How many Catholics become Protestants because of divorce?

[BartBurk]

I wonder how many Catholics become ex-Catholics because of divorce? We have a Protestant church located about 30 seconds from the parish which advertises a ministry for divorced people on their sign out front – it is almost as if they are fishing for divorced Catholics. I wonder how many Catholics are simply unwilling to go through the annulment process and just wind up going to an accepting Protestant congregation.

 

[The_Wizard]

I am a Catholic who hooked up with a Protestant church after my divorce. I did this for a number of reasons. At the time (over 14 years ago) First Presbyterian was the only church offering a divorce recovery workshop. Second, the Catholic Church (and this is only my impression) looked on a divorce person as a leper. First Presbyterian had a single group where you could reenter the social scene without having to go to bars and have support . The Catholic Church has no single ministry for older single who for the most part are divorced. I have come back to the Catholic Church because I have come to the conclusion that IT has the authority and since IT has the authority I must get an annulment. My problem is I am between a rock and a hard place. I didn’t leave the marriage my wife did. So I am paying the price for another person actions. And being young, stupid and horny does not in the Church’s eyes make for an invilad marriage. I think the biggest reason divorced Catholic go to Protestant churches is they are accepted without any questions or restrictions. You made a mistake, God forgives you, get on with your life. No big deal. Is that the way it should be? I don’t know. But if you accept the authority of the Church you must accept it ALL.

BartBurk, Have you been divorced and gone through the annulment process? If you have not I pray to God you never have that experience. It is one of those things where you must walk in my shoe to truely understand what it is like.

 

[BartBurk]

I am a Catholic who hooked up with a Protestant church after my divorce. I did this for a number of reasons. At the time (over 14 years ago) First Presbyterian was the only church offering a divorce recovery workshop. Second, the Catholic Church (and this is only my impression) looked on a divorce person as a leper. First Presbyterian had a single group where you could reenter the social scene without having to go to bars and have support . The Catholic Church has no single ministry for older single who for the most part are divorced. I have come back to the Catholic Church because I have come to the conclusion that IT has the authority and since IT has the authority I must get an annulment. My problem is I am between a rock and a hard place. I didn’t leave the marriage my wife did. So I am paying the price for another person actions. And being young, stupid and horny does not in the Church’s eyes make for an invilad marriage. I think the biggest reason divorced Catholic go to Protestant churches is they are accepted without any questions or restrictions. You made a mistake, God forgives you, get on with your life. No big deal. Is that the way it should be? I don’t know. But if you accept the authority of the Church you must accept it ALL.

BartBurk, Have you been divorced and gone through the annulment process? If you have not I pray to God you never have that experience. It is one of those things where you must walk in my shoe to truely understand what it is like.

I am lucky enough to have a wife who stays with me even though she is an ex-Catholic Mormon. I can certainly understand why a divorced Catholic might be tempted to seek out a Protestant church especially when the other spouse jumps ship as in your case.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been trying to stay off the forums, but this is an issue on which I feel strongly and on which I think many Catholics are kidding themselves.

The Catholic teaching is of course a very difficult one on this issue, but I think bad catechesis and pastoral implementation of the teaching drive away a lot of people who might be open to the teaching if it were properly explained.

The widespread impression I have received from divorced Catholics and ex-Catholics on this issue is that they think the refusal to give communion to divorced and remarried people is a disciplinary “rule” imposed by the Church. Rarely if ever do they seem to understand that the Catholic Church simply doesn’t believe marriage can be dissolved. Never, it seems, has any of them been told that they are living in a state of adultery, even though that’s objectively what your Church teaches (and what I was taught about remarried people growing up as a very strict Protestant). Instead, they get the impression that the Church is punishing them for not “having it all together,” and that the only way to avoid this punishment is to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops and lie about the status of their first marriage.

Here are what I think are some very common and very bad Catholic ways of approaching this problem:

1. “Why not get an annulment?” Sure, there are cases where annulments may be appropriate. But the assumption that most marriages can be annulled (implicit in the OP’s reference to people being "unwilling to go through the annulment process) makes a mockery of the Catholic Church’s teaching.
2. “Not receiving communion is a form of asceticism–a desert experience that may simply be a cross laid on you by God.” Nonsense. And I say that even though Pope Benedict, a wise and holy man, has endorsed this approach. That he is driven to such expediencies further shows how out of control this issue has become. Divorced and remarried people are unable to receive communion because, objectively, they are in a state of adultery–grave sin. Adultery is not an ascetic practice or a cross laid on you by God. It’s a sin, and you should repent of it.
3. “Divorce is a form of brokenness, and the Eucharist is about wholeness.” (I’ve heard this from a Catholic priest in RCIA–granted, he said some other really bizarre things!) Again, nonsense. The Eucharist is medicine. It is medicine for repentant, not impenitent sinners, but it is certainly for the broken. See the previous point–this kind of language is another way of avoiding the offensive statement that remarried people are impenitent adulterers. An extreme example of the damage wrought by this approach is a lady I knew is my Episcopal parish in NC, who had been divorced and remarried twice. She was refused absolution by a Catholic priest because he said she had to get annulments for her marriages. (At least, that’s what she claimed–I’d like to hope that she misunderstood.) This in spite of the fact that she was living celibately at the time. No wonder she wound up with us!

The bottom line is this: either the Catholic Church needs to bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister, or the Catholic Church needs to change its position, probably in the direction of the Orthodox teaching on “economia.” I am honestly not calling for one or the other of these things. I could respect either. But the present position, as it is normally explained and applied, is simply impossible to respect, because it is incoherent and dishonest.

 

[Carlan]

,The bottom line is this: either the Catholic Church needs to bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister, or the Catholic Church needs to change its position, probably in the direction of the Orthodox teaching on “economia.” I am honestly not calling for one or the other of these things. I could respect either. But the present position, as it is normally explained and applied, is simply impossible to respect, because it is incoherent and dishonest.

I believe you are doing a lot of surmising about what is fact

The Catholic Church does not need to change it’s position, the underlined and bolded portion of your post is it’s position. Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

I believe you are doing a lot of surmising about what is fact

The Catholic Church does not need to change it’s position, the underlined and bolded portion of your post is it’s position. Peace, Carlan

And for your record. A divorced and remarried Catholic who is rec’ing Eucharist is committing sacrilegeCarlan

 

[PattiDay]

I’ve been trying to stay off the forums, but this is an issue on which I feel strongly and on which I think many Catholics are kidding themselves.

Well whatever drew you here today, I’m glad you are here.

The Catholic teaching is of course a very difficult one on this issue, but I think bad catechesis and pastoral implementation of the teaching drive away a lot of people who might be open to the teaching if it were properly explained.

I don’t think it’s the teaching, which has been in place forever, or the implementation that drives people away, but the awakening realization that they are commiting a grave sin if they receive the Holy Eucharist or choose to live in sin, which is the self-admission you believe they lack. Most of us commit our sins in private, but in this case, the sin is very visible, even though others may not notice or care, the sinner knows the sin is right out there.

The widespread impression I have received from divorced Catholics and ex-Catholics on this issue is that they think the refusal to give communion to divorced and remarried people is a disciplinary “rule” imposed by the Church. Rarely if ever do they seem to understand that the Catholic Church simply doesn’t believe marriage can be dissolved. Never, it seems, has any of them been told that they are living in a state of adultery, even though that’s objectively what your Church teaches (and what I was taught about remarried people growing up as a very strict Protestant). Instead, they get the impression that the Church is punishing them for not “having it all together,” and that the only way to avoid this punishment is to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops and lie about the status of their first marriage.

Of course Catholics are told they are commiting adultery if they remarry or are living with someone other than the person to whom they are/or were married. The people you have spoken with are living in denial or view the truth as inconvenient.

Here are what I think are some very common and very bad Catholic ways of approaching this problem:

1. “Why not get an annulment?” Sure, there are cases where annulments may be appropriate. But the assumption that most marriages can be annulled (implicit in the OP’s reference to people being "unwilling to go through the annulment process) makes a mockery of the Catholic Church’s teaching.

I’ll let the OP defend the implicitness of his post. Not everyone understands what issues might have led to an invalid marriage. I hope that every Catholic would at least avail themselves of counselling if they if they are contemplating or have already experienced divorce. Annulment is a serious process, but emminently worth the effort.

1. “Not receiving communion is a form of asceticism–a desert experience that may simply be a cross laid on you by God.” Nonsense. And I say that even though Pope Benedict, a wise and holy man, has endorsed this approach. That he is driven to such expediencies further shows how out of control this issue has become. Divorced and remarried people are unable to receive communion because, objectively, they are in a state of adultery–grave sin. Adultery is not an ascetic practice or a cross laid on you by God. It’s a sin, and you should repent of it.

I’m not sure how you are applying this quote. Pope Benedict did not say adultery isn’t a sin.

1. “Divorce is a form of brokenness, and the Eucharist is about wholeness.” (I’ve heard this from a Catholic priest in RCIA–granted, he said some other really bizarre things!) Again, nonsense. The Eucharist is medicine. It is medicine for repentant, not impenitent sinners, but it is certainly for the broken. See the previous point–this kind of language is another way of avoiding the offensive statement that remarried people are impenitent adulterers. An extreme example of the damage wrought by this approach is a lady I knew is my Episcopal parish in NC, who had been divorced and remarried twice. She was refused absolution by a Catholic priest because he said she had to get annulments for her marriages. (At least, that’s what she claimed–I’d like to hope that she misunderstood.) This in spite of the fact that she was living celibately at the time. No wonder she wound up with us!

Are you saying the priest was too harsh, to lenient, or too esoteric. If you had asked the priest if an impenitent adulterer may receive the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, he would have said no.

You have doubts the lady understood the reason for denial, if indeed there was one. I think you realize that absolution would not be denied to a person who was no longer living in sin and had no intention of returning to that state.

The bottom line is this: either the Catholic Church needs to bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister, or the Catholic Church needs to change its position, probably in the direction of the Orthodox teaching on “economia.” I am honestly not calling for one or the other of these things. I could respect either. But the present position, as it is normally explained and applied, is simply impossible to respect, because it is incoherent and dishonest.

If by bite the bullet you mean allow divorce and remarriage without annulment, it isn’t going to happen. The Catholic church and the Catechism make clear the seriousness of the bond of the sacrament of Matrimony, the sin of adultery, and the need for celibacy where the marriage is not annuled. That is neither incoherent nor dishonest.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Edwin,

Haven’t seen you in a while. Welcome back!

I’ve been trying to stay off the forums, but this is an issue on which I feel strongly and on which I think many Catholics are kidding themselves.

The Catholic teaching is of course a very difficult one on this issue, but I think bad catechesis and pastoral implementation of the teaching drive away a lot of people who might be open to the teaching if it were properly explained.

The widespread impression I have received from divorced Catholics and ex-Catholics on this issue is that they think the refusal to give communion to divorced and remarried people is a disciplinary “rule” imposed by the Church. Rarely if ever do they seem to understand that the Catholic Church simply doesn’t believe marriage can be dissolved. Never, it seems, has any of them been told that they are living in a state of adultery, even though that’s objectively what your Church teaches (and what I was taught about remarried people growing up as a very strict Protestant). Instead, they get the impression that the Church is punishing them for not “having it all together,” and that the only way to avoid this punishment is to jump through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops and lie about the status of their first marriage.

Here are what I think are some very common and very bad Catholic ways of approaching this problem:

1. “Why not get an annulment?” Sure, there are cases where annulments may be appropriate. But the assumption that most marriages can be annulled (implicit in the OP’s reference to people being "unwilling to go through the annulment process) makes a mockery of the Catholic Church’s teaching.
2. “Not receiving communion is a form of asceticism–a desert experience that may simply be a cross laid on you by God.” Nonsense. And I say that even though Pope Benedict, a wise and holy man, has endorsed this approach. That he is driven to such expediencies further shows how out of control this issue has become. Divorced and remarried people are unable to receive communion because, objectively, they are in a state of adultery–grave sin. Adultery is not an ascetic practice or a cross laid on you by God. It’s a sin, and you should repent of it.
3. “Divorce is a form of brokenness, and the Eucharist is about wholeness.” (I’ve heard this from a Catholic priest in RCIA–granted, he said some other really bizarre things!) Again, nonsense. The Eucharist is medicine. It is medicine for repentant, not impenitent sinners, but it is certainly for the broken. See the previous point–this kind of language is another way of avoiding the offensive statement that remarried people are impenitent adulterers. An extreme example of the damage wrought by this approach is a lady I knew is my Episcopal parish in NC, who had been divorced and remarried twice. She was refused absolution by a Catholic priest because he said she had to get annulments for her marriages. (At least, that’s what she claimed–I’d like to hope that she misunderstood.) This in spite of the fact that she was living celibately at the time. No wonder she wound up with us!

The bottom line is this: either the Catholic Church needs to bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister, or the Catholic Church needs to change its position, probably in the direction of the Orthodox teaching on “economia.” I am honestly not calling for one or the other of these things. I could respect either. But the present position, as it is normally explained and applied, is simply impossible to respect, because it is incoherent and dishonest.

 

[Contarini]

I believe you are doing a lot of surmising about what is fact

The Catholic Church does not need to change it’s position, the underlined and bolded portion of your post is it’s position.

I know that that’s the official position. But out of pastoral concern, Catholic clergy don’t usually put things this way. That’s my point. A misguided sense of pastoral gentleness actually leaves people more hurt and confused (or at least more confusedly hurt) than they need to be. They aren’t getting the message that the Catholic Church regards the act of having intercourse with a second spouse as the sin. They think that the divorce was the sin and that the Church is essentially refusing to forgive them.

I retract my earlier statement about Pope Benedict. I was basing my description of his pastoral approach on a secondary journalistic source, and I should have known better. In my defense, this source is Catholic and quoted the Pope directly. But I should have looked up the full context. That context turns out to be Sacramentum Caritatis, and in fact the Pope does go on to urge remarried people to live as brother and sister. And even the source I just linked didn’t quite say what I alleged. Either I was reading a different article back in 2007, or I remember it wrongly.

My main point stands–that the Catholic Church is just not getting its message across on this issue, in part because of the assumption made by most Catholic clergy (even to some extent by the Pope) that people are just not going to be willing to live celibately.

 

[Contarini]

Of course Catholics are told they are commiting adultery if they remarry or are living with someone other than the person to whom they are/or were married.

By whom are they being told this? Even Pope Benedict never used the word “adultery” in Sacramentum Caritatis, or even in his statement on the subject of remarried people and the Eucharist back when he was head of CDF. He speaks instead of living in a mode of life that contradicts the nature of the Eucharist. There’s no “of course” about this at all.

The people you have spoken with are living in denial or view the truth as inconvenient.

You are very ready to make sweeping statements about a large group of people whom you don’t know at all. My impression has been quite the contrary–that this just isn’t how it’s been put to them. And given, as I said, that even Pope Benedict beats around the bush in the way he talks about it, this is hardly surprising.

Note: having actually read what Pope Benedict said (I apologize for my hastiness earlier), I think it’s a model of pastoral gentleness. The problem is that when you start off being as circumspect and circumlocutory as that at the papal level, you get something much more muddled at the parish level.

I’ll let the OP defend the implicitness of his post. Not everyone understands what issues might have led to an invalid marriage. I hope that every Catholic would at least avail themselves of counselling if they if they are contemplating or have already experienced divorce. Annulment is a serious process, but emminently worth the effort.

Do you or don’t you think that it’s reasonable to assume that a divorced person’s first marriage was probably invalid? Because that’s exactly what the OP assumes. Otherwise the suggestion that people are not bothering to get annulments makes no sense.

I’m not sure how you are applying this quote. Pope Benedict did not say adultery isn’t a sin.

Well, I should not have loosely paraphrased something I read three years ago. But in fact I can’t find anywhere where Pope Benedict says that remarriage after divorce is adultery. I don’t mean that he doesn’t believe this, only that he doesn’t like to say so right out. And I can certainly understand why. My father had a very poor relationship with his mother for years because he insisted on telling her that she was living in a state of adultery (she divorced my grandfather and remarried).

Are you saying the priest was too harsh, to lenient, or too esoteric.

I’m saying that he clearly did not say, “if you are living in a sexual relationship without having your first marriage annulled, you are committing adultery and I can’t absolve you unless you are willing to break off this relationship.” I don’t know for sure what he said, obviously, only what she understood. But I don’t see how she could have gotten that impression if he had presented celibacy as an option.

If by bite the bullet you mean allow divorce and remarriage without annulment

I explicitly said the opposite: “bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister.” You are hearing what you expect to hear and not what I actually said. (That is a point in your favor in the broader argument about what priests are telling divorced Catholics, of course–maybe my friend from NC also heard what she expected to hear and not what the priest actually said) I said that if the Catholic Church is unwilling to bite the bullet, it should change its position.

I overstated the extent to which BXVI doesn’t “bite the bullet.” He’s still remarkably indirect in his language, but he certainly holds up celibacy as an option. That just isn’t getting through to most divorced Catholics, though. Maybe that’s their own fault, but I think it’s also the fault of priests who simply assume that people are going to remarry and present annulment or abstinence from Communion as the only options.

Edwin

 

[Marie5890]

I do believe this is one of a few factors that explains the lowering of Mass attendance over the past decades.

People have left the Church because their lives have not fit into a nice neat little package when it comes to marriage.

I do appreciate the “Catholics come home” campaign but I also see the practical obstacles to that and divorced (and remarried) Catholics are going to hit those obstacles

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Flipping through dictionary, ah, there it is “circumlocutory”

Contarini:
By whom are they being told this? Even Pope Benedict never used the word “adultery” in Sacramentum Caritatis, or even in his statement on the subject of remarried people and the Eucharist back when he was head of CDF. He speaks instead of living in a mode of life that contradicts the nature of the Eucharist. There’s no “of course” about this at all.

You are very ready to make sweeping statements about a large group of people whom you don’t know at all. My impression has been quite the contrary–that this just isn’t how it’s been put to them. And given, as I said, that even Pope Benedict beats around the bush in the way he talks about it, this is hardly surprising.

Note: having actually read what Pope Benedict said (I apologize for my hastiness earlier), I think it’s a model of pastoral gentleness. The problem is that when you start off being as circumspect and circumlocutory as that at the papal level, you get something much more muddled at the parish level.

Do you or don’t you think that it’s reasonable to assume that a divorced person’s first marriage was probably invalid? Because that’s exactly what the OP assumes. Otherwise the suggestion that people are not bothering to get annulments makes no sense.

Well, I should not have loosely paraphrased something I read three years ago. But in fact I can’t find anywhere where Pope Benedict says that remarriage after divorce is adultery. I don’t mean that he doesn’t believe this, only that he doesn’t like to say so right out. And I can certainly understand why. My father had a very poor relationship with his mother for years because he insisted on telling her that she was living in a state of adultery (she divorced my grandfather and remarried).

I’m saying that he clearly did not say, “if you are living in a sexual relationship without having your first marriage annulled, you are committing adultery and I can’t absolve you unless you are willing to break off this relationship.” I don’t know for sure what he said, obviously, only what she understood. But I don’t see how she could have gotten that impression if he had presented celibacy as an option.

I explicitly said the opposite: “bite the bullet and call on all divorced people to remain celibate and all remarried people to live as brother and sister.” You are hearing what you expect to hear and not what I actually said. (That is a point in your favor in the broader argument about what priests are telling divorced Catholics, of course–maybe my friend from NC also heard what she expected to hear and not what the priest actually said) I said that if the Catholic Church is unwilling to bite the bullet, it should change its position.

I overstated the extent to which BXVI doesn’t “bite the bullet.” He’s still remarkably indirect in his language, but he certainly holds up celibacy as an option. That just isn’t getting through to most divorced Catholics, though. Maybe that’s their own fault, but I think it’s also the fault of priests who simply assume that people are going to remarry and present annulment or abstinence from Communion as the only options.

Edwin

 

[Carlan]

My main point stands–that the Catholic Church is just not getting its message across on this issue, in part because of the assumption made by most Catholic clergy (even to some extent by the Pope) that people are just not going to be willing to live celibately.

Contarine, Those Catholics get the message, they can’t accept it, so they are disobedient and give in to what they know is wrong , breaking the marriage vow by marrying some one else by civil law.
Catholic clergy does not knowingly turn their backs to the sin of those said Catholics. If the did they would also be guilty of serious sin. Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

Flipping through dictionary, ah, there it is “circumlocutory”

Thank you teach, I do try to learn something I don’t know everyday,Peace, Carlan

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I didn’t define it, just pointing out the high-powered mega vocabulary of Dr. Edwin, Phd!

Thank you teach, I do try to learn something I don’t know everyday,Peace, Carlan

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Adj. 1. circumlocutory - roundabout and unnecessarily wordy; “had a preference for circumlocutious (or circumlocutory) rather than forthright expression”; “A periphrastic study in a worn-out poetical fashion,/ Leaving one still with the intolerable wrestle/ With words and meanings.”-T.S.Eliot; (`ambagious’ is archaic)

I’m going to try and use this word in my lexicon for the day today. I’ll tell my students, “look, a little less circumlocutory essay-writing and a little more substance, please people!”

 

[Carlan]

I didn’t define it, just pointing out the high-powered mega vocabulary of Dr. Edwin, Phd!

Fair enough! I had to look it up anyway:shrugeace,Carlan

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I am a Catholic who hooked up with a Protestant church after my divorce. I did this for a number of reasons. At the time (over 14 years ago) First Presbyterian was the only church offering a divorce recovery workshop. Second, the Catholic Church (and this is only my impression) looked on a divorce person as a leper. First Presbyterian had a single group where you could reenter the social scene without having to go to bars and have support . The Catholic Church has no single ministry for older single who for the most part are divorced. I have come back to the Catholic Church because I have come to the conclusion that IT has the authority and since IT has the authority I must get an annulment. My problem is I am between a rock and a hard place. I didn’t leave the marriage my wife did. So I am paying the price for another person actions. And being young, stupid and horny does not in the Church’s eyes make for an invilad marriage. I think the biggest reason divorced Catholic go to Protestant churches is they are accepted without any questions or restrictions. You made a mistake, God forgives you, get on with your life. No big deal. Is that the way it should be? I don’t know. But if you accept the authority of the Church you must accept it ALL.

BartBurk, Have you been divorced and gone through the annulment process? If you have not I pray to God you never have that experience. It is one of those things where you must walk in my shoe to truely understand what it is like.

God bless you & thank you for your post.Living as a Catholic “in the world” is not easy.It takes a lot of courage & conviction.And maybe some “contrariness.”

 

[cooterhein]

I wonder how many Catholics become ex-Catholics because of divorce? We have a Protestant church located about 30 seconds from the parish which advertises a ministry for divorced people on their sign out front – it is almost as if they are fishing for divorced Catholics. I wonder how many Catholics are simply unwilling to go through the annulment process and just wind up going to an accepting Protestant congregation.

I think you happen to find yourself living right next to something that’s noteworthy but uncommon and not indicative of a major reason that 1 in 10 Americans are former Catholics. There is no single major reason, though- reasons for leaving or changing faiths are as diverse as America’s religious landscape, but there are certain things you can expect to not see very much of.

I lucked out a little bit and found an interactive graph that gives the major reasons for why Catholics become Protestants. Here’s what it looks like.

71% say their spiritual needs were not being met.
70% say they found a religion they like more.
54% say they just drifted away.
50% say they stopped believing Church teaching in some way.
43% say they’re unhappy with the Church’s teaching about the Bible.
32% say they wanted a different atmosphere in a church service.
29% married someone of a different faith.
27% were dissatisfied with clergy in their former congregation.
23% are upset with teachings on homosexuality.
21% cite the clergy sex abuse scandals.
21% are unhappy with rules about priests getting married.
20% were uncomfortable with the feeling of community at congregation.
16% are unhappy with Church teaching on birth control.
16% didn’t like the way the CC treats women.
14% moved to a new community.
11% were unhappy with teachings on war/death/poverty.
11% said religion drifted too far from traditional practices.
8% said someone they were close to passed away.
3% said they became separated or divorced.

Based on the responses of Catholics-turned-Protestant, it looks like this reason is cited less often than all the other ones.

The total population of the US is bit above 300,000,000. Around 24% of America is Catholic, but the number of people initially raised Catholic is probably slightly higher than that. (It’s been going down with each generation, in spite of a disproportionately high number of Catholic immigrants). About 15% of Americans raised Catholic are now Protestant, while about 14% are unaffiliated- together, this comprises about 10% of the total US population. (You can imagine how much Catholicism would have fallen in America without the infusion of immigrants, especially when Catholic evangelism brings in less than a 5% increase from all other faith groups). From the first group of former Catholics (which comprises about 5% of the total US population), only 3% of these people say they left the CC because they became separated or divorced.

Take about 5% of 300 million and multiply by 3%…Nationwide, I’d say America’s got less than a half-million people who left Catholicism for that reason. Probably around 450,000. Out of about 15 million American Protestants who were raised Catholic.

This is where you find the data. pewforum.org/Interactive-Reasons-for-Joining-Reasons-for-Leaving.aspx You should already be under the tab that says “Reasons for Leaving Childhood Religion,” but you’ll need to look at the first box that says “Raised Catholic” and select the section that says “Now Protestant.” I believe it will initially give you the data for those who are “Now Unaffiliated.”

You might also find the “Reasons for Joining Current Religion” section of interest. I was most interested in the comparison between a person’s reasons for joining Protestantism as an ex-Catholic and reasons for joining a different form of Protestantism. For the second one, “Moved to a new community” is much higher on the list, which makes sense given the extreme mobility of Americans throughout life and the comparative unavailability of certain Protestant denominations throughout the country- unlike Catholic parishes, which are everywhere. Not as many of them, but they’re everywhere. What’s really of interest, though, is that 4% of Protestants-turned-differentkindof-Protestant cite marriage/divorce as a reason for joining their current faith group, while only 2% of Catholics-turned-Protestant cite that reason. I would have expected the opposite.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Your survey adds up to 529%! LOL…I thought surveys were taken out of 100%?

I think you happen to find yourself living right next to something that’s noteworthy but uncommon and not indicative of a major reason that 1 in 10 Americans are former Catholics. There is no single major reason, though- reasons for leaving or changing faiths are as diverse as America’s religious landscape, but there are certain things you can expect to not see very much of.

I lucked out a little bit and found an interactive graph that gives the major reasons for why Catholics become Protestants. Here’s what it looks like.

71% say their spiritual needs were not being met.
70% say they found a religion they like more.
54% say they just drifted away.
50% say they stopped believing Church teaching in some way.
43% say they’re unhappy with the Church’s teaching about the Bible.
32% say they wanted a different atmosphere in a church service.
29% married someone of a different faith.
27% were dissatisfied with clergy in their former congregation.
23% are upset with teachings on homosexuality.
21% cite the clergy sex abuse scandals.
21% are unhappy with rules about priests getting married.
20% were uncomfortable with the feeling of community at congregation.
16% are unhappy with Church teaching on birth control.
16% didn’t like the way the CC treats women.
14% moved to a new community.
11% were unhappy with teachings on war/death/poverty.
11% said religion drifted too far from traditional practices.
8% said someone they were close to passed away.
3% said they became separated or divorced.

Based on the responses of Catholics-turned-Protestant, it looks like this reason is cited less often than all the other ones.

The total population of the US is bit above 300,000,000. Around 24% of America is Catholic, but the number of people initially raised Catholic is probably slightly higher than that. (It’s been going down with each generation, in spite of a disproportionately high number of Catholic immigrants). About 15% of Americans raised Catholic are now Protestant, while about 14% are unaffiliated- together, this comprises about 10% of the total US population. (You can imagine how much Catholicism would have fallen in America without the infusion of immigrants, especially when Catholic evangelism brings in less than a 5% increase from all other faith groups). From the first group of former Catholics (which comprises about 5% of the total US population), only 3% of these people say they left the CC because they became separated or divorced.

Take about 5% of 300 million and multiply by 3%…Nationwide, I’d say America’s got less than a half-million people who left Catholicism for that reason. Probably around 450,000. Out of about 15 million American Protestants who were raised Catholic.

This is where you find the data. pewforum.org/Interactive-Reasons-for-Joining-Reasons-for-Leaving.aspx You should already be under the tab that says “Reasons for Leaving Childhood Religion,” but you’ll need to look at the first box that says “Raised Catholic” and select the section that says “Now Protestant.” I believe it will initially give you the data for those who are “Now Unaffiliated.”

You might also find the “Reasons for Joining Current Religion” section of interest. I was most interested in the comparison between a person’s reasons for joining Protestantism as an ex-Catholic and reasons for joining a different form of Protestantism. For the second one, “Moved to a new community” is much higher on the list, which makes sense given the extreme mobility of Americans throughout life and the comparative unavailability of certain Protestant denominations throughout the country- unlike Catholic parishes, which are everywhere. Not as many of them, but they’re everywhere. What’s really of interest, though, is that 4% of Protestants-turned-differentkindof-Protestant cite marriage/divorce as a reason for joining their current faith group, while only 2% of Catholics-turned-Protestant cite that reason. I would have expected the opposite.