"Traditional Catholicism is Winning" (The Wall Street Journal)

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In this area of the Northeast, where ethnic Catholicism has been strong - Italian, Polish, Irish, French-Canadian, German parishes - have been strong, almost all churches have suffered losses. The gainers seem to be new independent evangelical churches, where the music is live and loud, young people flock, and dynamic preachers stir their emotions. Probably half or more of their ‘converts’ are ex-Catholics. I don’t fully understand the phenomenon and find it perplexing. I suspect that modern media have something to do with. They are looking for excitement and they seem to get little of its from traditional Catholic or Protestant churches.
Code:
Some of the liberal Protestant churches have picked up Catholics also, often because they are more open on such issues as divorce, gay lifestyles, and independent thinking generally (e. g., doctrinal questions). The largest Protestant parish has estimated that as many as 75% of its communicants are ex-Catholics. Its roster certainly is packed with ethnic names, not mostly old Yankee names that have been traditionally identified with Protestantism in this area.

 Interesting trends. I'm not sure what it all means. Certainly considerable flux. Then, of course, you have what seems to be a growing number who are not involved in organized religion at all. Some are atheists and agnostics. Others just find the church irrelevant.
I’m not sure what it means either. In my part of the country, there are lots of converts to Catholicism FROM Evangelical sects, and not many going the other way. At least around here, nearly all fallen-away Catholics are such because of divorce and remarriage, and most of those are men. Since Evangelical groups are okay with that, they are a natural draw for men who trade in the wives of their youth for newer models.
 
I’m not sure what it means either. In my part of the country, there are lots of converts to Catholicism FROM Evangelical sects, and not many going the other way. At least around here, nearly all fallen-away Catholics are such because of divorce and remarriage, and most of those are men. Since Evangelical groups are okay with that, they are a natural draw for men who trade in the wives of their youth for newer models.
Hm. I don’t know where you live. Around here men seem more likely to drop out entirely when divorce is involved. A few have their children weekends and bring them to church.
Code:
In this area the winners at the moment seem to be evangelicals. Catholic parishes vary, depending somewhat upon the priests and their charisma, frankly. Priests report that only about 25% of those registered attend Mass faithfully. The evangelical percentage seems considerably higher nut some of them switch churches easily, as though still searching. 

 The local mainline Protestants are important in terms of community leadership - often families here for many generations - but some of their many churches are struggling to survive, others thriving, still others holding their own. The mainline Protestants tend to be well-educated (college grads), freethinkers, eclectic - believing more-or-less what they choose to believe. Actually, many Catholics are doing the same. Ties often seem more cultural and traditional than doctrinal.
 
Hm. I don’t know where you live. Around here men seem more likely to drop out entirely when divorce is involved. A few have their children weekends and bring them to church.
Code:
In this area the winners at the moment seem to be evangelicals. Catholic parishes vary, depending somewhat upon the priests and their charisma, frankly. Priests report that only about 25% of those registered attend Mass faithfully. The evangelical percentage seems considerably higher nut some of them switch churches easily, as though still searching. 

 The local mainline Protestants are important in terms of community leadership - often families here for many generations - but some of their many churches are struggling to survive, others thriving, still others holding their own. The mainline Protestants tend to be well-educated (college grads), freethinkers, eclectic - believing more-or-less what they choose to believe. Actually, many Catholics are doing the same. Ties often seem more cultural and traditional than doctrinal.
I live in what could (and usually is) referred to as the “upland South”…not entirely Southern in culture, but more Southern than anything else. Lots of Evangelical organizations here, but probably more Fundamentalists than Evangelicals. I’m not sure there is a sharp dividing line between the two, and I can’t say there is any exactitude as to what really constitutes “Evangelical” around here or anywhere else.

If, by “Evanglical” we mean a sort of emotion-based Protestantism, heavy on comraderie, then it seems to me there are two sorts. There are the (usually very large) organizations that seem to depend to at least some degree on the charisma of the pastor (in some cases, though, it’s more than that) and, frankly, showmanship. Those are usually resource-rich. Then there are the smaller ones (often non-denom offshoots of the others) that are more based on particular biblical interpretations, and fairly resource-poor. Both are very much into evangelization.

To me, “Fundamentalists” are not particularly into evangelism and are far more likely to be very local, if not in afiliation, at least in established relationships and particular theological persuasions.

“Evangelicals” are more into “gifts of the Spirit” like speaking in tongues than are Fundamentalists, it being recognized, however, that the extreme “snake handler” kinds are more of the very Fundamentalist type.

Therefore, to me, Assemblies of God are very much “Evangelicals”, for example, whereas Southern Baptists are mostly not. Having said that, I will add that, at least around here, there is considerable overlap.

Mainline protestantism around here is, as you suggest, culture-based. If you’re “established aristocracy” (so to speak) you’re more likely to be main line. Lutherans are almost entirely “culture-based” in that virtually all are of Teutonic descent. Lutherans around here (LCMS) tend not to change religions, and seem stable in numbers. Mainline churches are, indeed, in a decline in at least participation. Now and then a particular pastor may revive one for awhile.

Catholics here are a small part of the total population, but growing in numbers. My parish grows about 5%-10%/year through adult conversions alone, most of which are from both Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups. Most of those “adult” conversions are young people; anywhere from late teens to about age 30. But there are some older ones. Some young people do “drop out” in terms of participation, but generally return when they start to form families.

I have some thoughts as to why all of that’s so, but it would take awhile to explain them, and I don’t have time to do it now. Maybe I will later.
 
I agree thare are some areas where legitimate debate is permitted, but there are others that enjoy the charism of infallibility ( such as on the ordination of women, the truth of the impossibility of gay marriage, the need for the civil authorities to conform with natural law)

I presume that everyone should look to the Church as the authority on these matters, and any others that are part of the deposit of Faith.
I still have a problem with civil authorities confirming with church law…I support state defined gay marriages but I don’t support state imposition on the sacrament of marriage, that would be against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms and the American freedom of religion thing…we need to have a discussion on the separation of chruch and state…otherwise I fear movmeent towards theocracies…

bruce
 
I still have a problem with civil authorities confirming with church law…I support state defined gay marriages but I don’t support state imposition on the sacrament of marriage, that would be against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms and the American freedom of religion thing…we need to have a discussion on the separation of chruch and state…otherwise I fear movmeent towards theocracies…

bruce
More specifically, as Aquinas noted, that it is Natural Law, that a civil society should conform to.

It is a matter of Justice. If you support the concept of state defined gay ‘marriages’, then do you support the religious right of a photographer or hall owner to reject their services to a gay marriage., Or how about an employer who offeres spousal benefits, but (like myself) do not recognize that the institution of marriage can be applied to same sex couples.

If there is a seperation of Church and State, then all the above should be permissible, correct? Or does the seperation only go one way?
 
I think Theocracy is a bit much.

I think it’s important to note Brendan’s key point, which is gay marriage.

CCC 2335 “The union of man and women in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator’s generosity and fecundity.”

CCC2357 "tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

This is similiar to but not as extreme as Abortion.

CCC 2272 “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”

A taxi driver should not be fired because he refuses to take a fare to an abortion clinic because it goes against his religious beliefs.

What I believe Brendan is trying to point out, and correct me if I am wrong, but people shouldn’t be expected, by law, to participate in gay marriage or abortion when it clearly goes against their religious beliefs.

This is not the same as a photographer refusing to take pictures of real estate because the real estate agent is gay.
 
I still have a problem with civil authorities confirming with church law…I support state defined gay marriages but I don’t support state imposition on the sacrament of marriage, that would be against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms and the American freedom of religion thing…we need to have a discussion on the separation of chruch and state…otherwise I fear movmeent towards theocracies…

bruce
The Catholic Church has been quite clear that a Catholic cannot support state defined gay marriage. It goes against natural law, to which all humans are bound, and ecclesiastical law, to which Catholics are bound. We do not (and should not) have to appeal to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the American Constitution to defend our position on this. The truths of the Catholic Faith are prior to and greater than any secular political document. Secular governments come and go, yet Truth always remains constant.

The discussion of the separation of church and state would be an interesting one. The Catholic Church has had a lot to say about this. While a theocracy might be going too far, the Catholic Church has a long tradition of teaching that the true religion should be recognized as such by the state. Truth should be given priority over error. Truth and error are not equal and this should be part of our personal, family, and civic lives.

In the US, the Enlightenment ideal of separation of church and state came from a specifically protestant view that demonized the Catholic Church. This should give any Catholic pause.
  • PAX
 
Ridgerunner and Roy,

I think the phenomenon you are both observing is related, but manifests differently due to demographic differences.

In predominantly catholic areas, adults under 45 have never received good catechesis. What they know about the faith is that God loves them and will forgive them for their wrongs (they’ve not ever heard the word sin much). That’s about all they were taught in CCD and if they haven’t cracked books since, they aren’t learning much more in the typical Sunday homily. They’ve never been presented with a faith worth being eaten by lions for, just a limp wristed caricature of it. I know because I’m one of them. They remain culturally catholic because it’s a family tradition and it’s comfortable. They LEAVE when they’re confronted by energetic, fired up christians who present them with something worth dying for: the gospel (even a parried down and slightly distorted protestant version of it).

Ridge is seeing the same thing in the flip side. In his area, being catholic isn’t comfortable. You’re probably slightly weird if you’re catholic. The mainstream culture has heard the evangelical tracts their whole life every Sunday and the caricatures and truncated doctrine have been noticed. They’re tired of Saccharine Jesus. They want the real thing and when they find Him in the Eucharist, they recover the joy they once had in their youth.

The solution to correcting the lukewarmness in the heavily catholic parts of the country is NOT to try to make them more protestant (which Ridge’s experience is a short lived enthusiasm based faith culture), but to re-evangelize them with the ACTUAL gospel of Jesus, including the visible church and blessing of the grace in the sacraments. What they long for is not less moral burdens, but more of a reason to carry them and hope that there is a reason to.
 
Ridgerunner and Roy,

I think the phenomenon you are both observing is related, but manifests differently due to demographic differences.

In predominantly catholic areas, adults under 45 have never received good catechesis. What they know about the faith is that God loves them and will forgive them for their wrongs (they’ve not ever heard the word sin much). That’s about all they were taught in CCD and if they haven’t cracked books since, they aren’t learning much more in the typical Sunday homily. They’ve never been presented with a faith worth being eaten by lions for, just a limp wristed caricature of it. I know because I’m one of them. They remain culturally catholic because it’s a family tradition and it’s comfortable. They LEAVE when they’re confronted by energetic, fired up christians who present them with something worth dying for: the gospel (even a parried down and slightly distorted protestant version of it).

Ridge is seeing the same thing in the flip side. In his area, being catholic isn’t comfortable. You’re probably slightly weird if you’re catholic. The mainstream culture has heard the evangelical tracts their whole life every Sunday and the caricatures and truncated doctrine have been noticed. They’re tired of Saccharine Jesus. They want the real thing and when they find Him in the Eucharist, they recover the joy they once had in their youth.

The solution to correcting the lukewarmness in the heavily catholic parts of the country is NOT to try to make them more protestant (which Ridge’s experience is a short lived enthusiasm based faith culture), but to re-evangelize them with the ACTUAL gospel of Jesus, including the visible church and blessing of the grace in the sacraments. What they long for is not less moral burdens, but more of a reason to carry them and hope that there is a reason to.
Nicely put. I agree fully. It is the truth that will energize us, the truth (as you put it) that is worth dying for.
  • PAX
 
I still have a problem with civil authorities confirming with church law…
It is not a matter of Church law. It is a matter of the universal moral law and common sense.
I support state defined gay marriages but I don’t support state imposition on the sacrament of marriage, that would be against the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms and the American freedom of religion thing…we need to have a discussion on the separation of chruch and state…otherwise I fear movmeent towards theocracies…
Theocracy is not an issue. The dictatorship of relativism is the issue.
 
Theocracy is not an issue. The dictatorship of relativism is the issue.
I’m currently reading “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom and it covers the dictatorship of relativism quite well. I read it before as a young undergraduate but didn’t get it – I was too deep into the relativistic intellectual culture of higher education at the time. I’d recommend reading it for all who want to know more about the mess of relativism and so-called “openness.”
  • PAX
 
Nicely put. I agree fully. It is the truth that will energize us, the truth (as you put it) that is worth dying for.
  • PAX
Another 👍 for this post, and the interesting contributions to the discussion on conversions and demographics.
 
Just to check in re same-sex marriage.
Code:
I oppose calling such an arrangement a marriage. I think that gays and lesbians are wrong in trying to demand a word that has been defined as a union between men and women since humankind began.

However, civil unions are okay with me, a conclusion I have come to over time and with considerable reluctance.

Why? Finally, I have felt forced to conclude that gays and lesbians are born that way (though in a few instances there may be an ambivalence when it comes to sexual preference, and early environment may play a role, also). If they are born that way, if same-sex orientation is part of their basic being, there is a sense in which they did not have a choice. They were - in a way - created that way by nature - God? Yes, I think so.

 So, gays and lesbians should not face discrimination and should be able to enter into legal commitment relationships. Churches should not be required to officiate at such ceremonies, unless they choose to. And, as said initially, they should be called civil unions or something else, but not marriages.
 
Ridgerunner and Roy,

I think the phenomenon you are both observing is related, but manifests differently due to demographic differences.

In predominantly catholic areas, adults under 45 have never received good catechesis. What they know about the faith is that God loves them and will forgive them for their wrongs (they’ve not ever heard the word sin much). That’s about all they were taught in CCD and if they haven’t cracked books since, they aren’t learning much more in the typical Sunday homily. They’ve never been presented with a faith worth being eaten by lions for, just a limp wristed caricature of it. I know because I’m one of them. They remain culturally catholic because it’s a family tradition and it’s comfortable. They LEAVE when they’re confronted by energetic, fired up christians who present them with something worth dying for: the gospel (even a parried down and slightly distorted protestant version of it).

Ridge is seeing the same thing in the flip side. In his area, being catholic isn’t comfortable. You’re probably slightly weird if you’re catholic. The mainstream culture has heard the evangelical tracts their whole life every Sunday and the caricatures and truncated doctrine have been noticed. They’re tired of Saccharine Jesus. They want the real thing and when they find Him in the Eucharist, they recover the joy they once had in their youth.

👍

The solution to correcting the lukewarmness in the heavily catholic parts of the country is NOT to try to make them more protestant (which Ridge’s experience is a short lived enthusiasm based faith culture), but to re-evangelize them with the ACTUAL gospel of Jesus, including the visible church and blessing of the grace in the sacraments. What they long for is not less moral burdens, but more of a reason to carry them and hope that there is a reason to.
 
Roy,

Why do homosexual couple need a new, made-up status such as “civil unions” in the first place?

They can already easily grant one another durable power of attorney and unify their financial resources via trusts and wills.

The legal and financial benefits of marriage such as joint benefits, tax policy, tenancy in the entirety, etc were originally created because wise leaders recognized that healthy and stable marriages were relationships innately ordered towards creating the next generation of healthy, well adjusted citizens. Thus, they sought to enact government policy to reward behavior that self-sacrificially tended to strengthen civilization long term.

The relationship between homosexual couples doesn’t do that. Generally speaking, (which is how law is always formulated) they can each go get their own jobs with benefits (no kids to care for), they can generally afford to pay their own taxes as their relationship produces no dependents, and so on.

We’ve come to think of the benefits of marriage as rights. But they aren’t. They are priviledges granted to a form of relationship that has proven over millenia to be the most productive and healthy building block of civilization.

Where civil unions have been enacted, such as Illinois where I live, the law instantly begins to treat them exactly the same as marriages. This is not warranted, it ignores the wisdom of the ages and will contribute to the ongoing destruction of our society from the bottom up. We’ve for several generations now stopped encouraging good behavior in government policy and instead tried to mitigate the consequences of bad behavior in the name of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice.’ But in some very real ways, we have done so in ways that fails to realize that we are sawing off branches of the tree upon which we are sitting.
 
I’m currently reading “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom and it covers the dictatorship of relativism quite well. I read it before as a young undergraduate but didn’t get it – I was too deep into the relativistic intellectual culture of higher education at the time. I’d recommend reading it for all who want to know more about the mess of relativism and so-called “openness.”
  • PAX
The irony is the more relative we become the more rigid we become.
 
I think we may have progressives or theologians who have new takes on scripture and ways of getting close to God that do not conflict with the deposit of faith. In that sense there is room here for both the bedrock and foundation and cornerstone and room for our own unique growth in pursuit of God and trying to meet God.

The human story is a story of mankind reaching up and God condescending with his love to lift men up. God draws us to him and men in responding to that draw come up with new ways of understanding God that offer insight because of their own time and place and wit and wisdom. When it comes to God, we are all blind men touching the elephant.

There needs to be both the foundation of truth in complementarity with the individual believer’s effort and will to seek God in a personal relationship and personal understanding of scripture enriched by and consonant with the deposit of faith.

It is the deposit of faith that gives us sure footing to reach out to Jesus, but to rely solely on the intellectual truths and correct dogma is to deny the neccesity of a personal and living relationship with God. That living relationsship requires us to reach out in our time and our place and in our context with our whole effort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top