I just read Pierre Hagy’s Wake Up Lazarus! On Catholic Renewal. In the first part of the book he documents the decline of the Catholic Church in the United States and the comparative success of evangelical Protestant churches. The Catholic Church, like the Episcopal Church, has lost a third of its members in the past generation; the loss in concealed in the Catholic Church by Hispanic immigration.
Hegy examines the culture of two local churches, an evangelical church started in 1955 which has grown to 2700 members and an astonishing missionary outreach, and a Catholic parish which seems to be doing everything right – shared governance lively liturgies- small communities – but whose attendance and support is shrinking.
In the Protestant church 80% of the members tithe, although tithing is not required. In the Catholic parish, parishioners give only 1% of their income, on line with national Catholic giving. The Protestant church has a large number of converts and an international missionary effort; the Catholic parish has about 10 adult converts per year and no missionary effort.
Hegy’s main point is that church involvement does not produce a growth in spirituality, but a growth in spirituality produces church involvement. Successful evangelical churches are constantly leading their members into a deeper life of prayer and a relationship with Christ, and the core 5% of their membership lead a life of spiritual discipline comparable to a Catholic secular institute.
Hegy also says that the Tridentine church’s emphasis on rules does not work, but a cultivation of moral habits does work in forming Christians. In the U. S. a larger percentage of Protestants than Catholics attend church. Other statistics I have seen indicate that evangelical Protestants are stricter in sexual morality than Catholics are.
Hegy sees the renewed emphasis on rules in the Catholic Church as doomed to failure. Instead the Church should encourage all its members to cultivate spiritual growth and discipline, encouraging its members to move up from minimal involvement to the beginning of spiritual disciple to serious discipline to complete commitment to Christ. It is not necessary to enforce attendance in mass under pain of mortal sin if Catholics wanted to come to mass to thank God for Jesus.The Catholic Church focuses on the church; the evangelical churches focus on Christ.
I have been asked whether what I have learned about sexual abuse among Catholic clergy has not destroyed my faith in the Catholic Church. The answer is no, but it has made me realize that simple reception of the sacraments does not produce virtue. With a lively faith and habits of payer the sacraments are fruitful. Without faith and prayer the sacraments have little or no effect. Priests said daily mass and raped children on the same altar.
Hegy mentions the transformation of the U.S. Catholic church into an Hispanic Church, but does not explore what this might mean. He also mentions that in the evangelical church women were far more involved than men, and what this might mean. I am returning to that subject in a book I am working on, Meek or Macho? Men and Religion.
These are my experiences for what they are worth: At times I am asked to take foreign visitors to church. If they are already Christian, I take them to their denomination or a relatively close denomination. Those who are not Christian, but want to experience American religious life, I take to as much a variety of denominations as time allows. I always try to choose conservative, inspiring, friendly parishes. Language is always a problem when it comes to understanding homilies or sermons. I am often challenged to explain such in simpler terms.
Tomorrow will be my first time with a new family of four. After study and prayer I have decided on the local Evangelical Protestant Church with about 3000 members, missionaries all over the world, and a very active social and educational life. Earlier attempts with my own denomination bore no fruit, even though the sermons were easy to understand. Perhaps the old liturgical language was not attractive. Perhaps the drinking from a common cup for Communion was a turn off. (People these days are very much afraid of passing diseases.) Attempts with Roman Catholic Masses usually fail when I have to tell them that artificial contraception is not acceptable. However, I have noticed that most inquirers do not approve of abortion and this I am happy to report.
Tomorrow’s parish has only men in positions of authority (I Timothy). However, deacons and church workers are often women. There is no scandal that I have ever heard of associated with this church, but, of course, there is some scandal everywhere, so, I have to hope that whatever has occurred has been properly dealt with.
The Eucharist, as I want to believe in It, will not be present; but, I do believe in the Real Spiritual Presence of Christ at the Symbolic Eucharist and that will have to suffice. As Leon has pointed out, I have also seen that some people who claim to believe in every doctrine and rule of the more liturgical traditions can often be found to have really big blind spots when it comes to discerning their own sins.
I will miss my own parish, but this is what I feel is my only choice. Please remember my efforts in your prayers.
“The Catholic Church focuses on the church; the evangelical churches focus on Christ.”
Leon, that sentence succintly and beautifully summarizes the problem. I remember attending a Catholic youth group several years ago and the speaker referred to herself as a “daughter of the church.” There are two problems with that:
1. It subordinates individual identity to group identity; the individual defines himself fundamentally by group membership.
2. It views faith ultimately as loyalty to an ecclesiastical institution.
One problem with Catholicism focusing on the church is that, for centuries, that same church has relied on political relationships and social privledges within a nation (such as Spain, Italy or Latin America) to help maintain its authority over the faithful.
The other, more serious, problem is that Catholicism focuses on obedience to a church authority that, more often than not, attempts to intimidate members into proper behavior through legalism (Index of Forbidden Books, mortal sin for missing mass, numerous rules and regulations concerning Lenten fasting) instead of encouraging members to develop and nurture their faith with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Intelligent people will tolerate that only for so long.
To those you who think that the Church focuses on Christ by focusing on the Eucharist and on the poor, let me remind you that those two emphases by themselves (which is what Catholicism preaches these days) do not do complete justice to Christ! The message of God’s pervasive love, as exemplified by His Son’s atoning death for sin to redeem those who embrace Him, has been completely neglected by the Church and has been for centuries!! That’s the fundamental reason why evangelical congregations have been growing.
As far as Latin American immigrants go, they won’t save the Church. After awhile, they’ll just move to more evangelical congregations. It’s happening already.
Only one thing will save the Church: massive repentence on the part of its leadership, a committment to preaching the true Gospel and rejection of the institutional arrogance and sense of entitlement that has marked the leadership’s rejection of John 13.
Let me talk about the recent Tridentine emphasis on “rules”: The traditionalists believe in rules because that’s all they know. Just look at Fr. Z’s blog and his obsessiveness with liturgical formality. For far too long, that’s what most Catholics have known. When the rules apparently went out the window after Vatican II, all sorts of confusion resulted. It’s the exact same thing that happened when the Soviet Union abandoned Communism: A people used to pervasive regimentation didn’t know how to react once that regimentation disappeared. They had not internalized any sense of standards to use as a guide to discern good from bad. Consequently, freedom became license, which became organized crime and oligarchy, which became Putin.
Catholics have a far better leader than Putin. No, I don’t mean Pope Benedict. I mean Christ Himself. Catholics don’t have to go down the road I just described, but they (especially the hierarchy) can only change direction through repentence.
Well said Joe! You ever read Robert Ferrigno’s “Assassin” trilogy, where Islam takes over the North and a mostly evangelical republic survives in the Old Confederacy? Lots of Catholics and Evangelicals go to the South, but many Catholics stay in the North as dhimmis. Indeed, they are THE dhimmis. I can’t help but wonder if most of the Catholic population in America today, due to the fact that it lost its faith and has God-awful catechesis and has been propagandized with “Islam is a religion of peace,” “Islam is just like Catholicism,” “Muslims really believe the same things as Christians,” would end up staying in the North as dhimmis if that’s what happened. Tell it to the Assyrian Christians in Iraq, the Copts in Egypt, the Christians of Albania, the Zoroastrians of Iran, the Hindus of Pakistan, the Christians of all North Africa, the Jews of the whole Muslim world from Morocco to the Hindu Kush, and the Christians of Arabia. Yeah. Catholicism in this country is going the way Catholicism went in North Africa a thousand years ago, when it died thanks to Islamic persecution. Only now it’s the fault of the bishops (among others).
Thanks for the post Leon. You got me so interested in the book that I’ve ordered it from Amazon. I look forward to your Meek or Macho? and hope it will be for sale soon.
@Joseph D’Hippolito: But Fr. Z’s blog is only ONE out of a plethora of Roman Catholic blogs, most of which are not at all concerned with liturgical niceties.
@Leon Podles: I believe if you are going to compare Catholicism and Protestantism, you need to compare **evangelical** Protestantism with **evangelical** Catholicism — so for example with Steubenville and the “movimenti”.
Or else compare liberal Protestantism with cultural Catholicism …
“Tridentine church’s” “emphasis on rules”?
Well, I guess I go to a “Tridentine church” (there’s no such thing), but this ex-Protestant has noticed nothing like an “emphasis on rules” (whatever that means).
It IS a traditional liturgy that I experience — not a very “lively” one, I guess, like that of that church which is “doing everything right”…but whose membership is shrinking.
This association of the “Tridentine church” with “rules-obsession” and “regimentation” is a very tired and ignorant one indeed.
I have often pondered why men are repulsed by some churches and attracted to others. There are a lot of possible explanations, but here’s one I hadn’t considered.
Could it be that diving into the depths of theological niceties is (generally speaking) more of a male characteristic than a female?
The link I’m about to give is not for the easily offended, but this post touches on the topic (albeit in a roundabout way).
Should we add “intellectually pitiful sermons” and “superficial treatment of complicated issues” to the list of things that might offend men disproportionately more than they offend women?
“Intelligent people will tolerate that only for so long.”
Really?
You mean people like Joseph Ratzinger, Edith Stein, and gosh, I could go on and on for a long time but won’t.
What an incredible statement.
Thomas, let me remind you what prompted my comment, “Intelligent people will tolerate that for only so long”:
“…Catholicism focuses on obedience to a church authority that, more often than not, attempts to intimidate members into proper behavior through legalism (Index of Forbidden Books, mortal sin for missing mass, numerous rules and regulations concerning Lenten fasting) instead of encouraging members to develop and nurture their faith with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.”
How many people have left the Church because they are adults who are sick and tired of being treated like children?
An intelligent person isn’t solely one, like Ratzinger, who has great intellectual capacity. An intelligent person knows who he is, what he stands for and what he won’t tolerate.
This association of the “Tridentine church” with “rules-obsession” and “regimentation” is a very tired and ignorant one indeed.
Really, Calvin? Have you ever heard of the Index of Forbidden Books, the Inquisition, or the arcane rules about Lenten fasting that seem quite beside the point?
Granted, some of that was centuries ago, yet some of that was fairly recent (the Index wasn’t discontinued until 1966) and some of that still goes on.
Christ didn’t die so a bunch of latter-day Pharisees could lay extra burdens on the faithful, as many conservative Catholics seem to want to believe. Christ died to redeem from sin those who believe in Him and embrace His sacrifice as their own. He rose to destroy the death that accompanies sin.
“having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” — Col. 2:14
Seemed relevant to me, after reading JDH’s comments.
Well, Joseph, there is that little matter of the keys and the authority that they symbolize. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with having rules, is there? Especially if they are designed to help one grow spiritually? Find me a church that has no rules. I would love to see one.
Thomas, the question isn’t the existance of rules, per se, but the Church’s tendency to prefer collective control over individual moral responsibility. Go back to my second post on this thread (#3), the one concerning Catholics’ inability to internalize what they’ve been taught. Besides, having the “keys to the kingdom” does not justify “lording it over the people” the way secular rulers do. Read Matthew 20: 25-27. For that matter, read John 13: 1-13. Then compare the attitude that Christ wanted His disciples to manifest w/those manifested in the hierarchy for centures!
Finally, Thomas, even perfect adherence to a set of rules will not guarantee salvation. That is what St. Paul’s letter to the Romans is all about. Neither will church membership. Salvation is contingent only upon accepting Christ’s atoning death for human sin as one’s own atonement. Catholicism has successfully muddied the theological waters for centuries so that the power of its own leaders would not be threatened.
I agree, perfect adherence to rules won’t. That is different than saying the Church should not set any rules. And, you are right, no one should lord anything over others. That is a fault that is not exclusive to the Catholic hierarchy, nor even pervasive among them. Finally, I will disagree with you about what salvation involves but don’t want to get into a faith/works argument. Suffice to say that it is the Protestants who muddied the waters theologically. Since you are a Protestant, why do you read and post so much on Catholic matters?
Strictly speaking we aren’t saved by works or faith, we’re saved by grace. Until the later half of the middle ages, the general understanding Christians shared regarding salvation was neatly summarized by St. Paul in his letter to the Phillipians when he said “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God at work in you giving you the will and the power.” This is still the view of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
The word originally used for “faith” in the New Testament is perhaps best translated as “To trust in, to cling to, to rely upon.” With that definition in mind, I put my faith in a person, the Son of God, not simply in His atoning death, but rather in Him. Luther et al introduced very legal ideas about faith in relationship to Christ’s death, etc. as well as the nature of His atonement. They claimed to be “going back to the Scriptures”. Does it not seem rather odd that those who immediately followed the Apostles and actually spoke Koine Greek never saw what Luther and his fellow would be “reformers” did? Nor did the generations of Greek and Aramaic speaking Christians who followed.
I am not a pile of poop merely “covered by Christ’s merits” as Luther held. I have been made mystically part of Christ and have become a new creation. This is what the Church and all classical forms of Christianity ( Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Churches) hold and it is a much happier view of things than that proposed by the reformation.
Of course one has to concede that much depends on what strain of reformation/Protestant theology one follows. Is it free will Arminianism or Hyper-Calvinism? Is it Pentecostal or is it a brand that sees Pentecostalism as dangerous and even demonic? Etc., etc., etc…
Christ didn’t die so a bunch of latter-day Pharisees could lay extra burdens on the faithful…Christ died to redeem from sin those who believe in Him and embrace His sacrifice as their own. He rose to destroy the death that accompanies sin
Thomas, you said on a later thread that the Church preaches “Christ and Him crucified for our salvation.” Yet you criticize me as a Protestant for making the same claim in the excerpt above. Tell me what is so “Protestant” about that? Don’t all Christian churches believe that? If you say that my assertion is “Protestant,” then you are effectively contradicting yourself and denying Catholic teaching!
Moreover, I never said that “the Church should not set any rules.” I criticized “the Church’s tendency to prefer collective control over individual moral responsibility.”
You seem like an intelligent person, Thomas. Do you know how to read?
Father Michael, if the “classical forms of Christianity” hold a “much happier view of things than that proposed by the Reformation,” then why do so many believers in those “classical forms” fail or refuse to view themselves as redeemed sons and daughters? Why do clergymen in those “classical forms” fail to emphacize the believers’ status? Why do those same believers view Mary, the saints and even deceased loved ones as mediators to Christ when, according to St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, people can come to Christ directly (as they did during His earthly ministry), given His status as Heavenly High Priest?
Joseph, as you know, the clasical forms of Christianity became the cultural religions of entire peoples and nations. Thus many (most?) in those groups are Christians by inertia rather than conviction. However, I have found in each group many who take their faith seriously and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. These are the people for whom the Christian life has gone from black and white to color. In their lives ( and in the case of priests preaching) I see real joy.
The best in Protestantism is represented by people who seem to have a similairly personalized faith centered on Christ. They lack the gloomy view of Christianity promoted by Luther and Calvin. For example, Evangelicals in many ways trace back to the Wesley brothers who were Anglican priests and had no intention of leaving the Anglican Church. They believed in and defended infant baptism and the frequent reception of communion (they also defended the rights of workers, opposed slavery and expressed concern for animal suffering – you gotta love the Wesleys!). I would argue that the Wesleys brought to Protestantism a certain “Catholic” spirit that still can be found among many Evangelicals (that in Christ one really does become a new creation and is not simply the equivalent of a manure pile with a nice looking rug thrown over it, and that God really does want everyone to be saved and hasn’t predestined large numbers to damnation, etc.).
The Anabaptists who both Luther and Calvin persecuted also made some positive contributions to Protestantism with their views on discipleship and costly grace. Much of their heritage and influence informs Evangelicalism.
The lack of cheerfulness among many Catholics and Orthodox results from people not understanding their faith. Such a lack of cheerfulness among traditional Protestants might come from understanding their faith all too well. Evangelicals and Pentecostals are an exception, but represent a more recent (and as I have mentioned) Catholic influenced phenomenon.
Father Michael, It is my recollection that Luther taught “Justification by Faith” based on Genesis 15:6 and Galatians 3:6 where belief is reckoned to Abram as righteousness. I thought that I read online a few years ago that some committee of Lutherans and Roman Catholics had gotten together and decided that they really thought the same thing concerning justification and that there had been a big misunderstanding for the last 500 years.
That aside, both Luther and Calvin were convinced that they were terrible sinners. Luther tried all the contemporary confessions and penances until he drove himself crazy, and Calvin maintained that it was God’s grace and strength alone which had lifted him out of a sinfulness which Calvin was too weak to accomplish on his own. IMO, however, the contributions of these two men is that they recognized contemporary abuses in the Church. Luther first wrote to Albrecht the Archbishop of Mainz to ask him to exert some control over the monk, Tetzel. Albrecht did not do anything. So Luther took action and posted his theses. Forty years later the third session of the Council of Trent outlawed the sale of indulgences. Luther was in this case just ahead of his time. Calvin did think the Mass was idolatrous and particularly attacked the idea of the efficacy of relics. He wrote that there were enough splinters from the True Cross circulating around Europe to build a fleet of ships. Few people know that the US founding fathers read the Swiss Reformers and took their idea of checks and balances in church government and made it the basis for the separation of powers in the US Constitution.
Luther and the Swiss Reformers did not agree on the nature of the Eucharist. Luther said “I would rather drink Blood with the Pope than Wine with the Swiss.”
Luther has rightfully been criticized for first giving support to the peasants in their frequent rebellions against the aristocratic authorities of that time. Then Luther turned against the peasants and preached that they should be put down without mercy. What is usually not said is that it was also the opinion of the Catholic Bishops that the rebellion should be put down, but with mercy. Evidently none of them wanted upward mobility for the laboring classes; perhaps because the churchmen were of the upper classes and did not want to have to grow their own food.
Your reference to “a pile of poop” brought back memories to me of a RC friend who came to the US when I was a young adult. He told me that at Mass one time in his native Germany the priest began his homily with ” Du bist Scheisse.” I do not now remember the content of the homily, but I guess the preacher woke everyone up and maintained their attention.
Finally, I have to finish my brief lecture on Protestantism with a great quote from William Pitt the Elder. In a speech in the House of Commons in 1772 he said, “We have a Calvinistic creed, a popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy.” I guess that sums up the Anglican Communion.
Thomas, I think that you are out of order in chiding Joseph for posting on this blog. The title is a discussion of faith and culture and no where does it say for Catholics only. No one will learn anything that way. Joseph and I were on a previous blog where the Catholics told everyone who had left the Church that they were no longer members of the family and therefore had no right to express an opinion on Catholicism anymore. Then they called everyone who was upset about the sex abuse crisis “Donatist Heretics.” That was supposed to have been an ecumenical blog. Think about it. One cannot learn anything if one is unwilling to listen to criticism.
As far as I am concerned, I think that if you love God enough to keep the Ten Commandments and to work to heal the world (tikkun olam) by doing the corporal works of mercy that God will love you and save you from the eternal company of the damned aka Hell. It does not really matter what kind of liturgies you like. I do not know what this makes me. Perhaps I am a Christian Universalist. I wonder what my archbishop would say.
Joseph, I’ll not answer the rude question, but answer your other question this way: Christ did die for our salvation. The Protestant position is that acceptance of that is the only thing necessary for salvation. Furthermore, another frequnetly-held Protestant position is that saints are not intercessors, which is another position that you are apparently taking. Now you answer my question- if you are not Catholic, why are you so interest in this blog related to the Catholic Church?
Thomas, I would like to point out that Roman Catholics sometimes contribute to the blogs on the website, Christianity Today, which I have always thought was an Evangelical Protestant site. Some recently commented on Natural Family Planning with which, of course, they have some experience.
I have no problem believing in the intercession of the saints unless it gives rise to the idea that God is some kind of politician who will pay more attention to your cause if enough people write letters. Surely God pays equal attention to all of his children whether they have friends to pray for them or not.
My life long best friend is Roman Catholic, and in times of stress she prays for her parents to intercede on her behalf. We are certain of the saintliness of her parents. Recently she asked her parents intercession at the very difficult for us funeral of my mother. I appreciated that.
James 5:16.
Thomas, to make a long story short, I was baptized and raised in the Church and worshipped as a Catholic for the vast majority of my life. The rest is none of your damned business. I do not have to report to you nor to anyone else regarding the nature of my opinions nor the interest in this blog. If you don’t like my opinions, then defend your own like a man. Otherwise, (insert verb form of sexually explicit expletive here) off!
Thomas, the problem w/saints being intercessors in popular Catholic piety is that, for many Catholics, they obscure not only Christ’s intercessory responsibilities but also His tender, compassionate nature. Many Catholics believe that if they didn’t have the saints or Mary interceding for them, then they would have absolutely no status before Christ. Many Catholics view the saints and Mary much as if they were insiders who could “hook them up” with the divine. How does such an attitude compare with Christ’s, Who made Himself available to all who wanted to come to Him?
What I’m talking about isn’t necessarily theology but popular conventional wisdom that Church leaders either ignore or fail to address.
As far as salvation goes, I think you’re confusing salvation with sanctification. If Christ made salvation possible for us by atoning for human sin and redeeming those who come to Him, what can humanity do to add to that? That’s St. Paul’s fundamental thesis in his letter to the Romans. I’m surprised that, as a former Baptist, you don’t understand that.
Thanks Janice for your very polite and thoughtful (as well as informative) response.
Fr. Michael, I frankly do not understand much theology and just strive for historical accuracy. ( I majored in history.) Lately, on reminiscing, I am impressed at the accuracy of the history I was taught in sunday school in the late fifties and early sixties.
John Calvin left extensive writings which very few people have read, and the people who have read these them have managed to interpret them differently. Two Protestant PhD certified historians who have read Calvin have told me that his idea of predestination was that God knows his children so well that he knows by their lives and thoughts whether they will choose a saving belief in Him or not. Calvin could not get away from a belief in an Omniscient God. Indeed, there are people who do not believe in the omniscience of God, and I respect that, but I have not yet brought myself to that concept. It has been forty years since I read a biography of Calvin, and I am sure that there are current biographies which are based on more extensive research. I never got the impression that he was gloomy. He was a devoted family man who loved his wife and deeply grieved her death. In accordance with his wishes, he was buried in an unmarked grave, but I understand that because people want to make pilgrimages to his grave, the Geneva authorities have created a grave for him in the general area. I am sure he would be against that. I grew up in the United Presbyterian Church which is Calvinistic, and I can state that no one followed Calvin to the letter and no one considered his writings to be infallible.
It is my impression that people who try to reform others are never liked.
THIS is exciting…refreshing, encouraging.
I had despaired of ever hearing this (that it is Jesus to Whom our first love and loyalty belongs, to whom we bring the lost, for whom we live!) come from anyone in the Catholic church.
As a child of abuse (by a Catholic) I have followed the story for some time now, but was shocked to learn that the advocacy groups also support pansexual rights…this is like abusing the victims twice…or a surgeon not removing the cancer, but redistributing and giving it growth hormones.
Just because someone was wounded by a priest does not change Scripture and the Commandments or moral law or for that matter, CDC statistics and medical evidence that this lifestyle is unhealthy.
People who suffer deep wounds and betrayal like abuse suffer disorientation in their sense of self and identity…they are arrested in their emotional development…many facets of their (our) personality are in need of healing. Many of the victims also suffered family wounds which caused them to be vulnerable to the attentions and seduction of sexual predators.
Enough – I’m glad to find a place that still stands for Biblical Truth and evidence, facts, reality of sexual morals.
Dr. Podles, thank you for caring so much for Christ, His Church and your fellow human beings – to spend so much of your time, energy and money investigating the abuse and criminal assault/murder cases and writing your books.
May the Lord bless you for all you have done and still do.