According to a recent report by the Pew Forum, Catholicism in the USA is holding steady at about 25% of the population. But underlying this calm is a lot of churn. Immigrants are flooding into the church ”” nearly a quarter (22%) of all U.S. Catholics were born in a foreign country, and almost half of all immigrants (46%) are Catholics. But native-born Americans are fleeing. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church has lost more believers than any other religious group in recent years. Approximately 10% of Americans are former Catholics.
One problem is Catholic education. Young Catholics are shockingly ignorant of the most basic tenets of their faith. Many cannot name any of the four Gospels, or identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible. To educate American Catholic youth, however, is to tell them that their church opposes premarital sex, condoms, abortion and the ordination of women ”” teachings that according to Sex and the Soul, a recently released study by my Boston University colleague Donna Freitas, are chasing Catholic youth out of the church in droves.
Young American Catholics treated John Paul II like a rock star. Yes, he was socially and theologically conservative, but at least they could relate to the guy with the “Popemobile” and the smile and the energy to travel to some 130 countries during his 26 years at the Holy See. But can they relate to Benedict XVI? And can he relate to them? What can a pope who is an academic theologian first and foremost offer young Americans, save for dogmas they don’t believe in and rituals they do not understand? Is he coming to scold us? Or to hug us?
We are about to find out.
The cliches, over-simplifications, and plain falsehoods in this editorial aren’t worth fisking, except to note that he quotes James Carroll, whose anti-Catholic bias is legend, and that he comes from Boston College, a school “in the Jesuit tradition”. Yes, those are ad hominem, but, as I said, it’s not worth the bandwidth and time to respond to nonsense.
Mr. Prothero appears to assume that the Church of Rome should operate something like a corporation, whose job it is to attract customers. If people don’t like Big Macs, then MacDonald’s tweaks its menu.
But the Church (or any religious organization) should not be in the business of tweaking its menu based upon what people already believe, or what they want to believe. It needs to speak the truth (as it sees it). I’m not RC, but I admire the current Bishop of Rome for his willingness to speak the truth as he sees it. What do we have in ECUSA for comparison? Our previous presiding bishop with his “pluriform truths.”
[blockquote]What can a pope who is an academic theologian first and foremost offer young Americans, save for dogmas they don’t believe in and rituals they do not understand?[/blockquote]
Well, first, he’s a Priest first and foremost, not an academic.
Secondly, he can help implement better catechesis to fix the problem of young Americans not believing or understanding. As for the OLDER Americans who don’t understand or believe (like the author), I’m not sure there’s much ANYONE could do for them.
Catechesis begins at home, and given the tepid, and even defiant, reception that Paul VI’s encyclical [i]Humanae Vitae[/i] had in 1968, I’m not surprised if these young catholics who don’t know/agree with Catholic teaching had parents that didn’t agree with it either.
#1,
The author teaches at Boston University, not Boston College. The former is not a Catholic school. So your accusation isn’t merely ad hominem, it’s also incorrect.
“To educate American Catholic youth, however, is to tell them that their church opposes premarital sex, condoms, abortion and the ordination of women — teachings that according to Sex and the Soul, a recently released study by my Boston University colleague Donna Freitas, are chasing Catholic youth out of the church in droves.”
I think that is wonderful news. Because quite frankly if you do not believe these things are wrong or worse if you engage in these practices you are not a Catholic in some cases ( artificial birth control) and not a Christian of any stripe in others ( active homosexual relationship). So please, please do leave. Don’t do as past generations did and do your damndest to corrupt the Church from within. Certain religious and clerical orders come to mind.
As for the word droves the author is very wrong. The Church youth is more vibrant, and faithful than ever. They are not the ignorant dullards the author likes to think they are. Sorry but the pessimistic outlook for the Church is unwarranted.
I know many are very sad and angry at the failure to turn the Catholic Church into a heretical universalist spiritual social club but hey when you are part of the gates of hell you can’t say you weren’t warned.
#6,
The fact that these young people are leaving over abortion, WO, etc., is as much a problem as the fact that some agenda driven groups are admittedly using these issues to undermine the church. As the author noted, “Young Catholics are shockingly ignorant of the most basic tenets of their faith. Many cannot name any of the four Gospels, or identify Genesis as the first book of the Bible.â€
This means, among other things, that young people leaving the Church don’t actually have any idea of what they are rejecting. All they “know†is that the Church is mean to gay people and wants, inexplicably, to harsh their campus mellow. This is quite different from the agenda of the revisionists, who know precisely what they are rejecting.
The revisionists have been very successful at recruiting both the idealism and animal spirits of the young. Writing off wayward youth with a good riddance only adds to their success.
Sorry I stand by what I wrote. If these youth conclude they can not believe as the Church teaches they should leave. I will only add that if they are reaching this conclusion because of poor instruction in the faith then by all means we need to get our butts in gear and improve our RE programs. But I do sort of doubt that, since poor RE would most likely lead them to conclude a selective belief in the teachings of the Church was valid based on skewered understanding of the primacy of conscience so beloved by dissident Catholics everywhere.
No I believe they are leaving because given the choice between the gods of this age and the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is just not malleable enough for their liking. I do however pray they will return to the Christian faith even if it is outside the Church.
Paula, I think what Billy is getting at isn’t that the young ‘dissenters’ are choosing the Spirit of the Age over the Trinity, but that they don’t even know what the Trinity is or why they ought to choose it over what the overwhelming majority of the influences in their lives are telling them to choose.
I think we’re ALL in agreement that better catechesis is the answer to all problems. If people leave after that, fine. At least they KNOW what they’re rejecting. As it is, a lot of young Catholics think that the Church started at Vatican II and that it’s all about ‘wuv’ just like Fr. Graying Hippie says, and that the even though the mean old guys in Rome are in charge, we just ignore them anyway because.. well.. they’re old and in Europe.
I need to add like other articles about Catholics I have to wonder just what Catholics the author spoke to. I doubt that active Church going Catholic youth who have received even a minimum of RE do not know the 4 Gospels or that Genesis is the first book of the Bible. I think it more likely, as is the case in most polls or articles about Catholics, he spoke with youth who might set step in Church Christmas and Easter. Who went to CCD class maybe for a couple of years. And whose full exposure to devotions in the home consisted of watching the Ten Commandments on TV and learning about Hail Mary passes.
So yes amongst this set you would find this ignorance. But as I said since poor RE is more noted for Barney philosophy than it is for conveying clearness of doctrine and reasons for accepting or rejecting the same. (Poor RE sure as heck does not stretch one’s comfort zone.) I still doubt poor RE is the major cause of youth leaving the Church. I claim either they never, really were in the Church at all or they know just what it is they are rejecting. And I would rather they be honest and leave then try to corrupt and change the Church from within. As is the case with many dissident groups.
I find this article snide and disrespectful, but expected no less out of a cranky New England agnostic.
“To educate American Catholic youth, however, is to tell them that their church opposes premarital sex, condoms, abortion and the ordination of women — teachings that according to Sex and the Soul, a recently released study by my Boston University colleague Donna Freitas, are chasing Catholic youth out of the church in droves”.
No shock there–maybe people like the above are teaching the youth that an immoral, unstructured free-for-all is a more desirable option.
But, in 10-15 years, will they be on the therapist’s couch wondering why their life is such a mess? A fair question, if you ask me…
Actually, one of the problems with this awful article is that the author totally ignores the fact that there is a powerful revival of Catholicism taking place among age 20 somethings, and it isn’t just due to John Paul the Great’s personal charisma. I think it’s partly a natural reaction to the shallowness, hedonism, materialism, and cynicism of western cutlure these days. But I also think it’s partly a mysterious move of the Holy Spirit that is as welcome as it is inexplicable.
The absurd cliches that abound in this superficial, stereotyped and very biased editorial demonstrate all too well the amazing degree of sheer ignorance and prejudice that are so sadly prevalent in the mass media. It is the umpteenth example of what Philip Jenkins catalogs so devastatingly in his fine and well documented book, “The New Anti-Catholicism: the Last Acceptable Prejudice.”
But it also testifies that the Roman Catholic Church, like TEC, suffers from being two (or more) churches under one roof. The crucial difference that makes all the difference, is that the official teaching of Catholicism is consistent and thoroughly orthodox, and that the whole Catholic Church culture is far more dogmatic and strict (which are both traits I thoroughly approve of and wish we Anglicans shared to a much greater degree). And the problem of two churches under one roof I have in mind is not just liberalism hiding within the bosom of the Catholic Church, but the bigger problem of its vast numbers of merely nominal members versus the true Christians in the fold.
To put it another way, Roman Catholicism also needs to take to heart the challenge of morphing into a “High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Church of a radically sectarian, Christ-against-culture sort.” Both Catholicism and Anglicanism face the same daunting challenge of returning to a pre-Constantinian style patristic model of church life, suitably adapted to the 21st century. The crucial difference: Rome has a much better chance of pulling off such a miracle. It has much more inner strength and discipline. Or rather, it’s more likely that Christ will pull off that stunt among the RCs than among us Anglicans. However, I hope it happens, by God’s grace, in both communities.
David Handy+
David, it is only by God’s grace that we poor sinners can even stumble towards God and the Church herself protect and proclaim the Word. May your prayer be answered for all of us.
#5 – you are right, I was wrong. Apparently, Boston University is a school “in the Methodist tradition”. Having a religion major from a school like that, I wonder how close they stand to John Wesley. My Methodist college didn’t stand very close at all.
Perhaps to redeem my error, I should indulge a small fisk. Prothero claims a contrast between a “liberal” Ratzinger at Vatican II and the later Grand Inquisitor inveighing against relativism. The problem is that “liberal” for a 60s Catholic doesn’t mean a relativist. It could, of course, but I have never read anything by the future pope that suggests he was ever anything other than a believing Catholic. Interesting that Prothero links to a Guardian article by Stephen Bates, who doesn’t really prove the point either; it’s just a claim by a well-known anti-Catholic hate monger.
It’s also worth noting that this pope drew quite a significant crowd – up to a million kids – at Cologne to the 2005 World Youth Day. I think the next one is in Sydney this summer and we’ll see how that one goes.
As always, surveys about Catholics – what we believe, what we practice, our comings and goings – should control for Mass attendance and other relevant factors. The back-and-forth above on Paula comments (with which I basically agree) becomes, I think, more clear when we know the actual religious practice of kid’s families.
The reasons people give for leaving the church are merely excuses. The simple truth is that they simply wish to worship self over God and have submitted to secularism over faith. After all consider the C of E – it ordained women precisely on the premise that it would appeall to people such as these. It allows birth control and often (disgustingly) says nothing on abortion. Have people such as these rushed back in droves? er no….the church declined even further and lost a little saltiness in the process.
Beware articles such as these
Another issue is that many Roman Catholics in the US don’t think that denominational differences between the Catholic Church and other ecclesiatical bodies matter much. I could furnish many examples from people who are not new-agey, or trendy, and who are faithful in their mass attendance and some of whom do important layperson work. Two examples I’ll mention are 2 ladies both in their 80s, one of whom works in the parish office of a church in the San Francisco Archdiocese, and one who serves on a parish care work (cleaning etc) in a church in the diocese of Oakland. Both are of Italian American extraction, born and bred in San Francisco, who come from the time when Cathlicsim fourished there as it did in few other cities. In other words they are still faithful, wouldn’t dream of not going to mass or of leaving the church and are NOT dissatisfied with the Church, but both of whom have said of church differences that it “doesn’t matter, we all worship the same God.” (paraphrased). I bet that everyone viewing this site could relate to these examples. Neither these ladies nor most of their extended families are in any danger of leaving the church.
rob k (#16),
You’re right. I’m sure many of us could think of similar examples of faithful RC communicants (i.e., “faithful” in general, namely in attending mass, serving the Church in various ways etc.) who have fallen into the trap of adopting the relativist worldview that is all around us these days. Doubtless, they are sincere and their absorption of religious relativism is unconscious and as unintentional as our breathing in the air around us. Especially in a liberal stronghold like the San Francisco Bay area. This again points to the need for much more rigorous and thorough catechetical training. Call it discipleship, if you prefer more biblical language.
Once again, rob’s example of these two devout old ladies reflects the underlying crisis that all the long-established churches face. That is, whether Catholic or Protestant, all the “mainline” or former state church traditions now face a daunting challenge: how to morph into a Post-Christendom style church that is genuinely counter-cultural. As I keep saying: religious habits that are 1500 years old are notoriously hard to break. But break them we must. The Constantinian style approach to church life is dead or rapidly dying out everywhere in the western world, even in church-going America.
But what a glorious opportunity that also brings!
David Handy+
In light of Fr. Handy’s comments, some might find The Catherine of Siena Institute interesting.
From their “about us” page:
[i]We seek to foster the proclamation of the gospel to all the world by ensuring that lay Catholics (who are 99% of the Church) are equipped to effectively carry out their unique and essential part in this mission.[/i]
Every baptized Christian is called by Christ; therefore, every Christian needs the preparation that the Church offers to those called to fulfill a specific mission. The Church calls such preparation “formation”. “Formation is not the privilege of a few, but a right and duty of all.” (Christifideles Laici, 63.) We are working to ensure that every Catholic has access to a formation that:
* Is distinctly lay in approach, spirituality, and focus;
* Is deeply rooted in the Tradition and Magisterial teaching of the Church;
* Fosters integration of faith, work, and relationships;
* Takes seriously the gifts of the Holy Spirit given to every Christian;
* Enables each one to further discern God’s unique call in his or her own life;
* Prepares him or her to be an effective, creative apostle in the midst of the world;
* Encourages collaboration between the clergy and laity in mission to the world; and
* Is geared to the real lives of working adults.
Words Matter (#18),
Thanks for posting this link and suggesting readers check out this interesting Catholic lay institute. I look forward to learning more about it, as I must admit I didn’t even know it existed before.
FWIW, the name alone attracts me. I regard Catherine of Sienna, the first woman ever declared a “Doctor” of the Church, to be one of the greatest saints of all time. Indeed, my wife, who is something of a mystic herself, like Catherine, reveres the medieval Dominican from Sienna as her favorite saint of all.
David Handy+
I agree also. St. Catherine is one of my favorite saints, and I have been reading a book about her. NRA & WM. I agree also with you about the need for better education in the Faith, but I don’t think that the attitudes of the two ladies I mentioned is limited to post-modernism. And, although I don’t know them that well, I don’t think they were two much affected by the trendy stuff of the last 40 years.