"Dead" Catholics and "stupid" Protestants

A family member was in a serious relationship with a young evangelical. As a gesture of good will, my RC family accepted this family's invitation to their Sunday services. It was a true eye opener - I felt like I had been transported to an alternate universe. The Baptist preacher spent one hour giving a sermon on how evil Catholics were, using the delightful phrase "whore of babylon" over and over again. He used as proof of his contentions descriptions of Catholic theology and liturgical practice that never existed - total fabrications. The congregation responded to these poisonous remarks with "amens" and much head nodding. As we all sat there, the family who invited us had these smug expressions on their faces and we later discovered they knew this would be the sermon topic. This mind boggling event did not occur in the south - but in a northeastern state. Prior to this event I had thought such extreme bigotry and resentment had long ago ended - clearly I was wrong.

I agree many people, among them Catholics, do not really understand all the varieties of evangelical faith and often have inaccurate ideas. But there is a world of difference between thinking evangelical worship is about "entertainment" and having one's preacher condemn Catholics as evil and characterize the Church as the "whore of babylon".

Rod - how come my post is being held for approval?

[Cecelia -- I didn't know it was, until you posted this. As I keep saying, I am rarely informed that the Captcha software has held something you all have posted. Please e-mail me to let me know if this happens to you. Often if you put a link into a post, it will catch it in the spam bucket -- but the software only occasionally tells me that it's holding a post. I can't go in and free it up unless y'all let me know. -- Rod.

It seems to me that the great exodus from Catholics to Evangelical churches began in the 1970s, as that’s when my own spiritual odyssey began, when I was a child. My parents were involved in the Catholic Charismatic movement and shifting to Pentecostalism from that context was sort of natural. Why did they leave? I do think it was for the worship style, though the word “style” is inadequate.

In the wake of Vatican II, traditional devotional practices fell out of favor or just out of practice. Stuff like the Charismatic movement rose up in their place. Charismatic worship was intense and yes, at times emotional. We do need the involvement of our emotions in our devotional life to some minimal extent, some of us more than others. Also, the Charismatic style of worship is social and can create strong bonds between people. This filled a void when the Catholic ethnic urban neighborhoods disappeared in the great population shift to the suburbs. But in the 1970s, when the Charismatic movement was new, local parish authorities could be very suspicious of it. In more than one case, newly-liberal pastors were looking to liberate themselves from the old oppressive strictures, but in their insecurity merely reproduced those very same controlling frameworks when it came to dealing with Charismatic Catholics. (This is not so much the case today, when the movement has gotten quite powerful and has needed a fair amount of legitimate correctives in some cases.)

So, the style of worship filled a) a social void in the new suburban landscape and b) a spiritual void created by the collapse of traditional devotional practices. A third factor that should be considered is many in that generation (born in the 1930s and 40s) had a strong moral formation, but much of this formation was instilled by fear. When the culture around them lost the fear of hell, the people in this generation either went ahead, lost their fear as well (with all the attendant consequences), or retreated into cultural redoubts. Since many R.C. parishes in the suburbs went along with the dominant cultural trends, the RCC stopped being that sort of shelter from the culture. People were originally attracted to the Evangelical and Pentecostal churches because they were MORE, not less, strict. They were demanding in the way the RCC had been, but no longer was.

I don’t know if this is the same situation today. But I do think there are more people around who have either been through a long spiritual journey of this sort, or whose parents or grandparents have. I think it is too simplistic to explain the attraction to these churches in terms of entertainment. They fill a need. Even though they’re big, they’re also big on small groups. It’s not so easy to hide.

Conversely, when my parents left the RCC, nobody noticed, other than the people in their prayer group. My father was a lector and my mother a CCD instructor. If their departure wasn’t noticed by the pastor, whose would have been?

It seems the RCC is now learning from these mistakes, but as in everything else, change happens slowly.

It all depends on how you define "entertainment." Some prefer Orthodox or Catholic liturgical music or chant (while frequently surrounded by engaging art). And Mozart's Masses are regularly played in symphony halls (along with a lot of other Masses) and the people aren't there for a religious service.

Slowly it dawned upon us all. The "entertainment" thesis reflected our Catholic insider judgements about what must have motivated them. But none of us had ever heard an actual, living former Catholic use that language.

This is a specific example of the general case that I suggested a few posts ago - perhaps it is the case that most people do not react to what others think, but rather what they believe others think.

In my youth the most anti-Catholicism I encountered emanated from the Orthodox especially the Greek. It almost came to the point that my friends and I wanted the Turks to drive the Greeks from Cyprus, land both countries were claiming. I had no part in the Rape of Constantinople or the Fourth Crusade or did I know of anyone who was engaged in those activities, yet the Greek Orthodox are trained to paint themselves as eternal victims. The other Orthodox groups as the Russian or Antiochian were less contentious but the Greeks were unbearable . That is why I refuse to say Constantinople but refer to the city as Istanbul

Most Catholics I know who leave the church remain "Unchurched"

yes, "entertainment" is not the issue.

I think this issue relates more to MTD.
(that good old Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.)

it's really about personal preferences of different forms of Therapy.
the discussion is centered around the Therapy known as Christianity.

it's individual choice as to what variation of Therapy.
some like the ancient form(s) of Therapy.
some prefer the newer form(s) of Therapy.

calling it "entertainment" demeans the Spiritual Value of all these forms of Therapy.

choice faith hope love joy peace to all...
may you be uplifted by the imaginary Divine Therapist.

It really depends on the megachurch. I learned to seriously study the bible, the languages and the cultures of the bible at a mega-church. I was far more challenged intellectually and spiritually at the mega-church I attended for a number of years than I ever was in the Catholic Church. It was expected that you would read scripture regularly, make an effort to remember it and allow your faith to touch every single part of your life at that church. This simply wasn't the case when I was a Catholic. Perhaps if you were willing to put in the time to study yourself, but it wasn't at all the normal culture of the Catholic faith I grew up with. So, from my experience, the Catholic church tended to depend on superstition, habit and passivity to keep people going in the faith. (Not saying that this is at all a fair assessment of the faith, just that it was my particular experience). OTOH, the mega church I attended pushed engagement and study, not entertainment, as the means by which people engaged in their faith. I actually attended a mega church that did a lot of the entertainment stuff as well, but that was no more the core of why people stayed than Catholics go to mass because of the candles.

Appalachian Prof and Sig speak strong truths that the Bishops would do well to hear. I add the following after 30 adult years of heavy ministerial involvement in the Catholic Church.

99% of Catholics couldn't tell an Evangelical from a Lutheran, from a Pentecostal, from a Methodist, from a Dog Catcher. After almost fifty years of mayhem, of do-it-yourself Catholicism, they don't even know their own faith. So I would take any assertions that those who leave are looking for entertainment with a large box of kosher salt. Besides, the liturgies since the 1960's, with their "see spot run" translations and lyrics have more approximated the Gong Show, than anything approaching a re-presentation of Jesus' sacrificial death.

Sig is right. She still gets her monthly offering envelopes in the mail, yet no pastor has bothered to show up at her door to inquire as to why he hasn't seen her, her husband, or son. That's dereliction of duty. However, it does lead to the central issue as to why Catholics leave.

They seek community, not of the Cheers type where everybody knows your name (which would be an improvement in most Catholic parishes), but genuine membership and participation in a community of faith. The denigration that they can't take the rigors of Catholicism simply are not true.

Most people who leave the Church (Sig and App Prof. obviously don't apply here) did not know their dogma, their catechism, their scriptures; nor did they participate in the life of the parish all that much. Perhaps they throw a dollar or two into the collection basket. Once in their new community, they are tithing 10% of their gross salaries, participating fully in the work of the church, going to Bible study, and accepting pretty much whatever the dogma of the denomination is. These aren't lazy people. They are people whose communal and spiritual needs were simply not being met. Dogma takes a back seat.

Me says as much in the post above,

"It really depends on the megachurch. I learned to seriously study the bible, the languages and the cultures of the bible at a mega-church. I was far more challenged intellectually and spiritually at the mega-church I attended for a number of years than I ever was in the Catholic Church. It was expected that you would read scripture regularly, make an effort to remember it and allow your faith to touch every single part of your life at that church. This simply wasn't the case when I was a Catholic. Perhaps if you were willing to put in the time to study yourself, but it wasn't at all the normal culture of the Catholic faith I grew up with. "

Ironically, it is Evangelical Presbyterian converts such as Dr. Scott Hahn ( scotthahn.com) of Franciscan University of Steubenville who are leading a revival of scriptural exegesis in the Church. Much of our clergy were taught the historical critical method of exegesis that has a hermeneutic of doubt at its beginning. This has the horrific effect of turning highly motivated young seminarians into priests who doubt everything. Dr. Hahn is beginning to turn that around.

Those who left the Catholic Church have done her a huge favor in giving her a wake-up call. It's a shame that they also happen to be some of the very best members whose leaving is squarely the fault of the clergy. I wish them well.

I second the Mighty Favog.

No "novus ordo" Latin Rite Catholic has any right to sneer at mega church evangelicals. Our culture is a degraded mess. Not only that, Hans Kung and the Orthodox have some pretty good points that undermine our ecclesiology pretty well.. Papal supremacy and absolutism is pretty much a load of crap. We can plug our ears and chant Cardinal Newman's thesis on the development of doctrine until we go blue, but nothing's ever gonna reconcile the Spirit of Vatican II with Pio Nono's anathemas. Read the the Syllabus of Errors against Lumen Gentium and tell me it all makes sense.

Hah. Baloney.

I abortively converted to Orthodoxy. I did it two years before Rod. The two Orthodox parishes I was involved in, one OCA the other Antiochian, rocked the house. The thing was that 9/10's of both congregations were evangelical protestant converts. Like Frankie Schaffer, most of them were very high test. Fanatics for the liturgy, full of astute observations about "western rationalism."

I can't tell you how many discussions I've had about how crappy evangelical culture is, or how Saint Gregory of Palamas presents a fundamental critique of the Western soul..

Orthodoxy is ontologically a different religion than Western Christianity. Or hadn't you heard?

The problem is that like Rod, I never stopped believing in Our Lady of Fatima. Not only that, I know in my marrow that Catholic sacraments are valid. I would die before I deny that.

On top of that, it's pretty clear when you read Acts that the Orthodox need to resort to something akin to Newman to justify their development of a "gentile" priesthood and Eucharistic theology... We're ironically in the same boat, all of us. Most Orthos just refuse to see that. Especially American prot converts.

Not only that, but all this blather about St. Thomas Aquinas being a heretic got pretty old, pretty quick. The "corruption" of Christianity with pagan Greek thought is at the root. It's all Plato and Plotinus from the start.. Adding Aristotle merely adds a touch of zest..

Besides, the "filoque" is orthodox. See John 15:26.

Anyway, despite all this, if I had children I would never subject them to your typical American Latin Rite parish. The culture- both liturgically and catechetically - is simply too flaccid.

Mocking the evangelicals for being superficial and "stupid" is mere motes and beams

So, I completely understand and empathize with what Rod and his family have done. If I ever marry and have children, I may end up in the back in the same place.

At the very least, I'll probably end up taking my kids to a Byzantine Rite or Anglican use parish.

Until then, or until I get exhausted, I'll fight my solitary & quixotic struggle for the soul of the Roman Rite..

Something that if the Orthodox were truly Catholic, Rod, they'd be interested in doing, too.. Athanasius didn't get all hoity toity with the Arians, he simply took back the Church.

But the Greekas and Slavs love them their Schism. Too bad.. 'Cause the Pope really needs your help..

It's time to bury ridiculous myths and recognize that Catholics and Protestants are BROTHERS AND SISTERS who share almost 99% of the same values. We all believe in Jesus and try to follow Him. It's ridiculous to be fighting about the 1% of disagreement, particularly when we are surrounded by powerful and evil forces trying to destroy us and our values.

Our common enemies include Islamic extremists who believe we should all be converted or killed, and people who seek to control the U.S., people like George Soros.

Soros, an enemy of Catholics and Christians in general, as well as en enemy of the U.S., has invested billions to manipulate and confuse Catholics to sell them anti-Catholic ideas and candidates.

Soros invested billions to support Obama’s campaign, funding “Catholic” groups, for example, the Catholic Left, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Catholics United and Catholics for Choice (the pro-abortion group that has twice been condemned as a fraud by Catholic bishops).

Those organizations funded by Soros worked hard to make Obama seem almost pro-life on abortion and then to push the Obamacare SCAM as a “Christian” bill.

We Catholics and Protestants need to unite to defend ourselves, our children and our values from destructive lies, manipulation and influence. We need to realize that U.S. enemies like Soros are advancing and promoting evil not only in the U.S. but all over the world.

I just basically want to say a hearty "Amen" to Sherry's thoughts and to most of what Gerard Nadal said, as a former Roman Catholic now Presbyterian. Except, not to toot my own horn, I would include myself in a list of people who left the Roman Catholic Church who DID know their doctrine well.

Just another reminder to be careful of how you (and I mean the collective you, not just Rod) characterize Protestants/Evangelicals. Those terms are not synonymous. In fact, as time goes on I become more and more unsure of what "Evangelicals" actually are, it is such a nebulous term. The choices are not simply limited to Catholic or non-liturgical megachurch, with nothing in between.

I was guilty of unfounded prejudices and dismissal of Protestants when I was a faithful Catholic, totally out of pure ignorance and a lack of interest in being corrected.

The level of Catholic prejudice against Evangelicals (and Protestants in general) is staggering. On the one hand, a Pope who is the ideological successor of John Paul II encourages dissatsified Anglicans to come into the Church. On the other, this Pope's immediate predecessor condemns missionary activity by Evangelicals and Charismatics in South America as "soul stealing." Praytell, what is the difference, other than the nature of the targeted parties and the "predators" (for lack of a better term)?

I would love to see Rome enter into dialogue with Evangelicals as enthusiastically as it does with Muslims. Unfortunately, old habits and traditions die hard -- regardless of what Christ said about them.