure you first read the beautiful documents and see what the council was saying and teaching. God Bless."
-------------------------------------------------
Chris---it takes more reading than just the documents of Vatican II. There were also encyclicals written by the popes during and after Vatican Council II that expressed the teachings of the Popes in regard to what was stated by the documents.
"Pacem in terris" by John XXIII---shows the transition from an older authoritarian and moralistic view of society to a more democratic one. John saw that authority main goal was NOT to direct people to truth, justice, virtue and religion (as pre-Vatican II encyclicals often had). It was the task of authority to protect and defend these human rights.
Gaudium et spes (Vatican II document), regarded the dignity of the human person as the grounding of the whole teaching by making this phrase the title of its very first chapter. This was a turnabout from other earlier teachings which saw people as needing to be guided in an authoritarian and paternalistic manner to what was right and proper.
Paul VI also in his encyclicals continued the approach begun during the Vatican Council II and expanded them. But with John Paul II---there was the steady push to return to a pre-Vatican stance.
In addition to that---there was the attempt by Pope John Paul II to re-write everything that happened during Vatican Council II according to HIS understanding.
1) On the Sunday before John Paul issued his first encyclical (Redemptor Hominist, 1979), the pope declaried, "God has chosen me and my ideas. He's chosen me for this universal pulpit to proclaim these ideas that I have had for some years."
2) Then he wrote his personal interpretation of the Vatican Council "Sources of Renewal: The Implementation of Vatican II."
John Paul II utilized the information that he presented in his doctoral dissertation (earned, not in Rome, but in Krawcow, Poland). In the introduction to "Sources of Renewal" JP II makes the point that people were speaking during Vatican II of liberals and conservatives, but this is not true...."we shuld think that way." JP II said that the proper hermenutic of the councils was that the council recapitualated all the councils that went before it, and that all councils before it led up to Vatican II."
This is patently false---no other Council over the centuries had ever undertaken to deal with major questions in open discussions, as had Vatican Council II.
The article is very good and
The article is very good and puts things into perspective. Thanks.
I would caution that things have changed since 2008. It is like the saying, "the straw that broke the camel's back." It is fair to say the scandal of 2002 did not produce the mass exodus that many expected. However, what it did do is greatly add to the dissatisfaction that many feel toward the church. Today a new scandal, a negative personal experience, or another news story, can lead many to say enough. Those dioceses that keep track of mass attendance are seeing a decline. It is due to what may seem like small things, but people are hitting their breaking point. In my own family, the actions of Olmstead were the catalyst for leaving. For others, the European sex abuse scandals were the breaking point. One cannot read the blogs about the church in secular settings and think all is well. There is added negativity toward the church and its bishops since that survey was published. In light of this one has to wonder why, why would the bishops want to introduce changes to the liturgy in this milieu? The only conclusion I can draw is that the bishops have no pastoral sensibilities. They are like Mubarak, totally out of touch.
people leave the Church first
people leave the Church first because no birth control is allowed and after divorce you can't go to communion if you remarry
Yes, you poor anonymous
Yes, you poor anonymous victim, this evil Church is even forbidding you to lie and kill.
And you are left with only two options: Repent and go to Confession or leave.
...If you must leave, you should go back where they have taught you your faith and ask your money back, because they really defrauded you.
People leave for the same
People leave for the same reason they did when Jesus explained The Real Presence. The Apostles believed, the multitude that had been following Him since the Sermon on the Mount did not and left. If we believe,then like Saint Peter, "where else would we go"? They may say they are leaving because of birth control or abuse, but the root cause is they do not believe He is really there in the Mass.
Those 2 issues, which are
Those 2 issues, which are mortal sins, don't seem to stop the vast majority of secular humanist, pop culture brainwashed Catholics from going up to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. They heap judgment upon themselves. Besides, you can always get your "invalid" marriage annulled at the local marriage tribunal. Milquetoast anglos, you don't konw what real Catholicism is, thanks to the "spirit" of Vatican 2.
Evangelise! Why should we?
Evangelise! Why should we? "They" know we are here. It's up to THEM to come to US, preferably with their tails between their legs and begging for forgiveness and entry.
Arrogance is the church's own worst enemy. RCIA is, at best, a limp and weak manner of bringing people into the church, and it still depends on someone seeking out a parish to join.
That's exactly right! If only
That's exactly right! If only the Bishops would have the eggs to actually say that. The Catholic Church is the one and only true Church established by Our Lord. Outside the Church there is no salvation! EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS! Yes, come to the Ark before you drown! You come to the Ark, it doesn't come to you. LOL
Dear Mr. McCrea, I was
Dear Mr. McCrea,
I was staggered by your comment. Please, sir, look into a mirror! Then read the last chapter of Matthew's gospel.
I wouldn't be surprised if 15
I wouldn't be surprised if 15 million out of that 22 million have left the Church over divorce and remarriage issues. And nobody ever seems to bring that up.
Have you ever read in the
Have you ever read in the Gospel what Jesus says about the divorce and remarriage? (Check Mark 10:1-12)
What do you expect His Church will teach in His Name? If you want to flout it, go for it, but remember that the adulterers won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. (1 Cor 6:10-11)
And don't try to spin the message, the pharisees have tried it already with Jesus Himself, and we know how "understanding" He was.
Regarding Jesus' teaching on
Regarding Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage, are the Orthodox churches wrong in their approach to this matter? Even Jesus said that he wants mercy, not sacrifice.
If an epistle says that adulterers won't inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, was Jesus wrong when he used three parables (Luke 15) to teach his listeners about God's unconditional love, i.e., a love with no strings attached?
Marriages fail, and Jesus never endorsed any kind of "annulment" (unless we allow for Matthew's "exceptive" clause that permits divorce). Yet the church would develop the annulment process to try to deal with failed marriages.
The law may be black and white, but life is anything but.
If Jesus' example is controlling, it is one of putting mercy first, not rigid application of the law. While Jesus told the woman to "sin no more", he also told his listeners to forgive indefinitely, i.e., without limit. It stands to reason that God would not tell us to do more than what he himself is prepared to do.
In short, when practicality confronted rigidity, Jesus supported the former.
Very good point Ray.
Very good point Ray.
THERE IS A CONFLICT HERE.
THERE IS A CONFLICT HERE. John Allen makes the opening summary: "The data do not reflect widespread dissatisfaction in the pews, at least to any greater extent than other religious bodies face. Instead, they reveal a problem with getting people into the pews in the first place."
The data later given in the story shows that the 22 million ex-Catholics were once in the pews and that the biggest departure from the pews occurs with Catholics under 24 years old.
So here John Allen is painting a picture of Catholics not being evangelical enough to get "non-Catholics" into the pews or possibly not evangeical enough to get Catholics "back in the pews."
Is Mr. Allen reflecting some kind of Vatican twist to the story? The implication for this interpretation is that lay Catholics need to do something. It is "their" fault --- not the fault of the hierarchy, the priests and bishops.
Now, wait a minute. Who controls everything in the church?
If you do not know, Canon Law -- church law -- gives authority only to bishops and priests to govern the church. Pope Benedict recently amended the canon to make it say explicitedly that deacons -- that other ordained group -- were not part of the governance of the church. So it is clear who runs the church. Don't anybody forget it!
You make sense and point in
You make sense and point in the right direction. Look at the bloggers before you and see how many were wringing their hands as if THEY the lay Catholics were all at fault. It looks like the propaganda is working even here.
You misunderstand the point.
You misunderstand the point. It is not that nobody is leaving, it is that percentage wise, the Catholic Church is actually retaining the youth better than most other groups. So they point out how two-thirds of those raised Jehovah's Witnesses leave the Watchtower for some other identification. Indeed, of the Christian groups in the USA, if I remember the raw data correctly, only the Orthodox do better than the Catholics. Now, because the Catholic Church in the USA is huge, that relatively good percentage equals a large number of people, as do the relatively small number of converts. If you break it down, there are more Catholic converts here than Jews and Muslims *combined*. The scale of the Catholic Church tends to be large.
John's article was
John's article was informative but had no clear message, except that we are not doing a good job of preaching the Gospel to every creature as Christ commanded. However the responses and comments he elicited are worth reading.
Mary Martgaret Cannon seems to be right on and has given serious thought to her responses.
Lore H has left the Church but I don't know why she has not returned. I tend to share her feelings but no one, even pope or bishop is going to drive me out. I feel the same way about Ray Marshall's comments on the Church's marriage laws. Incidentally these are not the laws of the universal Church, only of the Latin Rite. So they are not infallible. The Oriental (Uniate) Churches have a much more pastoral approach.
Austin feels very like me, angry and irritated by the self-serving prevarications and lack of leadership among the hierarchy. (See Philadelphia today)
Henry Parker shares the delusions of some of the bishops that they alone are the Church and that all initiatives for reform must come from them.
Mr. Keane, I don't share any
Mr. Keane, I don't share any of the bishops' delusions.
You might have an illusion opposite of the bishops' illusions in that your statement indicates reforms in the church can come from non-clergy.
Name one reform that has come to the modern church without the acceptance and support of the bishops and is independent of them. I maintain there are NONE in our solidly hierarchial church and there can be none. I would love to be proven wrong with some historical example that you have in mind.
Want people to come to
Want people to come to church? Good music (see how the protestants do it) and intelligent, short homilies. Forget the stentorian responses by someone who has nasal problems, the sloow organ, and the priest who starts every sermon with a stupid joke. I went to a Lutheran service once and was bowled over by the intelligence of the minister.
“Among former Catholics who
“Among former Catholics who are now unaffiliated, 65 percent say they just stopped believing the religion's teachings.” This comment says a lot. I have been writing in NCRonline as posts for years about the necessity of questioning Catholicism’s belief system. One has to question the sincerity of NCR as a truth seeker and sincere activist for the common good rather than an opportunistic journalistic entrepreneur. There are substantial reasons why people have stopped believing. For example, here is a part of the Westar Institute’s mission.
“Westar Institute is a member-supported, non-profit research and educational institute founded in 1986 and dedicated to the advancement of religious literacy. Westar's twofold mission is to foster collaborative research in religious studies and to communicate the results of the scholarship of religion to a broad, non-specialist public.
Why is Westar important?
Until a few years ago, essential knowledge about biblical and religious traditions was hidden in the windowless studies of universities and seminaries—away from the general public. Such research was considered too controversial or too complicated for lay persons to understand. Many scholars, fearing open conflict or even reprisal, talked only to one another. The churches often decided what information their constituents were "ready" to hear.
Through publications, educational programs, and research projects like the Jesus Seminar, Westar has opened up a new kind of conversation about religion. This is an honest, no-hold-barred exchange involving thousands of scholars, clergy and other individuals who have critical questions about the past, present and future of religion.
Some of the principles guiding the work of Westar are:
• All serious questions about religion—including biblical and dogmatic traditions—deserve research, discussion and resolution; no inquiry should be out of bounds.
• The scholarship of religion should be collaborative in order to expand the base of decisionmaking, cumulative in forming and building on a consensus, and genuinely ecumenical
• Religion and bible scholars should conduct their deliberations in public and report the results to a broad, literate audience in simple, non-technical language
Westar is not affiliated with any religious institution nor does it advocate a particular theological point of view.”
------
“The churches often decided what information their constituents were "ready" to hear.” This attitude is often enough how I view your journalism and some of the other journalists at NCR. Have you any idea how educated, sophisticated, and advanced many of the Catholic population are? How much longer will NCR survive as a mouthpiece for the Vatican, the hierarchy, and those, especially bishops, priests, religious orders, and a certain type of devout lay people that the hierarchy controls?
Ray Marshall is right. As I
Ray Marshall is right. As I read this article, I was struck by the lack of reference to Divorce/Remarriage. The reality is that--even though Jesus was more restrictive on the question of Divorce/Remarriage than Moses--Protestants (and even the Orthodox) have abandoned Christ's position and give license to their members (including converts) to divorce just like the heathens do. The Catholic Church, by contrast, maintains Christ's position on Divorce/Remarriage; so a lot of Catholics abandon the Church in the course of divorces. Otherwise, Catholics who look at the which church issue without the divorce filter would have little reason to leave Christ's Church for a man-made substitute.
Serious topic. Irrelevant
Serious topic. Irrelevant analysis?
Elasticity, return on investment, loss-prevention, risk management were not included, but would very easily fit with the investment analysis discussing:
defections as proof of malaise,
"mass exodus,"
preoccupation,
disparities in interpretation,
bottom line, and
problem isn't customer service but new sales.
A “little old lady” from Southeast Asia has been reported to say, “All we are called to be is faithful.”
Sounds pretty simple, but don’t let that fool you.
Faithful, simple and difficult seem to be spot on especially since the Boss has already forgiven our “bad business decisions.” All we have to do is “own up” to them.
Seems to have "worked" for her!
The “logic of the Gospel” as lived by the “little old lady” seems to render irrelevant an “analysis” of the business “run” by the Merciful Owner for the long term.
It is alarming, to say the
It is alarming, to say the least, that three 'professionals' can conduct a conversation in which terminology is used so loosly and inaccurately. To change affiliation from Roman Catholicism to Anglicanism or Presbyterianism, or even to join a Pentecostal or Evangelical church, is NOT to change religion or change faith. Whatever the differences in temperature between these communities, surely it is blindingly obvious that all are Christian? Changing religions or changing faiths means shifting from Judaism or Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam or Atheism to Christianity. These are all different religions, and all quite distinct faith communities. Can we please take a little more care, and exhibit rather a lot more respect in the way we talk about such movements of the heart?
Mary Margaret Cannon gets to
Mary Margaret Cannon gets to the heart of the matter. Protestants seek to create community in and through their churches. Catholics neglect this.
Perhaps Bishops and exalted
Perhaps Bishops and exalted monsignors should be required to go door to door, in the manner of Mormons, at least once a month and then report to their congregations and lesser priests on what they learned and what they accomplished.
Thank you, Mary Margaret
Thank you, Mary Margaret Cannon, for your lengthy but wise discussion of the topic and your positivity. I trust I read Jim McCrea's comment correctly as an ironic and accurate dig at a church which thinks it's everybody else's fault if they don't realise that 'we' have the good news and 'they' need to realise by themselves that 'they' need to come to us to get it.
I love Mary's suggestions of simple personal explanations and testimonies (without histrionics and tele-evangelistic showmanship) as a powerful witness of our faith's relevance in the real, everyday, lived-in-the-street-home-marketplace milieu in which most of us find ourselves.
In my own family, the overriding factor in the loss of Catholic identity, (aside from the typical sense of loss of relevance in the younger generations mentioned in the initial article), was the appalling mishandling by our local bishop and hierarchy, here in a New Zealand diocese, to revelations of clerical abuse of some of the older generation (now in their 50s and 60s) by revered and trusted priests, and the denials, counter-accusations that somehow it may have been the family's fault, and suspicions of the motives of those simply seeking acknowledgement and apology.
Instead of seeing those so sinned against as wounded members of our Catholic family seeking healing and reconciliation, the local hierarchy chose to see them as enemies attacking the Church and, by its actions, alienated many of that generation and the following generations as they saw how their uncles were treated by those who then weekly purport to proclaim the love of Jesus and his healing power.
It is left to those who have been able to survive these hurts to try to re-evangelise our hurt family members and show them that the real 'Church', the faithful, loving, praying people in the pews and, of course, the many faithful, holy and dedicated priests and religious, still proclaims the Gospel which brings meaning, healing and salvation to life.
The whole premise of the
The whole premise of the Catholic Church is that it was founded by Christ and its teachings concerning faith and morals are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
So, to disent on a specific issue is to reject the whole premises of the Church.
Catholic-lite makes no sense and is not working.
Deductive reasoning being
Deductive reasoning being what it is, if you cannot disagree with someone's premises, you cannot disagree in the least. And yet to prohibit absolutely the possibility of disagreement is, in my mind, tyrannical.
Your comments betray a
Your comments betray a heterodox (and orthotoxic) understanding of official church teaching on moral conscience.
See http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.shtml#1776.
In addition, a future pope wrote:
"Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, IF NECESSARY EVEN AGAINST THE REQUIREMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal [God], and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, EVEN OF THE OFFICIAL CHURCH, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will" (Joseph Ratzinger, "Part I, Chapter 1, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," Vol. V of COMMENTARY ON THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II, ed. Herbert Vorgrimler (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969, p. 134, emphases added).
You do agree with these comments, do you not?
And with official church teaching linked above in the CCC?
Or, are you dissenting?
In light of official church
In light of official church teaching on the supremacy of one's conscience, i.e., listening to --- and obeying --- that tiny voice of God within, would you not agree that Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, AZ committed a grievous act of mortal sin when he told the folks at St. Joseph's Hospital that they must retract what they believed was the morally right course of action to save the mother's life?
After all, the good bishop is an official teacher of the church, and we would expect him --- would we not? --- to uphold official church teaching on the supremacy of conscience.
Statistics apply to the
Statistics apply to the quantifiable. Please do tell me how in God's Name you can seriously participate in such a fraud. In order to do this 'analysis' you have to set up measuring standards whih will provide numbers so your ChiSquare Analysis will be able to produce some level of assurance. So, why is it that none of the stated metrics can in any way be connected to Christ's
Message. We are talking about religion, are we not?
I first dealt with the abuse problem in 1954, very pre-vatican 2. I have learned my Latin and Greek [koine and attic] from childhood. I have degrees
in Philosophy [Thomistic and Modern], Theology [biblical in virtue of credit count only] I also have an MBA. Now, I do not attend church! This is because
for me Church is not something I attend it is something which defines me. I have no interest in waiting for our troglodytes to discover the modern world. They will natter on until the fact that very few are listening dawns on them.
Simply put, the Feudal system is over. The disconnect between these people and reality is beyond belief. Look at Benedicts shoes.. Are these the shoes of
a fisherman ? They have nothing to offer but formalisms. So we move on!
God bless all Christians, God bless all who seek Christ to the best of their ability. I may not attend, but I am and shall remain a Member. The study is void, there is no account of the one fact that makes us all Christian, Baptism. We are all Members of the One True Catholic Church -- One Christ and One Body and only One Church. The divisions are properly called confessions, and you have a very wide choice.
No Statistics Required.
TomC
I am not consoled by the fact
I am not consoled by the fact that the Catholic Church is no worse than most other churches in retaining its members. A church which proclaims that it holds the fullness of the Christian faith ought to be leading the pack.
Jesus Christ, today, tomorrow, and forever! Proclaim it over and over again. Preach the Gospel in all seasons. Proclaim the love of God, love of enemies and see the Church grow!
Post new comment