Lapsed Catholics

Today in statistics:

Approximately one-third of those who say they were raised Catholic no longer describe themselves as Catholic; which means that roughly 10% of all Americans are former Catholics. Other surveys -- such as the General Social Surveys, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago since 1972 -- find that the Catholic share of the U.S. adult population has held fairly steady in recent decades, at around 25%. What this apparent stability obscures, however, is the large number of people who have left the Catholic Church. Losses have been partly offset by the number of people who have changed their affiliation to Catholicism but more importantly by the disproportionately high number of Catholics among immigrants to the U.S.

The emergence of new demographic groups to proclaim "vital" "swing" constituencies is vital to keeping America's political pundits employed, so I proclaim this A Good Thing.

Comments

I'm a lapsed Catholic who supports Obama. I know two other lapsed Catholics who also support him and are Democrats. That's three anecdotes. Now you have some data--run with it.

Posted by David | June 20, 2008 3:40 PM

Why does it seem like people only talk about "lapsed Catholics"? I never hear about "lapsed Mormons," or "lapsed Baptists," or "lapsed Muslims."

Posted by blah | June 20, 2008 3:43 PM

Blah:

Because Catholicism is both a religious and cultural institution--at least for a lot of people. So it informs many areas of identity--more than ones religious view. So for example people who went to Catholic school often still feel Catholic even if they no longer believe the tenets of the faith. In this way it is similiar, but not the same, to secular jews who still identify with judaism. On another level, certain nationalisms embrace Catholicism as part of the national identity which adds another complicating layer for some.

Posted by David | June 20, 2008 3:49 PM

I'm so glad we're finally getting the attention we so richly deserve. We lapsed Catholics have been a put-upon minority for too long, facing untold reprobation from practicing Catholics and the population at large for decades. We suffer!

I hereby declare myself worthy of special attention from political pundits.

(Actually, I'm exactly the sort of person David just described as the Catholic equivalent of a secular Jew.)

Posted by jhupp | June 20, 2008 3:53 PM

RC's used to talk about Baptism leaving an "indelible mark upon the soul". Once in, you couldn't get out. You'd still be a Catholic even though you might want to be something else. Hence "lapsed". Fallen. You weren't something else at base. Your new identity would be a mask or a role.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 20, 2008 3:54 PM

Blah,

When practicing Muslims or Mormons become 10% of the population, maybe we will.

Posted by jacobus | June 20, 2008 3:59 PM

Losses have been partly offset by the number of people who have changed their affiliation to Catholicism but more importantly by the disproportionately high number of Catholics among immigrants to the U.S.

The offset comes almost entirely from Catholic immigrants and their children. If it weren't for them, the Catholic Church in America would probably have collapsed in the same way it has in Europe over the past few decades. The number of adult converts to Catholicism is minuscule, which tells you something about how persuasive the Catholic Church's "arguments" for its teachings are.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 3:59 PM

Speaking as a lapsed Catholic, I think David is on the right track but there is one other quirk about the Catholic religion that makes the issue of "lapsed" come up. You are ask to "confirm your faith" at age about 12.

The idea of asking a 12-year old to make a lifelong decision on religion is absurd. I'm sure my name is on some list someplace as being Catholic simply because I couldn't have imagined saying "no" to my parents and the church at that age. I can guarantee you that if the age of confirmation had been 18, it would have been a different story.

The Jewish religion also has this concept with the Bar/Bat Mitzvah.

I'm not sure, but I don't think most religions have similar affirmation ceremonies at such a young age. And no, I don't consider baptism of babies to be an affirmation, though adult baptism obviously is.

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 4:01 PM

Mixner:

It depends on the context, compared to mainline denomonations such as Espicopalians, Catholics get a lot of converts, compared to Baptists and other evangelicals, Catholics get fewer. Also, in Europe, while attendance has fallen in Catholic areas, it is still much higher than Protestant areas. In Germany, the comparison is roughly 20% to 5%.

[Also, earlier, I didn't mean to keep Jews and Judaism lowercase. I was in a rush.]

Posted by David | June 20, 2008 4:06 PM

Anywho, for those who want to know two major things wrong with today's U.S. CatholicChurch, look no further than RogerMahony. Two LapsedCatholics on a radio station here call him the "PervertProtector", due to the steps he (and others of course) took to shield PedophilePriests.

And, he admitted to being misleading about an ImmigrationBill; he strongly supports IllegalImmigration, as do many others in the U.S. hierarchy.

In brief, parts of the U.S. hierarchy are corrupt: supporting bad PublicPolicy and using misleading arguments in order to fill their pews.

See also the quote from a CatholicPriest here:

" I tell the Mexicans when I am down in Mexico to keep on having children, and then to take back what we took from them: California, Texas, Arizona, and then to take the rest of the country as well."

Posted by TLB | June 20, 2008 4:07 PM

I can't help but notice that the study was conducted by the Pew Research Center. Presumably, the Prayer Rug Research Center conducts corresponding surveys of Muslims.

Posted by James Gary | June 20, 2008 4:15 PM

I've heard the Espicopalian religion described as Catholic-lite. All of the religion with none of the guilt.

As to TLB's comment, all you have to do is look up the previous and current popes' records on covering up sexual abuse to understand that the rot in the Catholic church is top down. The case of Father Maciel was particularly disgusting.

Sorry, but you can't be a figurehead for morality when you cover up crimes against children. And I don't think Jesus said much about sin vs. statutes of limitation. Disgusting.

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 4:23 PM

It depends on the context, compared to mainline denomonations such as Espicopalians, Catholics get a lot of converts,

Not terribly surprising considering that, because of all that immigration from "traditionally Catholic" countries, Catholics outnumber Episcopalians in America by around 15 to 1. And as even the church itself sometimes half-admits, most of the adult "conversions" to Catholicism have more to do with "family unification" (typically, one partner in a marriage "converts" to Catholicism to placate his Catholic spouse or the spouse's family) than with a genuine change of belief.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 4:28 PM

I'm looking for the stats right now, but I'm fairly certain the percentage converted to mainline protestant denominations is much higher than to Catholic. Also, just from personal observations as a New Hampshirite, Catholic churches have been closing frequently here in New England, whereas Baptist churches have been thriving as of late.

Posted by Sean | June 20, 2008 4:29 PM

I prefer the term "recovering Catholic."

Posted by Roddy McCorley | June 20, 2008 4:38 PM

Surely there must be a publicly available number telling us how many adults have converted to Catholicism in the past year. Pew claims that 2.6% of the adult population are converts to catholicism. That's a few million people right there; not an insignificant number, but I'm curious how it breaks down year-by-year.

Posted by Tyro | June 20, 2008 4:44 PM

"(Actually, I'm exactly the sort of person David just described as the Catholic equivalent of a secular Jew.)"
Posted by jhupp

I like to call myself ethnically Catholic. I don't believe in any of it but I take offense when they are ridiculed, except by other ethnic Catholics. Then it's funny.

I guess you can think of the Catholic Church in the US as this great engine for the creation of lapsed Catholics. Eventually, we'll outnumber them.

Posted by Njorl | June 20, 2008 4:49 PM

James Gary at 4:15 deserves a round of applause which he has not so far received.

ClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClapClap!

Posted by roac | June 20, 2008 5:04 PM

Since we're talking about terminology...

I think you're right, David, about the origins of the term 'lapsed catholic', and I can understand why the church uses it. I guess it's just from laziness that it's been adopted in the popular lexicon, but it's not an accurate term. What percentage of 'lapsed' catholics ever come back? (Would the term for that be 'relapse'?) I'd guess it's very low.

However, Roddy, I've always felt the term 'recovering catholic' to be needlessly insulting to people on both sides. To practicing catholics, the term is just a slap in the face - it implies that current catholics are somehow sick. As a former catholic, using that term implies that I'm a victim, that the church has done some kind of grievous harm to me (it hasn't), and worse, that I still define my identity in relationship to the church. 'Recovered catholic' might be better, but would still be insulting to the practicing. What's wrong with 'former catholic'? Works for me.

Posted by lackluster | June 20, 2008 5:23 PM

Given all that the Catholic Church has been through in the last 2,000 years, I think we are in pretty good shape. The Catholic Church is the greatest instrument of good in many places/countries (charity, schools, hospitals, etc.). We have 5 - 10 conversions every Easter in my parish of about 850 registered parishioners. I appreciate being part of a denomination that believes in something. I don't judge lapsed Catholics or anyone else as I don't know their experience or backgrounds. We will all be judged someday and it won't be here on earth so it is not my place to pass judgement. I do hope that lapsed Catholics don't focus on individual personalities that have driven them away from the Church as we are all the Church.

Posted by danceswithgoats | June 20, 2008 5:29 PM

Why does it seem like people only talk about "lapsed Catholics"? I never hear about "lapsed Mormons," or "lapsed Baptists," or "lapsed Muslims."

If you haven't heard of "lapsed Mormons" or "Jack Mormon", you probably don't live in the west.

Losses have been partly offset by the number of people who have changed their affiliation to Catholicism but more importantly by the disproportionately high number of Catholics among immigrants to the U.S.

I wonder how much birthrate affects the numbers. My lapsed-catholic folks had over a dozen siblings between them. Lapsed Catholics are probably going to be more likely to use birth control and have smaller families than praticing Catholics.

If Catholics have a ~50% higher birthrate than the level of total population growth, they should maintain the same percentage of the population.

Posted by ben | June 20, 2008 5:30 PM

lackluster,

I think most people who call themselves "recovering Catholics" use the term somewhat whimsically, but behind that they often seem to feel that they have been harmed by the church, especially the ones who endured a strict Catholic upbringing and were conditioned to feel guilty about their sexual or reproductive desires or activities. Then, of course, there is the whole issue of actual, physical child abuse by Catholic clergy, and the associated coverups and payoffs and negligence by church authorities. The range of people harmed by that scandal extends far beyond the direct victims of abuse themselves.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 5:47 PM

Given all that the Catholic Church has been through in the last 2,000 years, I think we are in pretty good shape.

If massive decline in most of the developed world outside the United States, and massive decline masked by immigration within the United States, constitutes being in "pretty good shape," then yes, you are.

If Catholics have a ~50% higher birthrate than the level of total population growth, they should maintain the same percentage of the population.

This is the Catholic-specific version of a broader argument sometimes made by apologists for religion. They note that fertility rates among religious people are higher than among the non-religious, to argue that the religious are "outbreeding" the non-religious and are therefore destined to remain the majority, and even to increase their majority over time. The basic problem with the argument is that, as the number of lapsed Catholics shows, children do not reliably inherit the religious beliefs of their parents. There are other, more powerful social forces at work shaping the religious character of the population than differential fertility rates, and those forces are making society increasingly secular.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 6:03 PM

WikiWacko had a spooge over this one, eh?

As a ladder-pulling bogtrotter, he's obviously much happier with the WhiteEthnicCatholic hierarchy, which is more bothered in covering up child abuse, than the dirty brown parish priests and parishioners.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 20, 2008 6:21 PM

If massive decline in most of the developed world outside the United States, and massive decline masked by immigration within the United States, constitutes being in "pretty good shape," then yes, you are.

Hey fuck you, pal, we got Tony Blair and the Supreme Court.

Posted by Sister Mary Ignatius Castrata | June 20, 2008 8:07 PM

Mary, get your bony ass back to the convent. There's floors need scrubbing.

Posted by Sister Dana Van Iquity of the Order of the Divine Severity | June 20, 2008 8:15 PM

I often feel a sort of ethnic solidarity with other Catholics, too. Just watch "Gangs of New York" if you want that good ol' us-vs-them feeling.

I'm still a believer but far from a model Catholic. There is no paucity of things to criticise the Church leadership over, but it still seems like a lot of the criticism the Church gets comes from people misunderstanding the Church's teachings. (Covering up for pedophiles, though? No excuse in the world for that; Mahony should be in prison.)

Posted by Adam Villani | June 20, 2008 8:54 PM

With kudos to SoCalJustice, I hope Andrea Corr is a lapsed Catholic.

She once went into confession and berated the priest over the Catholic Church's treatment of women until she had to stop because the priest felt bad.

I don't think wiggling your butt at 50,000 audience members is a mortal sin, but it's probably definitely considered a sin.

The Corrs- Live Lansdowne Road (Dublin)- So Young Surprise
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZfD7JbVPfU

Thank God for lapsed Catholics.

The Catholic Girl's Guide to Sex
http://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Girls-Guide-Sex/dp/0767913035

From Publishers Weekly:

If you can dig through the heavy sarcasm, there's some good information buried in The Catholic Girl's Guide to Sex, a very funny, brazen and irreverent guide by Melinda Anderson and Kathleen Murray. They lay out the Roman Catholic Church's position-uh, no pun intended-on birth control, chastity, reproduction, sex education and The Deed, which includes an "everything but" section detailing all manner of foreplay. Oh, and don't forget guilt, which features prominently throughout. The book is hilarious, aided by terrific cartoon illustrations by Alli Arnold and side items such as pop quizzes, "roving reporter" interviews with all kinds of Catholics and lists, lists, lists. One section explores the "pros and cons of a Catholic partner," helping readers choose between the "I Might Have a Calling" Catholic, the "Super Guido" Catholic, and the "A-Little-Too-Irish" Catholic. This book is sure to offend just about everybody and does so with style.

I think Andrea possibly fits the "A-Little-Too-Irish-Catholic" profile.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 20, 2008 11:33 PM

Thank goodness for the Catholic Church. If you were insulting Islam like this you would quickly find your head separated from your shoulders. As Catholics subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" and "render unto Ceasar" clause; your heads are safe.

I find that most people that attack the Catholic Church have a chip on their shoulders.

Posted by danceswithgoats | June 20, 2008 11:49 PM

goats,

You're pretty funny. For most of its existence the Catholic Church not only has not "rendered unto Caesar," it has done everything in its power to grab what is Caesar's for itself. It was only after the Reformation and the rise of the Enlightenment that the church relinquished its political power. Not because it chose to, but because it was forced to. The church never assented even nominally to the principle of separation of church and state until the Second Vatican Council, 40 years ago. And of course even now, in nations and on issues where it thinks it can still get away with it, the church still meddles deeply in political affairs.

Posted by Mixner | June 21, 2008 12:44 AM

Catholics in America tend to be more urban than Protestants, and urban/blue state/cosmopolitan areas in America tend to have better education standards and achievement than do rural, Protestant areas. Therefore Catholics are more likely at some point in their lives to get a more informed perspective of the world that tends to lead to critically examining things and perhaps even changing beliefs one grew up with, instead of uncritically adhering to arbitrary beliefs.

Also the increased diversity of urban areas perhaps make the idea that one's community's arbitrary beliefs are less certainly right.

Or, you could accept some superstitious, random rural Protestant explanation of it, i.e. that Catholics are just wicked.

Posted by Swan | June 21, 2008 1:08 AM

Episcopalians actually have lots of guilt feeling - Over racism, prejudice, unacknowledged affirmative action, etc.

re Catholic - people mean different things when they say "lapsed." Some people take that to mean no longer believing/practicing. Others take that to mean not going to Mass/Confession.

re cultural Catholic - that can mean deference to authority (think of Russert unwilling to question Cheney, but very much willing to grill Ron Paul, etc) But it can also mean urban, working class - or intellectually pugnacious (think Scalia)

Posted by Comment | June 21, 2008 2:41 AM

Re: If you were insulting Islam like this you would quickly find your head separated from your shoulders.

Islam is routinely insulted in this and many other forums, and no doubt in real life conversation too.

Re: Therefore Catholics are more likely at some point in their lives to get a more informed perspective of the world that tends to lead to critically examining things and perhaps even changing beliefs one grew up with, instead of uncritically adhering to arbitrary beliefs.

Switching religions (including dropping out altogether) is very common in America. Protestants are hardly immune to it.

Posted by JonF | June 21, 2008 7:58 AM

It was only after the Reformation and the rise of the Enlightenment that the church relinquished its political power.

This process goes back to at least Charlemagne. There were ebbs and flows over the centuries, to be sure. But the notion that the Church "relinquished is political power only after the Reformation" is just plain inaccurate.

The church never assented even nominally to the principle of separation of church and state until the Second Vatican Council, 40 years ago.

False. Consider sticking to subway bashing. As Aquinas wrote in the thirteenth century:

Both powers originate in God. Therefore the secular power is subordinate to the spiritual power in matters that concern the salvation of souls. In matters that concern more the civil common good, a person is obliged to obey the secular rather than the spiritual power.

And of course even now, in nations and on issues where it thinks it can still get away with it, the church still meddles deeply in political affairs.

Speaking out on the great moral issues of the day -- what you refer to as "meddling" -- is something the Catholic Church has always done, and will always do.

Posted by Father Guido Sarducci | June 21, 2008 12:19 PM

"This is the Catholic-specific version of a broader argument sometimes made by apologists for religion. They note that fertility rates among religious people are higher than among the non-religious, to argue that the religious are "outbreeding" the non-religious and are therefore destined to remain the majority, and even to increase their majority over time. The basic problem with the argument is that, as the number of lapsed Catholics shows, children do not reliably inherit the religious beliefs of their parents. There are other, more powerful social forces at work shaping the religious character of the population than differential fertility rates, and those forces are making society increasingly secular.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 6:03 PM"

Good point. About 20% of younger people today self-identify of non-religious. The American religious group with the highest retention rate, Hindus at 84%, are a relatively smaller group. As much as religious conservatives hate to admit it, greater secularization is often part of the integration process.

Posted by Reality Man | June 21, 2008 2:34 PM

Father Guido,

This process goes back to at least Charlemagne. There were ebbs and flows over the centuries, to be sure. But the notion that the Church "relinquished is political power only after the Reformation" is just plain inaccurate.

No it isn't. Whatever "ebbs and flows" there were, the Catholic Church held vast political power in Europe until it was systematically stripped of that power following the Reformation and the Enlightenment.

False. Consider sticking to subway bashing.

It is not false. Consider sticking to doing altar boys. The teachings of the Catholic Church are not described in what Aquinas wrote in the thirteenth century. They are laid down in the Catechism, papal encyclicals and other official church documents. As I said, those teachings did not even nominally assent to the principle of separation until Vatican II.

I know apologists for the Catholic Church would like to rewrite history and pretend that the blood-soaked, power-crazed record of that religion never actually happened, but you're not going to get away with it.

Posted by Mixner | June 21, 2008 2:40 PM

"If you were insulting Islam like this you would quickly find your head separated from your shoulders. As Catholics subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" and "render unto Ceasar" clause; your heads are safe."

Does this moron even recognize the word "Inquisition"?

The current Pope used to be head of the Inquisition. Oh, yeah, they renamed it in the late 19th century, but it's the same fucking office.

The Vatican should be nuked in my opinion - except that would probably harm some innocent Italians.

By the way, anybody remember the tranvestite Pope?

Anybody who takes that religion seriously (including Andrea Corr) needs some education in its actual history.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 21, 2008 8:36 PM

Re: As I said, those teachings did not even nominally assent to the principle of separation until Vatican II.

Mixner,
Church and state were separate entities all through Western history (and ditto in eastern European history). There were some local instances where, due to an accident of history, secular power was held by a church official*-- the Papal States were the major instance of this. But even in these cases civil and ecclesial governance was carried on by different offices. Now it is true that church and state meddled enormously in each other affairs: kings appointing bishops, popes decreeing interdicts an the like, but there was never the sort of identity between church and state that you would find in, say, medieval Islam, or Confucian China.

* This happened as recently as the 1970s: the presiding archbishop of the Cypriote Orthodox Church was also president of the country. And of course we still have Vatican City.

Posted by JonF | June 22, 2008 8:00 AM

In all these comments, no one has posed the question which immediately came to my mind. "Why are so many catholics immigrating to the US?"
Historically immigrants are among the poorest, least empowered, and most discriminated against.
My guess, as a catholic, lapsed/former/recovering etc. is that our mother church's doctrine of suffering in this world to prepare us for glory in the next has made us ripe for subjugation and manipulation at the hands of governments everywhere.
timd

Posted by tim devitt | June 22, 2008 3:44 PM

In all these comments, no one has posed the question which immediately came to my mind. "Why are so many catholics immigrating to the US?"

Because our immigration policies have the effect of favoring immigrants from Mexico and countries in Latin and South America, where most of the population is Catholic. If our policies favored, say, India or China or southeast Asia instead, then very many fewer of our immigrants would be Catholic.

Posted by Mixner | June 22, 2008 3:53 PM