Latinos as well as many Catholics in general are leaving the Catholic Church for evangelical Protestantism, namely non-denominational churches. This has been going on for about 50 years, especially in once predominantly Central and South America.
Why do they leave? Because they are proselytized by Protestants who denigrate Catholic teaching.
How does that happen? Because of Vatican II. Vatican II opened the Church to Protestantism, other faiths, no faiths and the world. Pope Francis dances with paganism. All of this undermines Catholicism as the true Church with a fixed liturgy.
Did this happen in the pre-Vatican II Church? No. Was there proselytizing in the pre-Vatican II Church? Yes.
Did Latinos leave the pre-Vatican II Mass and system of Sacraments in droves? No! It is the post-Vatican II Church they reject and of course, with encouragement.
As it regards a caring Church, which today Latinos think Protestants are, prior to Vatican II there were nuns and brothers galore to reach out to the laity with a variety of ministries, specially Catholic education. Today, that is left up to the laity who multi task with their own families and it isn’t the same as it was prior to the Council.
Read the rest here:
WHY MANY LATINOS ARE CHOOSING TO BECOME PROTESTANT
From Axios: The percentage of Latinos who identify as Protestant — evangelical and other Christian faiths — is expected to grow from
22 comments:
"How does that happen? Because of Vatican II. Vatican II opened the Church to Protestantism, other faiths, no faiths and the world. Pope Francis dances with paganism. All of this undermines Catholicism as the true Church with a fixed liturgy."
The shallowness of such a claim is astounding even for you, Fr. ALLAN McDonald. It, as they say, boggles the mind...
Because it's easy, it's what you want it to be and in many instances, they tell you what you want to hear. It's like the perfect fulfillment of what was desired immediately after the reforms.
Is it thought, Fr. MJK? True, social and moral shift have had a very negative impact on the Church. But, at the same time, didn't the Church help along the negative outcome that it has and continues to experience? Data, sources, etc. weren't cited, but, can we not look simply at weekly attendance (let's take off the table population shift, particularly from the Northeast) and say, something is amiss?
Byz - I think your understanding is largely correct. A church that "tickles the ears" of its members, telling them what they want to hear, is, in many cases, quite attractive in an age when radical individualism and self-fulfillment are the driving values of human culture.
These cultural forces are not the result of anything said by or done since Vatican Two in our Church. Rather, they represent societal/cultural shifts that have been evolving for, probably, 3 generations in the West and, more recently in South American and African societies.
Along with being "easy" in presenting the Gospel, some groups claim they can offer easy healing for physical ailments, easy cash in the bank, and easy entry into heaven. Just accept Jesus as "personal Lord and Savior" and you've done all that's required.
“Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate…Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.” –Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship
"But, at the same time, didn't the Church help along the negative outcome that it has and continues to experience?"
How do you suggest the Church helped?
Yes, something is amiss, but I contend that what is amiss has been drastic changes in cultural and societal values, not the language used in the mass or the direction the priest faces when celebrating.
Father McDonald said..."Pope Francis dances with paganism."
Wow! That is an unbelievable charge to have leveled against the Vicar of Christ.
How has Pope Francis danced with paganism?
Mark Thomas
Like what Father K said , Easy presenting of the Gospel, I think people go protestant because they want a good lesson from the preacher. It's pretty much a bible study and lecture, plus adults spend an hour in Sunday school before the service. The homilies at Mass are short and half of Mass is Liturgy which doesn't satisfy them. They may not have a good understanding of the Mass and the real presence and the spirituality that goes with it but I get the sense they don't care about that. They want to know more about they bible and how to understand it. I don't know if there could be a 45 minute lecture on Sundays to satisfy Catholics who are not interested in Mass or "Sunday School" for adults led by team leaders and not priests. Maybe this will give people what they want and lead them to more deeper understanding of the Church and Spirituality.
Fr. MJK,
I agree with you in principle however, I would counter that the changes themselves laid the framework for an eventual migration that continues to this day.
Example: In a small city in Pennsylvania where my mother is from, there were at one point 15 Catholic Churches: 2 Byzantine, 1 Ukrainian, the remainder Roman - mostly personal parishes. Over the last 22 years, that number has been reduced by half despite the population of the city increasing to a level not enjoyed since the 1970's and it is projected to increase to about a 1940s level in about 10 years. The increase will be mostly, however not exclusively, comprised of Hispanic persons. Since 2020, it is the single largest population increase in the Commonwealth. One would think that the result of this would be Roman churches bursting at the seams - the ones that remain open. Quite to the contrary, one city parish has become more Hispanic yet unintegrated, the others remain about the way they were with a few minor exceptions (e.g. adding a Spanish mass). Mind you, some of the closed parishes were small and had just became unsustainable despite their charm. The others were/are larger with my ancestral Slovak Roman parish always having a rivalry with the parish on the other side of the city regarding size.
What is noticeable in this city is how many of the former protestant churches have become Hispanic Evangelical, or Pentecostal. Included in that population is a once thriving Polish Roman Catholic Church that the diocese consolidated with my ancestral parish under the guise of structural issues, and a very well kept former German Catholic parish of a similar physical size that was consolidated with other city parishes, not ours.
See Part II. I hit some character limit.
Fr. MJK, Part II as I hit some character limit.
So, and to me, this begs the following questions: What is it that these Evangelical/Pentecostal Churches are doing that is such a draw? Also, what is the Roman Diocese and/or the parishes within potentially NOT doing that is causing so many to fall away where, arguably, there should be standing room only. This microcosm of the modern Catholic Church is just so telling in how it illustrates that for many, they aren't getting what they perceive their needs to be from the Roman Church.
Perhaps the Roman parishes aren't 'dynamic' enough (the presbyterate is stretched in ways that are likely unfamiliar down south)?? Perhaps the attention to personal needs that vary from one group to another isn't sufficient? Note: I don't think the white diocesan establishment has been overly successful tending to the needs of groups different from themselves. This is known. Also, Hispanics in the U.S. haven't been overly receptive to vocations though it is not like we are without - there simply aren't enough to meet the demand, even where hemmoraging. Last, where the Roman Church relied on the mass, its traditional celebration and the administration of the sacraments to willing participants to sustain itself, that has changed such that the church is relying on the mass, the sacraments and traditional-looking elements that make it remain recognizable. Do I think a return to the TLM will solve this problem? Absolutely not - at least not in the microcosm I described above. I do think the "reform" as it was intended to have been implemented, as opposed to how it actually was implemented, would have softened the blow - by no means do I think this alone would have reduced, or eliminated the challenges of today, however.
I appreciate your points and, mostly agree if that matters, however, I think the Church also has to bear some part of the responsibility for the collapse. If the Church goes about refocusing on the Eucharist (whatever it's to be called) the way they went about the recent synodal process, one can expect nothing more than stacks of glossy pamphlets, the "regulars" showing up for exposition, perhaps a really "cringe" hymn to be written and likely nothing else. I'm just being realistic.
The first step toward solving a problem is admitting you have one. Would that the Church just accept that something is wrong already. Pride and perhaps lingering enthusiasm for the VII movement that is increasingly in the rear view mirror will likely interfere. My $0.02. Thank you for considering my ramble.
By Pre Vatican II, I don’t mean just the Mass, but the culture of the pre Vatican Church with its rich variety of popular, culture based devotions, strict and communal ascetical practices, nuns galore in schools, hospitals and social services/charitable outreach. A ethnic parishes that were a rich fabric of a local community, not independent of it. And we were right and the true Church and for the most part Catholics needed to avoid Protestants and other religions as well as the world. That all is gone and it does not matter if you are a Catholic or Protestant or a none.
While the usual suspects continue their petty bickering over the same dead horses they've kicked before, I would like to address the last bit in this post, which really deserves a post of its own.
SHIA LE BEOUF (Did I spell it right?) converts? We are long overdue for a badly behaved celebrity to embrace the faith! What is even more intriguing is the vehicle that led him there--this whole thing is filled with contradictions of great interest:
He is playing Padre Pio in a film directed by--seriously?--ABEL FERRARA!
If you've never watched some of Ferrara's other films (King of New York, Bad Lieutenant, The Funeral) they are NOT for the faint of heart! Ferrar (half Jew, half Italian Catholic) always has prominent Catholic images in his films, but they often are rather salty (a nun being raped in church for example). The language in his films is beyond obscene as well. Yet Ferrara has moved to Rome and rehabbed himself from his drug addiction and seems to be headed for a new leaf.
And La Beouf? A lot of this involves Bishop Barron--a man who has no love for the Traditional Mass--yet La Beouf insists that the Traditional Mass is a major part of his conversion? I guess he just wasn't into Kumbaya and cupcakes.
Do we really want rigid celebrity Pelagians joining our Church that is open to all things?
Well, I do.
While the usual suspects continue their petty bickering over the same dead horses they've kicked before, I would like to address the last bit in this post, which really deserves a post of its own.
SHIA LE BEOUF (Did I spell it right?) converts? We are long overdue for a badly behaved celebrity to embrace the faith! What is even more intriguing is the vehicle that led him there--this whole thing is filled with contradictions of great interest:
He is playing Padre Pio in a film directed by--seriously?--ABEL FERRARA!
If you've never watched some of Ferrara's other films (King of New York, Bad Lieutenant, The Funeral) they are NOT for the faint of heart! Ferrar (half Jew, half Italian Catholic) always has prominent Catholic images in his films, but they often are rather salty (a nun being raped in church for example). The language in his films is beyond obscene as well. Yet Ferrara has moved to Rome and rehabbed himself from his drug addiction and seems to be headed for a new leaf.
And La Beouf? A lot of this involves Bishop Barron--a man who has no love for the Traditional Mass--yet La Beouf insists that the Traditional Mass is a major part of his conversion? I guess he just wasn't into Kumbaya and cupcakes.
Do we really want rigid celebrity Pelagians joining our Church that is open to all things?
Well, I do.
Jerome Merwick Here.
Why is this listing me as "unknown"?
I have no idea. You may have to enter it again.
"What is it that these Evangelical/Pentecostal Churches are doing that is such a draw?"
I think we - you and I, nothing "royal" - answered that above. They make fewer demands, such as no strict marriage/remarriage expectations, they choose leaders who, while having a certificate from a "Bible College," have little or no understanding of doctrine or the history of Christianity or, for that matter, biblical interpretation, and they appeal to the emotional side of some folks as is exceedingly common in American culture today.
Which leads me to: "...they aren't getting what they perceive their needs to be from the Roman Church." The confusion between needs and wants is discussed everywhere these days as it is a serious concern. People want a church that invites them to discover "What A Friend We Have in Jesus," not that they are "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." They want a Church that tells them at funerals, "You loved one is suffering no more and has been carried by the hands of angels to the bosom of Abraham where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt," not, "We must pray for your loved one, that he/she may be found worthy to be granted a place at the heavenly banquet table." They want a church that says "Show up on those Sundays when you've nothing better to do," not "Keep Holy the Sabbath Day."
More comimg...
Jerome Merwick,
Curiously, am I among the population of "usual suspects"?
Your points are interesting, however, I glossed over the associated stories in the media as I don't pay much attention to celebrities and their actions/inactions/opinions. I'm not being snarky, I just mostly ignore them. As for Shia La Beouf (apologies if misspelled), welcome to the flock and I hope he gets from it that which he is hoping for.
Separately, if I am among the elect, I hope you would reconsider my points as real-world and current. I've described a perfect microcosm of the Church today in the U.S. existing in a very compact 6 square mile area. Just about every strata relative to class, race, ethnicity etc. is represented. It's mostly traditional as many here would hope for, but, at the same time it's not having embraced reforms etc. somewhat enthusiastically when presented +50 years ago and has existed peacefully with those reforms to this day. The TLM will not solve the challenges the Church faces in totality there. This microcosm is too removed from the stylization a relative few are seeking. Ethnic customs and devotions of Italians, Slavic peoples and Hispanics are still observed though I'm unaware of any great observances regarding shared devotions like Corpus Christi or 40 hours. Somehow, however, the Church isn't outright thriving, it's just surviving and surviving probably better than many places. The thriving part, to me, requires examination in an attempt to understand rejection, indifference, apathy, or the drive to seek alternatives. The shortage of clergy is likely exacerbating the problem while the majority of the laity are perhaps too busy with surviving lift to have time to devote to filling the gaps.
To me, my example is as real as it gets in your average U.S. diocese excluding the myriad of issues that accompanies the mass migration of people.
FRMJK, the very points you make are true. However, we attempted and still attempt to be like non-denominationals with our music and hospitality and social outreach/charitable giving and they still don't like it because the non denominationals do their type of "liturgy" meaning music better than we ever will and their music is the sacrament and for the most part non participative--it is a rock concert of religious music or secular music with religious words.
Now why would Latinos brought up in the Vatican II Church prefer the non-denominational approach to worship which we have tried to imitate and do so horribly? Because they see no difference other than they do it better!
To me it comes down to lack of fervor. Current divine worship does not tug at the heart strings, it just seems like a routine with everyone lining up for the communion reward near the end. How you fix that without alienating those who don't want stylization on one end, or, hyper emotionalism on the other will be the challenge.
As John Nolan has written, he describes the modern Mass as “linear and didactic”. I wish he would go into details about that and how the TLM or Eastern Rites are not. Those two things do not aid what liturgy things do not aid what historically liturgy is and the commonality between the TLM and the East,
As an Easterner, I'm going to try to speak to your request. If I'm missing the mark, John Nolan will perhaps kindly clarify that which he is referencing.
Isn't all liturgy, in part, didactic? Aren't we, during divine worship and at a minimum, restating our beliefs and, therefore, reminding ourselves of the tenets of our faith and teaching those not yet uninitiated? The Nicene Creed, what some would term 'needless repetition' in the East which serves to constantly remind us that our faith is trinitarian, the Canon, certainly, the Anaphora (equiv. of the Canon) is dense with restating how we as a body of believers came to gather regularly to commemorate the sacrifice at Calvary.
The difference between the TLM, Divine Liturgy and the Novus Ordo? Choreography/theatre/drama...whatever you want to call it, or, the lack thereof. When you remove, particularly the musical component and the gestures (bowing/genuflecting/crossing oneself), what is left besides the teaching worshipers who mostly sit passively? The Church building. Our priest regularly refers to the iconostas, particular icons hanging within and other elements of the church building when teaching/offering his reflection. Why? Because the building is a critical component of our liturgy (particularly the iconostas) being rich with theological elements intended to uplift, teach and elevate our worship. When you look at the Cathedral Ecce Homo in Colombia, the subject of a recent posting of yours, what is being taught in that space? It's so devoid of Christological elements aside from the crucifix, the altar table that is somewhat lost and the prominent chair that one could conclude that the episcopacy and the importance of the local occupant of the chair is what is truly important.
A typical NO mass, perhaps having 4 hymns with the remainder being spoken, perhaps softly, would be disturbing perhaps horrifying to your average Easterner if you tried to replicate it with precision there. While the Ukrainian Catholics, to a fault, have what some might term "low mass" the stylization/choreography and theology of the building remains intact making it a less jarring experience.
Churches such as ours which historically employed stylized divine worship cannot suddenly remove most of those elements and not have something entirely different. In other words, you cannot have it both ways.
"...we attempted and still attempt to be like non-denominationals with our music and hospitality and social outreach/charitable giving...
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - There is nothing particularly non-denominational about our music or our hospitality or our social outreach/charitable giving..." These are, and always have been, essential parts of Catholic polity. I think we recognized that, in terms of hospitality, many other faiths were doing it better than we were, so our practice evolved to bring it up to snuff.
"...the non denominationals do their type of "liturgy" meaning music better than we ever will and their music is the sacrament and for the most part non participative--it is a rock concert of religious music or secular music with religious words."
I don't agree that non-denom music is better than ours will ever be. It might be louder or flashier or have a beat you can dance to, but it is hardly better. I agree that the music in many of these churches is nonparticipatory and concert-like, and that's not a thing we should emulate. If that's what draws people in, then the problem is with what they want, not with what we offer.
"Now why would Latinos brought up in the Vatican II Church prefer the non-denominational approach to worship which we have tried to imitate and do so horribly?"
Byz and I have answered this above. We don't give them what they want. They want to hear that divorce and remarriage is just fine, that you can skip church on Sundays if you like, that fast and abstinence aren't a "thing," that a person with a bare minimum of formla preparation can be a "pastor," etc...
Yet priests that vote for a Party which worships abortion should be listened to?
Post a Comment