On Drifters and the Disaffected: Pew Study on Religious Practice

changed-faithThe Pew Research Firm recently issued further reflections on a a 2007 Survey it did on religious practice and affiliation. There are important matters raised in this report for the Catholic Church to consider. Rather than reinvent to reportage on this matter I thought I might use a “blog technique” of posting an AP report and then commenting (in red) along the way. Please feel free to comment back. I don’t claim to have all the answers here. Just some reflections, some wake up calls and some rebuttals of mine to the survey and the reportage. The reporter is Eric Gorski, AP Religion Writer. Here then follows the Article with my red commentary

 

The U.S. is a nation of religious drifters, with about half of adults restlessly switching faith affiliation at least once during their lives, a new survey has found. And the reasons behind all the swapping greatly depend on whether one grows up kneeling at Roman Catholic Mass, praying in a Protestant pew or occupied with nonreligious pursuits, according to a report issued Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

While Catholics are more likely to leave the church because they stopped believing its teachings, many Protestants are driven to trade one Protestant denomination oraffiliation  for another because of changed life circumstances, the survey found.

The ranks of those unaffiliated with any religion, meanwhile, are growing not so much because of a lack of religious belief but because of disenchantment with religious leaders and institutions. In a certain sense all the Christian Denominations are in the boat together!

The report estimates that between 47 and 59 percent of U.S. adults have changed affiliation at least once. Most described just gradually drifting away from their childhood faith. Again, this fact does not just affect Catholics. Note too that word “drifting.” This is an important word to help keep things in perspective. While much commentary follows below on how people left due to disagreements over doctrine, the plain  fact is that many people just “drift” away. They don’t leave angry or as some sort of protest. They just gradually disconnect. What this means for the Church however is that we have to do a better job of keeping people engaged and connected. Liturgies need to be effective, nourishing and properly celebrated. People need to be engaged to participate more fully in Church life and the Church needs to be more relevant to their broader needs. Perhaps to include: marriage support and enrichment, Parent support groups, more opportunities for younger adult Catholics to meet, fall in love, marry, have lots of kids and raise ’em Catholic :-)! Seminars in parishes on imporatant ethical and social issues etc. The point is that the drifting and disconnect is real and the MAIN source of loss.

“This shows a sort of religion a la carte and how pervasive it is,” said D. Michael Lindsay, a Rice University sociologist of religion. “In some ways, it’s an indictment of organized Christianity. It suggests there’s a big open door for newcomers, but a wide back door where people are leaving.”

The report, “Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S.,” sought to answer questions about widespread religion-changing identified in a 2007 Pew survey of 35,000 Americans. The new report, based on re-interviews withmore than 2,800 people from the original survey, focuses on religious populations that showed a lot of movement: ex-Catholics, ex-Protestants, Protestants who’ve swapped denominational families within Protestantism, and people raised unaffiliated who now belong to a faith.

The 2007 survey estimated that 44 percent of U.S. adults had left their childhood religious affiliation. This is a huge number!

But the re-interviews found the extent of religion-swapping likely is much greater. The new survey revealed that one in six Americans who belong to their childhood faith are “reverts” – people who left the faith, only to return later.

About two-thirds of those raised Catholic or Protestant who now claim no religious affiliation say they have changed faiths at least twice. Thirty-two percent of unaffiliated ex-Protestants said they’ve changed three times or more. What this means is that a lot of Catholic are no where now. They tried several other places but now belong nowhere: they claim “no religious affiliation” There is a saying, I have not seen numbers to back it up that the Largest denomination in this country by far is the Roman Catholic Church (this is clear numerically). But the second largest denomination is “former Catholics” who now go no where. The harvest is rich but the laborers seem few. One of the  purposes of this blog is to try to reach out and reconnect.

Age is another factor. Most people who left their childhood faith did so before turning 24, and a majority joined their current religion before 36.

Sixteen percent of U.S. adults identified as unaffiliated in the 2007 survey; 7 percent of Americans described being raised unaffiliated, suggesting many Americans end up leaving their religion for none.

About half of those who have become unaffiliated cited a belief that religious people are hypocritical, judgmental or insincere. Large numbers said they think religious organizations focus too much on rules, or that religious leaders are too focused on money and power. The uninspiring example of many Christians remains a big image problem for the churches. To be sure, we don’t evangelize merely with words but also with transformed lives. However one of the things we have to communicate a little better is that the Church is like a hospital. People are not surprised to find sick people in hospitals, a place theoretically associated with healing. But they understand that people are “on the mend” or being treated because they are sick. Well the Church is the same. We are not running some sort of “sanctified society ” here. We are here because to some extent we are all sick and in need of healing. The Church dispenses that healing as well as knowledge of “best practices” to avoid poor spiritual health but the fact is, we’re running a hospital and people should not be surprised to the “sick” among our ranks, all in various stages of recovery. As for being Judgemental, we expect doctors and healthcare workers to speak to us truthfully about what can harm us. We do not consider this judgemental. We may not always like it but we understand that it is their job to speak in this way and to exhort us to more healthy living. Why do fingers start wagging when clergy and Church leaders do this? Isn’t it really their job to prophetically uphold biblical doctrine and morality?  As for rules, what kind of healthcare can take place without rules. Clearly there are foods to be avoided in large quantities, clearly exercise is called for, clearly prescribed medicines must be taken in exactly proper does. But when it comes religion many people want to make it a vague sort of wishy-washy directive-free zone. So here too, we have a lot of work to do to answer thoughtfully and respectfully on the view that we are hypocritical, judgemental, too many rules etc. But we ought to have a clear answer as well that questions some of the premises involved in this criticism .

John Green, a University of Akron political scientist and a senior fellow with the Pew Forum, classified most unaffiliated as “dissatisfied consumers.” Only 4 percent identify as atheist or agnostic, and one-third say they just haven’t found the right religion. Some good news here. Outright Atheism seems a much bigger problem in Europe but here in American we still seem to be a nation that generally believes in the existence of God. However, that does not necessarily mean that all, even most believers go to Church regularly

“A lot of the unaffiliated seem to be OK with religion in the abstract,” Green said. “It’s just the religion they were involved in bothered them or they disagreed with it.”

The unaffiliated category is not just a destination. It’s also a departure point: a slight majority of those raised unaffiliated eventually join a faith tradition. Again, some good news here. Just because a person was not raised with religious observance does not necessarily mean that they will always stay unchurched. A lot of them, more than half, eventually find a church home.

Those who do eventually join a faith tradition cite several reasons: attraction of religious services and worship (74 percent), feeling unfulfilled spiritually (51 percent) or feeling called by God (55 percent). Interesting how 3/4 of the unchurched report that the liturgy is an important reason for their embrace of a faith tradition. Once again, we are reminded of the critical importance of liturgy celebrated well, effectively and in conformity with Church norms.

The survey found that Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in all the religion switching. Nearly six in 10 former Catholics who now are unaffiliated say they left Catholicism because of dissatisfaction with Catholic teachings on abortion and homosexuality. About half cited concerns about Catholic teachings on birth control and about four in 10 named unhappiness with Catholicism’s treatment of women. And here is a soul searching moment for the Church. Will we change our teachings just to keep members or will we preach the Gospel in season and out of season? Jesus often suffered the loss of many disciples for his teaching. In John 6 “Many left him and would no longer follow in his company as a result of the this [teaching on the Eucharist].” Likewise in Matthew 19 most seemingly rejected his teaching against divorce. So, is the Church about numbers or about the truth? But here too is another challenge for the Church. Many simply do not understand our teachings well. It is not our teachings that are being rejected but rather, a caricature of our teachings that is being rejected. In my conversations with Catholics, former Catholics and non-Catholics it is very often the case that the teachings of the Church have not been faithfully or fully communicated to them. Much of what they know has come from a hostile media or culture. Many of the teachings are often understood “out of context” or in extreme versions. The nuance of our teachings are not well communicated. This is on us. We cannot simply complain of a hostile culture or media. We have to get out there in the mix and effectively present our teachings thoughtfully and effectively. Our Sunday School, and adult Education has to get better and clearer. None of this guarantees that we will keep our numbers, but we ought to be sure that, if people reject our teachings, it really IS our teachings they reject. I am convinced that some are not rejecting Catholic teaching, but a false or incomplete version of Catholic teaching.

Converts to evangelicalism were more likely to cite their belief that Catholicism didn’t take the Bible literally enough, while mainline Protestants focused more on the treatment of women. But the mainline Protestants are in steep decline themselves and those who depart there are fewer in number. Further those who depart there often carry issues with them that we can do little to change. We cannot change our teachings on the ordination of women, or on homosexuality, or on abortion which the study also indicates as issues of importance to those who depart to mainline Protestant denominations. However, from those who depart to Evangelical denominations we might be able to learn more about things we CAN change. We can and should work more on developing better preaching in the Catholic clergy. We can and should do a better job of demonstratingour faith from the Scriptures. Good, solid Biblical based preaching is not at odds with Catholicism. Our teachings are there in Scripture and we need to do a better job of teaching from the Scripture. It is true we also have the sources of the Apostolic Tradition and have great respect for Natural Law. But it remains true that people report their hunger to taught the Scriptures and we can and should do a better job of teaching clearly. As for the reference to interpreting the Bible the Literally, no one does that all the time. If you think the Evangelicals or others do then why do they not interpret literally passage that call us to cut off our foot, or hand or tear out eye? Why do they not interpret the words of our Lord “This is my Body” literally? The notion of literalism is a simplistic one and again, as a Church we need to better explain our position here. But NO ONE interprets all of the Bible literally all the time. Catholics take a  lot of passages literally, others, due to context we interpret more symbolically. But so do the Evangelicals. The question is what to read literally. In the end I think the view that Catholics don’t “take the Bible Literally enough” really means that they don’t think we take the Bible seriously enough. Here I think we can make improvements. I think we do take the Bible very seriously as a Church. But our preaching and other teaching methods don’t always convey this very well.

Fewer than three in 10 former Catholics cited the clergy sexual abuse scandal as a factor – a finding that Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl cited as an example of the faith’s resilience.“Catholics can separate the sins and human failings of individuals from the substance of the faith,” Wuerl said in a statement. This is my experience too.

Wuerl said getting teenagers to weekly Mass greatly improves their chances of staying in the fold; the same holds true for Protestant teens attending services. Amen. Another huge group is young adults, 21-35 especially those who are not yet married. We need to do a better job of reaching them.

Perhaps too not enough study was done of those who have been hurt by the Church. Not by doctrine but by some insensitivity, by an omission, or comission of sin, whether by clergy or one of the faithful. If you are among those please consider contacting your local parish to let the healing begin. Don’t let anyone or anything get between you and the Lord who wants to minister to you through the sacraments and in the liturgy. The following video is about clergy sexual abuse specifically but allow it also to speak to others who were wounded in other ways. Let the healing begin.

The Good Shepherd Lays Down His Life For His Sheep

 “I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. This is why the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again.

On this Good Shepherd Sunday we celebrate the fact of what our Shepherd has done for us. He has given his life for ours. Consider this, there are many things and people that will try to claim your loyalty. Maybe it is a political party, maybe it is a philosophy, maybe it is the boss at work, maybe it is popular opinions. But there is only one contender for your loyalty who ever died for you. His Name is Jesus. He alone is worthy of your most fundamental loyalty since he alone gave his life for you. Freely he died, not merely as a victim of circumstances. He laid down his life of his own accord and he took it up again. Only Jesus died for you.

Picturesque Papa

I have often thought that Pope Benedict XVI is quite photogenic. Some  of the pictures I have seen are quite humorous. Here are a few photos I have collected of him that I think are funny. I set them to the music of Irving Berlin’s What do I have to do to get my picture took.

The Mass in Slow Motion – The Sign of the Cross

Now comes a gesture that is very familiar to Catholics but to the unitiated may also seem odd, (a kind of shoeing away of flies or something) and words are said that are grammatically incorrect! I’ll explain that later.

Standing at the Chair the celebrant begins the Mass with the sign of the cross. This gesture is perhaps one of the most recognizably Catholic traditions in any ecumenical gathering. You can always tell the Catholics immediately by this instinctive gesture deeply ingrained in any Catholic.

The origin of this gesture goes back to the earliest days of Christianity where it seems to have been more of sign of the cross traced on one’s forehead. Tertullian is said to have remarked in the early 3rd Century, “We Christians wear out our forehead with the sign of the cross!” This practice probably developed from Scriptural allusions to the Tau or “T” marked on the forehead of those to be saved from destruction (Ex. 17:9-14; Ez 9:4, Revelation 7:3, 9:4, 14:1). Over the years of the first centuries the practice seems to have developed of adding fingers to this tracing action. Two fingers representing the two natures of Christ were added as an act of faith against the monophysite heresy. Further developments took place to enhance the gesture. Now, by the fourth century three fingers (thumb, index and middle finger) are used to represent the Trinity and the other two fingers are folded back to the palm to represent the two natures of Christ. With all these symbolisms going on with the blessing hand it next developed that a larger area than the forehead was crossed. Now the downward motion tended to extend to the breast and eventually the whole chest was signed by reaching out to the shoulders. By the 9th Century the way to make the sign of the cross was pretty well spelled out by legislation from Rome and the Popes. As you can see the sign of the Cross became more than a way to bless oneself, it also became a statement of faith in the Trinity and in the two natures of Christ.

In the western Church as the monophysite controversy died down the Trinitarian faith has tended to take precedence and came to be spelled out with these words: “In the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” to which all respond, “Amen.” Now have you noticed that this is not gramatically correct? Grammatically one should say, “In the names of the Father….Son and Holy Spirit.” But here too, going back to Scripture itself, the grammatical “error” bespeaks the truth that there is only ONE God, therefore one name, but there are three Persons in the One God.” So aren’t we clever here!

So the sign of the cross is an act of and a sign of Faith in the Triune God. It thus gives significance to all that is to follow in the Mass, placing it within the context of Faith. The Sign of the Cross is also a recollection of the Crucifixion. In this regard the Mass, as a making present of the once-for-all sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on Calvary, is especially suited to being opened by the sign of the cross. Lastly, and by extension, it is a visible movement into the Holy by all present since it puts demons to flight. Many of the Fathers of the Church speak of this aspect of the Sign of the Cross. For example, St. Cyril states that at the sign of the cross “demons tremble and angels recognize it. Thus the former are put to flight, while the latter gather about it as something pertaining to themselves.” (From his Catechetical Lectures). Historically the number of the signs of the cross throughout the Mass increased especially during the gothic period of the middle ages. The Old Latin Mass has a large number of signs of the cross. In the New Mass there has been the reduction of this number to two, one at the beginning the other at the end.

Now the last thing we should say about all this is that to make the sign of the cross is a bold gesture! In effect we are glorying in the Cross of Christ. We are not ashamed of it. Is this true for you? Many today are actually embarrassed by the cross. How is this you say? Well notice how they protest any time the Church articulates the demands of the Gospel. For example that we should turn away from sin, that babies  should be brought to birth and never aborted, that Euthanasia is wrong and that we cannot simply do whatever we please and call it good. Many immediately protest and speak of the need for greater compassion and less strict norms etc. And many Catholics, far from defending the demands of the Gospel refuse to hold up the cross for others to see. Instead, embarrassed by the demands of the cross they refuse to affirm its power and its demands. Be careful before you make that sign of the cross! It means something. It means that we cannot simply refuse the demands of being a disciple but rather glory in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 Eastern Rite Catholics make the sign of the cross a little differently than Roman Catholics as depicted in this video:

Latest Catholic News

Here’s the latest from Gloria.tv News including word of a miracle from John Henry Newman that clears the way for his beatification. Also concerns of threats on the life of the Pope in reference to his upcoming visit to the Holy Land.

The Mass in Slow Motion – The Altar is Reverenced

As the Entrance procession draws to its close something rather unusual happens! Upon entering the sanctuary, (the part of the Church where the Altar and Tabernacle are located) the priest and deacon enter the sanctuary and kiss the altar as a sign of reverence and veneration. Many of us who go to Mass all the time may hardly notice this gesture. But to someone observing Mass for the first time this gesture may seem quite unusual and raise questions. Why kiss an altar? Where did this gesture come from and what does it mean?

The significance of this kiss has had the following historical development: At first it was intended simply for the altar itself where the Sacrifice of the Lord would occur. Subsequently this idea was enlarged to include the understanding that the altar built of stone represented Christ himself, the rock, the cornerstone. (Cf. 1 Cor. 10:4). Later, as the relics of saints were ordinarily placed within the altar stone, the kiss was also seen as a salutation of the saint and through the saint the whole Church Triumphant.

But why is there a kiss, rather than a bow or some other salutation? The kiss was actually very common in ancient culture. The temple was honored by kissing the threshold. In pagan culture it was common to greet the images of the gods either by kissing it directly or throwing a kiss. Likewise it was not uncommon in the ancient world to kiss the family meal table with a kiss before the meal. Hence it was not surprising to find the practice brought into Christian worship.

Until the 13th century it was customary at Rome to kiss the altar only upon coming in for Mass and departing. However, in the later Middle Ages the kissing of the altar seems to have been multiplied. In the Tridentine Missal the altar was kissed numerous times:

  • 1. At the beginning of the Mass
  • 2. Any time the priest turned away from the altar, faced the people and addressed them. According to one explanation the priest does this on order to confirm his communion with the Church Triumphant in heaven and then turns to greet the Church on earth.
  • 3. At the words ex hac altare participatione (Then as we receive from this altar…) in the canon.
  • 4. Before the sign of peace. Again an explanation advanced is that the priest kisses the altar here in order to receive the kiss from Christ (whom the altar represents)  in order to pass it on to others.
  • 5. Upon leaving the altar at the end of the Mass.

Today the altar is kissed only twice in conformity with the earlier tradition.

The design of  Altars has varied over the years. The current widespread practice of celebrating Mass facing the people has tended to require a rather simple table form to modern altars. But Mass facing the people is a rather recent phenomenon. Until very recently Mass was everywhere celebrated with the priest and people facing the same direction toward the East or at least toward  the Crucifix and tabernacle (if there was one on the altar). This meant that altar design could be much more elaborate. Altars tended to back up onto the apse wall and had a vertical dimension that was often quite splendid and decorative. (See photo at left).  The Second Vatican Council directed that new altars should be free standing, that is they should not be attached to the wall, allowing the priest to walk around all four sides. Tragically this led some to conclude that many beautiful older altars should be removed. This was not however what the Council directed;  only that new altars should not be attached to the wall. While this tends to imply a simpler design, it is not necessarily required that this be so since it is still possible to place ornate designs and an elaborate reredos in the area behind the altar if this is desired.

The following video shows the temporary transformation of a simple table altar to an altar more suited for the celebration of the Latin Mass in the extraordinary form. It is quite a dramatic transformation but done quite swiftly.