The results, summarized by Cathy Lynn Grossman at USAToday:
• So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity ... does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.
• Catholic strongholds in New England and the Midwest have faded as immigrants, retirees and young job-seekers have moved to the Sun Belt. While bishops from the Midwest to Massachusetts close down or consolidate historic parishes, those in the South are scrambling to serve increasing numbers of worshipers.
• Baptists, 15.8% of those surveyed, are down from 19.3% in 1990. Mainline Protestant denominations, once socially dominant, have seen sharp declines: The percentage of Methodists, for example, dropped from 8% to 5%.
• The percentage of those who choose a generic label, calling themselves simply Christian, Protestant, non-denominational, evangelical or "born again," was 14.2%, about the same as in 1990.
• Jewish numbers showed a steady decline, from 1.8% in 1990 to 1.2% today. The percentage of Muslims, while still slim, has doubled, from 0.3% to 0.6%. Analysts within both groups suggest those numbers understate the groups' populations.
Two points of interest - first, with the Catholics in particular.
Grossman gives a good bit of attention -which not all religion reporters do - to the demographic shift in Catholicism. That is - New England and Rust Belt Catholicism is in decline, but Catholicism in the South and Southwest is exploding:
In Mount Pleasant, S.C., a suburb of Charleston, "everyone from Ohio is here," says Msgr. James Carter, pastor of Christ Our King Catholic Church. The church has grown so big so fast that it has spun off another parish and a mission church, and it plans outdoor split-shift services for Easter to accommodate about 2,500 families.
South Carolina also exemplifies the Protestant faiths' shrinking share of the national religion "pie." The state has more Catholics (10%, up from 6% in 1990) and the percentage of Nones has more than tripled, from 3% to 10%. The share of Protestants is 73%, down from 88% in 1990.
Still, the total numbers of Catholics declined, and the rate of decline would be far greater were it not for the impact of immigration. We really need to admit that as a Church. This is RCIA season - with the Rite of Election (not a secret ceremony!) just passed, and with lots of folks around the country preparing to enter the Church at Easter..Look at all of 'em ...we say...what a great job we're doing!
Well, it is great...but before we crow, we should do a survey of our won. Talk to your neighbors...your kids' friends' families...co-workers...how many of them are non-practicing Catholics or former Catholics?
Lots.
Secondly...the increase in the number of "Nones" - the general trend of disaffiliation with institutional religion...what's the deal with that?
Perhaps one of the best ways to answer this is to take yourself back a couple of days, if you are a church-goer, and imagine yourself in the midst of your own church service or simply hanging around.
Now think:
Why would someone want to be here?
Why would someone come?
Is there any obvious, clear relationship between the spiritual hunger 21st people live with, in the weird context of 21st century post-Modernism...or post-post-Modernism (I tend to lose track) and what is immediately evident in your religious institution?
Sure, it is a two-way street. 21st century people in the West have a tendency to be rather confused in terms of said spiritual hungers. They feel them, they may even acknowledge them, but their (our) sense of what will fill that hunger is hindered by sin (as it always has been) and by the peculiarities of our entertainment-driven culture.
Churches
scramble and fall all over themselves trying to figure this out. Do
people want more doctrine and liturgy? Or less? Do they want lots of
programming and community or to simply have their needs met in
solitude? Does a set of strong expectations draw people or push them
away?
It seems to me the growth of the "None"category is all about a few salient points:
1) Mobility
2) Distrust (often deserved) of religious authority
3) The clubbiness of religious groups
4) A sense, in a generally prosperous society (despite recent troubles) that religion is not really necessary - it does not add anything life-changing to the mix, my life is what it is with or without religion...and I'm really busy anyway.
What do you think?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Frank,
Never trust the press to summarize what the pope is saying. The whole talk is here:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061019_convegno-verona_en.html
Here is the quote with more context:
From this solicitude for the human person and his formation comes our "no" to weak and deviant forms of love and to the counterfeiting of freedom, seen also in the reduction of reason to only what is calculable or manipulatable. In truth, these "nos" are rather "yeses" to authentic love, to the reality of man as he has been created by God.
So he is not saying love is deviant so much as saying some things called love are not authentic. He does not say that every time a same-sex attracted person feels love and attraction towards somebody that it is not authentic. He is simply pointing that saying "yes" to a high form of love involves saying "no" to lower forms. So if we say "yes" to a notion of marriage that is life-long, faithful, and open to children then we say "no" to any notion of marriage that is less than that.
So a same-sex attracted person who feels love must understand that such love cannot lead to authentic sex and marriage. If you try and express this love that way it has become deviant. But it is more the expression that is deviant and not the love itself.
It's quite clear, to this ex-Catholic, that a church that protects rapists and pedophiles and excoriates faithfully committed monogamous gay couples with spittle-flecked sermons of hate (we've heard them), fails in judgment. A church that views women as wombs to be used and subservient to male dominance doesn't speak to a new generation where women expect to have equal opportunities. A church built on what increasingly is seen as misogynistic, homophobic authoritarianism and petty legalism has lost its relevance to the youth of a modern western society.
THe story of Christ is one that challenges authority, and he was killed for blasphemy and sedition. He hung out with lepers and women. Where do you think a modern Christ would be? I suspect he would be horrified at what is done in his name.
THe Roman Catholic tradition will endure. But it will be a smaller, meaner church. Good luck with that.
Anyone who believes that the failings of the modern Church are unique to our time has no knowledge of history. Even the pedophile scandal is not something unique to modern times. Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado is not the first religious movement leader to have been found to have lead a less than holy life in the 2000 year history of the Church.
The problem with the modern Church, in my view, is that in the 1960s when society was falling apart the world need a strong Church rooted in Catholic theology and Tradition. Instead it got a Church where the traditions of the past were banished overnight, with predictable results.
As G.K. Chesterton said, "An imbecile habit has arisen in modern times of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some dogma we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth (or twenty-first--TerryC.) You might as well say that a certain philosophy can be believed on Mondays, but cannot be believe on Tuesdays."
So if it was wrong for a "monogamous" gay "couple" to commit acts of sin in the twelfth century it is immoral also in the twenty-first. If a woman should be treated with respect, by both her husband and society at lodge, in the twelfth century, then so should she be in the twenty-first. Far from treating woman as wombs the Church treats them as reflections of Christ, unlike pornographers who treat them as sex objects and abortionists who do treat them as wombs.
Anyone who has attended a World Youth Day or a Steubenville Youth Conference would argue against the fact that the Church and Christ do not appeal to modern youth.
Christ did not challenge authority. He told his disciples to do what the Temple elders told them in following the law, but not to follow the elders example, which was not to follow the law they themselves taught. He told his followers to rend to Caesar that which was Caesar's, that is to respect the civil authority, which at that time was Rome, except where it contradicted their responsibility to God.
Christ hung out with sinners. He performed many miracles, which healed people's bodies, but more he healed their souls, and his words to them were almost always the same. "Your sins are healed. Go AND SIN NO MORE!" He did not accept their immortal actions as mortal. He saw past their immortal actions and called them to morality.
I expect the near future Church will be smaller. It will be orthodox and full of true charity. That which looks to eternal truth, which is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.
Farther out, as the members of the society of death fail to create a sustainable population, aborting or contracepting their children, engaging in sterile homosexual liaisons, rejecting marriage and family, I see the Church blossoming as Christ predicted until all nations call Jesus Lord.
I thing the Church will do very well.
Randy,
The interpretation you're claiming is inconsistent with Benedict's actions for the past 23 years. He's authored letters demanding that any right offered to a married couple has t be denied to domestic partners. That includes the rights to make medical decisions for a partner and to visit a partner in intensive care. The Pope has a history of attacking even chaste expressions of same sex love and of supporting such attacks by Catholic legislators. This pope not only micromanages hierarchy and clergy but also Catholic politicians. When a Catholic legislator in Virginia succeeded in passing a law that made it illegal for members of the same sex to make contracts approximating any of the responsibilities of marriage, the Pope could and should have threatened that legislator for acting contrary to the Catechism in imposing clearly unjust discrimination. In fact the Pope sees no particular form of discrimination against gays as unjust and is only willing to legitimize as many forms as he can.
The proclamation that homosexual orientation is disorder inherently attacks same-sex love and its chaste expression. Sexuality encompasses both sexual attraction and a capability of romantic love for a member of the same sex. To say it's only about a desire to have sex with a member of the opposite sex is simply a lie.
ESC wrote on March 10, 2009 8:03 PM
What do I think?
Most parishes have everyone go through the entire RCIA program -- catechumens and candidates alike. For candidates who have spent their entire lives as active members of other Christian churches and have extensive knowledge about the Bible (if they're Baptists having memorized quite a bit of it!), the journey should be easier. In other cases, candidates have spent years attending Mass with a Catholic relative and seen that children went to CCD. As I understand it, the Catechism states that the two groups, candidates and catechumens should not be treated the same and I think it also says that candidates should enter the Church at some time other than the Easter Vigil Mass. I have heard of some parishes that do treat the two groups differently, but that is rare.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree with ESC that the cookie-cutter approach to RCIA does not one any favors.
My husband and I celebrated the fifth anniversary of our reception into the Church last October, the 27th Sunday of Ordinary Time. We had presented ourselves as "Candidates to be candidates,” and after meeting with our Pastoral Associate, were able to be received 3 weeks after the Rite of Welcome.
We were willing to go through the entire year of RICA in obedience if needed, just as were willing to accept a new set of music/worship wars, etc. I am very grateful that we were able to be received into a Parish that recognized the level of self-catechesis we had undertaken in our 15-year journey to Rome. We had both been Bible college students, many year (me lifelong) active church members, 20+ year Sunday school teachers, etc. We had prepared, recognized that there was no longer any reason to wait, and we were ready.
Our Parish was able to accept and put us to use right away, taking advantage of our undampened enthusiasm. My husband, who was actually tasked with teaching the class on our last night of RCIA, is now part of the Parish RCIA team. We lead a small group Bible study in our home, with enthusiastic young adults who are hungry for the opportunity to learn more of the Word.
Not everyone is joiner -- it's been well said in this thread. Nevertheless, when people present and express an interest, we have to find ways to encourage them in their journeys [back] into the Church.