The Catholic Church’s American downfall: Why its demographic crisis is great news for the country

[trotsky]

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/21/the_catholic_churchs_american_downfall_why_its_demographic_crisis_is_great_news_for_the_country/

The big news out of the new Pew poll on Americans and religion was the precipitous drop in the number of Americans calling themselves “Christian” and its potential impact on the Christian Right and future religion itself in the U.S.

But there’s another number lurking in the poll that may prove just as consequential: there are 3 million fewer people calling themselves Catholic today than in 2007, the last time Pew conducted their extensive poll. As a result, the share of the U.S. population that identifies as Catholic dropped from approximately 24 percent to 21 percent.

Why is this such big news? Because despite unpopular popes and still-simmering pedophilia scandals, the percentage of Catholics in the U.S. has remained remarkably steady for decades. The relative stability of the Catholic population allowed many on the Catholic right to dismiss calls for reform in the church and gave the Catholic bishops political clout when it came to opposing things like no-cost contraception in the Affordable Care Act in the name of “Catholics.”

But now it appears that the Catholic Church is in a demographic free-fall, as it sheds adherents faster than any faith other than the mainline Protestant denominations, which have been in decline for decades. Nearly one-third of all American adults were raised Catholic, but a stunning 41 percent—four in ten of those who marched to the alter in their little white First Communion dresses and suits—no longer identify with Catholicism.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. #winning

[Warren Stupidity]

2. I'm praying these trends continue. nt.

[Binkie The Clown]

3. this --->

As Charles Blow notes, the unaffiliated are wildly underrepresented politically and if they

“are to make their presence felt in terms of more representation, it will most likely come on the Democratic side.”

In which case, Catholics will have literally voted with their feet, abandoning the religion of their birth to help create a new coalition of modern freethinkers and freelancers that can oppose many of the very policies their old leaders insist on clinging to and insist will be their salvation.

[trotsky]

5. Agreed, these are all very positive trends!

Anything to drag bigoted religions and their followers kicking and screaming into the 21st century...

[rug]

4. You left out the important part, trotsky.

The significance is not that the size of the American RCC is currently shrinking - slightly - but that the bishops are losing - slightly - the political clout they once had, and which they never should have had in the first place.

But now, with their flock fleeing and Pope Francis espousing a more conciliatory form of Catholicism less focused on the pelvic zone, the U.S. bishops don’t look so powerful.

(I hope the mention of Francis as a contributing factor didn't cause you to break out in hives.)

My bet is you simply want to see the RCC evaporate, all politics aside.

[Trajan]

52. If I may say. ..

The elimination of superstition is a worthy goal ...

[rug]

53. I will only say two things. 1) With superstition comes many cultural values.

2) Religion is not superstition.

[Trajan]

58. You're right ...

Well actually, you might have said too much ...

When I hope that mankind will continue to advance in some manner, and leave his brutish past behind, there will of course be someone who wishes to preserve the old ways, perhaps ignoring the fact that headhunting and human sacrifice may have also been a 'cultural value' ..

But hey ... I will say no more ...

[rug]

68. Human sacrifice was conducted on pyramids built with great skill and geometric knowledge.

Humanity is not binary.

I will say no more either.

[Yorktown]

74. Religion matches the definition of superstition

I will only say two things. 1) With superstition comes many cultural values. 2) Religion is not superstition.

The dictionary says religion is one form of superstition.

superstition
/ˌsuːpəˈstɪʃ.(.ə.)n,ˌsjuː-/
noun
a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences

synonyms: unfounded belief, credulity; More: magic, sorcery, witchcraft; fallacy, delusion, illusion
antonyms: science

a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences?

Matches religion to a T

[rug]

75. The key word that emphasizes the difference is "irrational".

Of course, you first need to understand what rational is before tossing around irrational.

[Yorktown]

85. Show me belief in Jeezus or muhamad is rational.

[rug]

86. Show me it's irrational. it's your claim.

Try to do it withot the inapt material evidence memo.

[Yorktown]

87. it's irrational to believe in something that can not be shown or demonstrated

There is no reason to believe in leprechauns, virgin births, teapots orbiting Mars, a 7th century merchant flying from Mecca to Medina on a winged horse, elephant headed gods or mermaids.

There is no demonstrable difference between religion and mythology.
But the assumption the two are of the same ilk is reasonable.

Superstition is a widely held but irrational belief in supernatural influences.
Believing a 7th century merchant flew from Mecca to Medina on a winged horse is a widely held but irrational belief in a supernatural event.

Unless Pegasus is considered a natural phenomenon on Earth, of course.

[rug]

88. That's simply the hoary material evidence for the immaterial argument.

What it boils down to is nothing exists that is not material. Simple materialism. Stale beans.

[Yorktown]

89. You would have to show why to believe in anything 'immaterial'

Yes, absence of evidence of X is not evidence of absence of X.

But to suggest X exists despite absence of evidence is just that, a claim by one or more people.

As long as that claim has no evidence, there is no difference between religion and superstition.

Back to your initial statement.

[rug]

90. You completely miss the point.

The test for a god is not evidentiary. You cannot test the immaterial by material means.

[Yorktown]

91. Who says god is immaterial?

Tell us more about its (non) physical properties.

[rug]

92. As soon as you tell me who us is.

[Yorktown]

93. As if you did not know.

You are posting on a thread of which I am not the sole reader. Us = the general readership.

You make pronouncements of such a general nature they would be wasted on just humble me.

Like:

The test for a god is not evidentiary. You cannot test the immaterial by material means.

I like that definitiveness in your tone "The test for a god is not evidentiary."

Looks as if you could define what a 'test' for a 'god' could be. Hence my question.

Having defined 'us', I suppose I can hope for an answer about god's physical properties?

[rug]

94. Ditto.

Note the material attributes of YHWH.

[Yorktown]

95. Still waiting for you to explain your sentences

The test for a god is not evidentiary.

How do you know? Based on what knowledge of yours about god?

You cannot test the immaterial by material means.

Define what your immaterial is?

[rug]

96. Note the material attributes of YHWH.

I'll wait.

[Yorktown]

97. You are not an exam jury. Answer my questions first, I'll answer yours.

I asked my questions before yours about the YHWH superstition.

It is the custom in discussions to answer questions in the order they were asked.

[rug]

98. Lol, we're not playing doctor. I'll show mine in due course.

That is your answer. If it has no material attributes, there will be no material test.

[Yorktown]

99. I already asked you, how do you know 'god' has no physical attributes?

And how do you suppose something with no physical attributes can create a universe?

And grant wishes in the material realm? Sorry, prayers. Miraculous remissions of illnesses?


No material test = are you saying prayers are useless?

Come to think of it, your 'no material test' is a de facto admission god is imaginary.

[rug]

100. Because one with attribute has limitations and therefore is neither infinite nor supernatural.

Your problem is that the concept is philosophical and you're using a microscope instead of your brain.

The "no material test" simply shows that your understanding of the concept is imaginary, if not nonexistent.

[Yorktown]

102. Philosophy was an umbrella word which lost many branches over time

As human knowledge expands, it branches into specialised disciplines. Which leave 'Philosophy'.

A philosopher, Revel, wrote a very good book arguing that philosophy was finished.
Revel, Jean-François (1958). Pourquoi les philosophes ?. (awarded Fénéon Prize)
In it, he argues philosophy has outlived its foundational goal = to give rise to Science.

What is left of 'philosophers' now is word acrobats like William Lane Craig. Not a pretty sight.

With or without a microscope.

[rug]

104. Not only do you not understand the concept of God, you don't understand what philosophy is.

[Yorktown]

105. LOL explain both then.

Just give me one sec, I'll put some popcorn in the microwave.

[rug]

106. I suggest you start reading first.

[Yorktown]

107. Dontcha you no worry 'bout me reedin'

I do plenty of that.

[rug]

108. Subreddits don't count.

[Yorktown]

109. Damn. A shame, really.

[Arugula Latte]

101. Superstition and religion are synonymous. nt

[Yorktown]

103. Yup. Unless someone can come up with a demonstrable difference.

The only ones who can show their religion is NOT a superstition is my Church of the Holy Spaghetti Monster.

We can prove that pasta exists, and is good.

[PoutrageFatigue]

6. "slightly"

"a stunning 41 percent—four in ten of those who marched to the alter in their little white First Communion dresses and suits—no longer identify with Catholicism." = "slightly"

[trotsky]

7. Uh oh.

I suppose that means it hit a nerve with someone, huh?

[rug]

8. Are you more interested in the elimination of Catholicism than in political influence?

And yes, slightly.



Six percent to be precise.

Sorry, poutrage, there are still 51 million Catholics

(smiley omitted, because I'm not twelve.)

[PoutrageFatigue]

9. 4 in 10 = slightly

I am interested in both.
As the article points out that number is in decline.
So how old are you when you use them, or does that weak-ass insult only apply in one direction?

[rug]

12. You should post the source of that stat because it really doesn't match the chart.

Oh, and my age has nothing to do with my use of smileys. I tend to use smileys when I'm dealing with someone intellectually or emotionally immature.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. " (smiley omitted, because I'm not twelve.)" - interesting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. The source is the Pew poll

Both the mainline and historically black Protestant traditions have lost more members than they have gained through religious switching, but within Christianity the greatest net losses, by far, have been experienced by Catholics. Nearly one-third of American adults (31.7%) say they were raised Catholic. Among that group, fully 41% no longer identify with Catholicism. This means that 12.9% of American adults are former Catholics, while just 2% of U.S. adults have converted to Catholicism from another religious tradition. No other religious group in the survey has such a lopsided ratio of losses to gains.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

[rug]

17. It's also the source for a six percent decline.

[Jim__]

33. Why do you say a 6% decline?

The OP article calls it a 3% decline:

But there’s another number lurking in the poll that may prove just as consequential: there are 3 million fewer people calling themselves Catholic today than in 2007, the last time Pew conducted their extensive poll. As a result, the share of the U.S. population that identifies as Catholic dropped from approximately 24 percent to 21 percent.

And that's supported by the graph here:



The popuation of the US increased from about 301 million in 2007 to about 319 million in 2014. The percentages don't match to the numbers in the 2014 survey; but I assume those percentages are based on the adult population. Using your number of 50.9 million Catholics being 21% of the population, the adult population would be about 242 million.


ETA: I get it. You're talking about a 6% decline in the number of adult Catholics rather than a 6% decline as a proportion of the US population.

[edhopper]

34. I don't see this in the poll

but I believe Latin American immigrants are largely Catholic. This might account for the smaller decline in Catholic population than the loss of church members might show.
Catholics leave the church, but are somewhat offset by people coming into the country.

[Jim__]

35. The OP article talks about it a little bit.

It also links to a set of graphs- here.

[rug]

38. Is my math off?

The graph I put up goes from 54.3 to 50.9, as raw numbers.

[Jim__]

48. No. Did you see the ETA at the end of my post?

You're talking about the change in the total percentage of Catholics. I was talking about the change in the percentage of Catholics as a proportion of the US population.

[rug]

49. Thanks.

[phil89]

57. But you continually

lie to support the RCC. Is that mature?

[rug]

69. If you mean my reflexive knee jerks have declined, unlike yours, yes, then that is mature.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. I see no reason to believe you are not twelve.

[rug]

13. Then you should brush up on reason.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. why?

[rug]

18. You're not Socrates either.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. Well you accidentally got something right.

[rug]

23. Better than yor usual deliberately getting things wrong.

[Lordquinton]

36. you really are.

[rug]

37. Are what, quinton?

[Lordquinton]

43. oh rug, you know. nt

[rug]

46. No, I don't know what thoughts inhabit your skull. Do tell.

[Cartoonist]

10. I am proud to say

That I was one of those suited children who were forced to receive communion but who now calls himself an atheist.

[rug]

19. What force was used?

[Cartoonist]

20. never being given a choice

You better believe that was forced. It was that or the strap.

[rug]

21. What other choices did you lose at age seven?

[Cartoonist]

24. A lot of minor stuff

But that big one was important. Kids shouldn't be forced to kneel.

[Lordquinton]

55. i think you lost your minor stuff when you turned 18

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Minimize, deflect, dismiss. Classic rug. Anything for the church.

[rug]

27. Oh get over yourself.

If you want to bash religion without questioning, you know where to go to for consolation and cheerleading.

As it is, nothing should be accepted at face value

[NeoGreen]

31. Wait a minute...

...

...nothing should be accepted at face value

Would the logical corollary to this statement be that "things" should only be "accepted" with evidence?

If so, whence comes faith?

[rug]

39. No, because evidence is applicable only to things that can be seen, measured or sensually perceived.

That is, evidence in the scientific or general sense.

Metaphysics, from which theology derives, is something else entirely.

[truebrit71]

28. Ask the thousands of children raped by catholic priests about

... the choices they lost...

[rug]

40. Be my guest to approach rape victims to support your anti-religious agenda.

It's rather telling that you equate a First Communion with rape.

[truebrit71]

41. Interesting that your pro-catholic church agenda is to continue...

...to deflect when confronted with the horrors that your church has visited upon the most innocent...

Rather telling indeed...

[rug]

42. Not nearly as telling as using rape as a prop.

[truebrit71]

44. Or you continuing to deflect...

...

[rug]

45. The post was about Communion. You took it upon yourself to inject rape.

In your eagerness to deflect you forgot what you were doing.

[truebrit71]

47. No, the post was in response to your question "Which other choices did you lose at age seven?'

In your eagerness to deflect, you forgot to read the correct post...

Poor rug....

[rug]

50. Naturally, rape was one of the choices in your mind.

[truebrit71]

51. Naturally, afterall, we were talking about the catholic church...

...you know, the institution that for DECADES knowingly aided and abetted child-rapists...

You have heard about this, right? It's been in the papers and everything....

[rug]

56. Next time I mention the Cathedral of Notre Dame,

I'll expect you to leap out of the bushes and start talking about rape.

Bigotry of any type eventually reduces the bigot to a world of shadow and light and nothing in between.

[truebrit71]

61. And the apologist with nothing but continued deflections...

...

[rug]

67. The only deflection in this thread is coming from your keyboard.

[truebrit71]

71. ..... he said as he deflected again....

....

[Arugula Latte]

26. Good news indeed, when repressive rightwing institutions start to show major cracks.

Uh, cracks like in a foundation, not a plumber ...

[Flying Squirrel]

29. Who proofreads this stuff?

It's altar, not alter.

[trotsky]

30. Spellcheck is good enough,right?

[HockeyMom]

32. Going through motions to please older generation

I basically did that with my own kids. Personally, did not believe/care after I reached adulthood. You might say that my kids got the message that I really was only doing so to please my older relatives.

Well, today they are adults themselves. Their older generation (me and husband) don't care so they have nobody to "please" but themselves. My Grandson is not being baptized at all. As my daughter said, "If he decides when he is an adult that he wants to join a church, he can get baptized himself then". I agree with that.

[guillaumeb]

54. I missed the part about "why" this is great news for the country.

Also missed it in the link.


And the Christian right, and the right in general, will continue to exercise an outsized influence in US politics until younger people start to engage in politics. Religion is not to blame for the Democrats becoming another corporate party like the GOP, where politicians from both parties are bought and sold in the marketplace.

[trotsky]

59. Because it means the influence of the church (i.e., its leaders) will wane.

Less political force to oppose reproductive rights, LGBTQ equality, etc.

That's great news, isn't it?

[guillaumeb]

60. The influence of the institutional church may wane,

but lunatics like the Pastor from the Stedfast Baptist Church in Waco will always find a way to preach the gospel of hate and intolerance.

If this trend continues over the long term you may be correct that more progressive political ideas will prevail. But I also remember that the USSR and China were non-religious.

[Humanist_Activist]

62. So, without religion, we turn communist?

Oh, by all the cursed gods, not that fucking tired, bigoted, and shortsighted argument.

[guillaumeb]

63. I said nothing of the sort.

But thank you for "helping" me make an argument.

should I respond that without religion we turn rude, and use your post as an example?

[Humanist_Activist]

64. I'm sorry, I find tact wasted on those who specialize in dishonest rhetoric and argument.

What was the point in mentioning the USSR and China?

Why not Sweden or Denmark? Would they not be better examples?

[guillaumeb]

65. Let us use all 4 as examples

and conclude that people can be many things whether they are religious or not.

The point in mentioning the USSR and China was to emphasize that faith, or lack thereof, is no predictor of behavior. There are bad people of faith, and good people of faith. Same for non-believers.

But if the point of the post is to point out that a decline in religious belief is a good thing, is it unreasonable to ask why?

As to Denmark, are we talking about the tolerant people in Denmark or the racist, fascist ones?

As to Sweden, check this post, and response #21
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026713990

[Humanist_Activist]

66. But non-believers don't point to atheism as a moral system, religious believers do do so...

when it comes to their religious beliefs.

In principle, I agree with you, people's morals and/or ethics are, ideally, not shaped by their religion, their religious beliefs are shaped by their ethics/morality.

[guillaumeb]

70. And I must agree with you

I would also add that no belief system is an accurate predictor of behavior.

(I thought that the post about Sweden was interesting, and brought it up because it shows how racism can be a problem even in very otherwise enlightened countries. )

Ultimately, people should be nice to each other without needing religion as a reason. I am a person of faith, but I "do unto others" because it simply makes sense.

Have a nice night.

[Humanist_Activist]

72. I will argue that the Catholic Church's loss of influence is a positive thing, case in point...

Ireland. First country in the world that just recognized same-sex marriage by popular vote through referendum, and not by a slight margin either.

[guillaumeb]

73. That vote was amazing.

Now abortion must also be addressed by the Irish people.

[Arugula Latte]

76. Hell yeah. That was a HUGE "fuck off" to the RCC.

Good news indeed!

It's a new age, and it's looking like it will be much less religious (at least in most western countries). Hooray!

[rug]

78. How many active Catholics do you figure voted to legalize?

[Humanist_Activist]

79. Plenty, in fact, I would say the majority, and that's the point, the Church is losing its....

institutional and political influence over its laity. This can only be a good thing.

[rug]

81. If they're active, the institution is fine.

The institution being the Mass, the sacraments and the myriad other religious things it does.

The vote shows that Catholics are not following the hierarchy's advice on politics, because it has no authority on politics.

Which is as it should be.

[Arugula Latte]

80. Oh, probably a lot. And they realize they don't need to take the dogma seriously

because it is homophobic, misogynistic bullshit. The church's patriarchal, anti-gay, anti-women power is slipping. Too bad for you.

[rug]

82. Do you think active Catholics who voted to legalize are complicit in homophobic bigotry?

Take your time.

[Arugula Latte]

83. I'm talking about the Grand Poohbahs -- WonderPope, bishops, cardinals, priests --

their power is slipping and they are probably rending their garments because they can no longer make the brainwashed masses cower before the grandeur and majesty of their robes and giant penis hats.

[rug]

84. And the answer to the qestion is . . . . ?

[malokvale77]

77. From my personal experience...

I moved into this neighborhood 40+ years ago. The majority here were Catholic (the copper steeple looms over). Many more were Baptist (a couple blocks away). The rest were like me, unaffiliated or atheist.

A lot of the Catholics are now Seventh-day Adventists, Lutherans or atheists. The Baptists have moved on to grander pastures. The rest of us just wish they would all STFU.

I am now the second longest resident in the hood. My next door neighbor's (the longest resident) children have all left the Catholic Church.

[Gloria]

110. How many former Catholics have become evangelicals?

See in my family.

[trotsky]

111. Quite a few, from what I've heard.

I think it's the traditionally Catholic countries of South America where that particular exodus from the RCC has been occurring.