The Catholic Church grew faster than the global population in past decade

  • Thread starter Thread starter slMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

slMike

Guest
The Catholic Church grew faster than the global population in past decade

By Ann Schneible

Vatican City, Mar 9, 2016 / 12:25 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The number of Catholics has increased at a faster rate than the rest of the population, newly released statistics by the Vatican reveal.

Over the course of nine years, the number of Catholics worldwide has increased by 17.8 percent, compared to the global population, which increased by 17.3 percent.

From 2005-2014, the number of Catholics grew from 1.12 billion to 1.27 billion.

These and other statistics, released by the Vatican on Saturday, are contained within the 2016 Pontifical Yearbook, and the 2014 Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae.

These volumes, compiled by the Central Office of Church Statistics and edited by the Vatican Typography, are set to be released in bookshops within days.

The books also show changes in the Church’s life over the course of 2015, according to the March 5 statement.

The greatest increase in Catholics was seen in the African continent at 41 percent, amid an overall population growth of 23.8 percent. This was followed by Asia, with a 20 percent Catholic increase vs. the 9.6 percent population increase, then America which saw an 11.7 percent increase in Catholics compared to 9.6 percent of the population.

In Europe, the number of Catholics increased only by 2 percent compared to the overall population. Oceana, in contrast, saw an increase of Catholics that was just slightly lower than the overall population growth.

The statement also notes a global increase in the number of bishops from 2005-2014, although America and Oceana saw a slightly lower increase than the world average.

There was also a worldwide increase in the number of diocesan and religious priests, mostly in Africa and Asia, although there was a decline in new priests in Europe and Oceana.

While the number of permanent deacons increased in the African continent, the rest of the world saw a decline. Likewise, female religious saw a decline, but an increase in Africa and Asia.

Seminarians for the priesthood increased from 114,439 in 2005 to 116,939 in 2014, peaking in 2011 at 120,616. The number of seminarians was consistently highest in Africa, Asia, and Oceana, while Europe and America saw a decline.
 
👍 Great news. Imagine if we all get real holy, and educated in the richness of our faith what we could do to the world.

And once again Africa shows itself to be the Church of the future.:knight1:

A side note: the Vatican considers North and South America, “America”, when it comes to these statistics.

Mike
 
What measurements are used? Are Baptisms for instance part of the equation?
 
this is good news!!! I bet this news might be disheartening to some protestants though. Are the nimber of protestants around the globe greater than the number of Catholics when you add them together?
 
Good to hear, and I certainly pray that we will have more priests coming soon as well.
 
7_Sorrows said:
this is good news!!! I bet this news might be disheartening to some protestants though. Are the nimber of protestants around the globe greater than the number of Catholics when you add them together?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, the Protestant faith is expected to decline whereas Catholicism is on the rise. This is heartening news - I hope it means that the Great Schism will end and the Orthodox will return to Communion with the One True Faith. And the Protestants will have to give up eventually, and return to the fold.
 
slMike said:
They count the number of Baptized Catholics.

Mike
Click to expand...
There was a group discussion on this topic a few months back here after Fr. Grondin answered my question on whether the Statistical Yearbook of the Church counted by baptisms or by people who say they are Catholics here.

When an article says that such-and-such group has X members, a reader would take it to mean that there are X people who identify themselves as being part of that group. The Catholic News Agency in its article doesn’t mention baptism even once, making it seem like there are 1.27 billion people would state they are Catholics; when in reality a significant portion of them would shout to the heavens (quite literally) that they are Episcopalians, Baptists, Sikhs, etc.

If the article had made it clear how the counting process was done, that’s one thing; but to leave it out to give an incorrect impression seems very misleading. It comes off as deception by omission.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
There was a group discussion on this topic a few months back here after Fr. Grondin answered my question on whether the Statistical Yearbook of the Church counted by baptisms or by people who say they are Catholics here.
Click to expand...
Mike, either way you decide to look at it catholic baptisms are on the rise thus the statistical rise in numbers. Practicing or not, baptism is what makes you a Catholic. If parents are having their children baptized and adults are having themselves baptized it cannot but be good news for the Church.

Mike
 
slMike said:
Mike, either way you decide to look at it catholic baptisms are on the rise thus the statistical rise in numbers. Practicing or not, baptism is what makes you a Catholic. If parents are having their children baptized and adults are having themselves baptized it cannot but be good news for the Church.

Mike
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that there aren’t a lot of Catholics, as there clearly are. The point is that the article (and others like it) mislead people by making it seem like these are people wishing to be considered Catholics, as opposed to including millions who have moved on to other faiths or to no faith.

This article from the Pew Forum which shows that in 2010 there were about 1.079 billion Catholics (rounded up) while the Statistical Yearbook gave a number of 1.196 billion. That’s an increase of 10.8%.

All it would take is one additional sentence in the article from the original post stating that the Church counts baptized persons and not those who choose to be members of the Church to make sure the readers gets a fair understanding of where the number comes from. But article after article cheering on the growth in Catholics fails to mention how the ennumeration process is done.

Mike, wouldn’t you agree that by leading people to believe that there are currently 1.27 billion willing Catholics instead of stating that this many people were baptized Catholic the article is dishonest?
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
Mike, wouldn’t you agree that by leading people to believe that there are currently 1.27 billion willing Catholics instead of stating that this many people were baptized Catholic the article is dishonest?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t go that far, they are simply stating the facts from the source which uses baptism as a source for its numbers. “Active” or “willing” Catholics would be grounds for a whole new poll which I think has already been done a few times.

Mike
 
slMike said:
I wouldn’t go that far, they are simply stating the facts from the source which uses baptism as a source for its numbers. “Active” or “willing” Catholics would be grounds for a whole new poll which I think has already been done a few times.

Mike
Click to expand...
I’m not asking the Church (or whatever subdivision handles the Statistical Yearbook) to make a new poll, but just be honest about the polls that they do make. Time after time the people who write these articles covering the Statistical Yearbook numbers don’t state that they are derived by baptisms. A person reading those articles will likely assume the number are those who call themselves Catholics. Literally a single sentence will not mislead people, yet it’s not included to make it seem like there are more people who call themselves Catholic then there actually are.

You say “they are simply state the facts from the source which uses baptism” to get those numbers. By not providing all of the facts these article writers are really misstating the facts.

Don’t you believe it would be far more honest and not misleading for the derivation of those numbers to be given any time they are presented?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top