Study reports ‘stunning’ U.S. Catholic population shift alongside growing secularization

CatholicNewsAgency ^ | Hartford, Conn., Mar 10, 2009

[GonzoII]

Study reports ‘stunning’ U.S. Catholic population shift alongside growing secularization

Hartford, Conn., Mar 10, 2009 / 03:22 am (CNA).- A new study on American religion finds that Catholicism is facing a “stunning” decline in the northeast United States as the population center of U.S. Catholics shifts towards the southwest. Secularism continues to grow in all regions, while mainline Protestant denominations face the most significant population decline.

The study, titled the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), was conducted by the Program on Public Values at Trinity College.

According to the ARIS report, Catholic numbers and percentages rose in many states in the South and West mainly due to immigration.

“Catholics increased their share in California and Texas to about one-third of the adult population and in Florida to over one-fourth. In terms of numbers they gained about 8 million adherents in these three states in the past two decades,” the report says.

In the Northeast, Catholic adherents fell from 46 percent to 36 percent of the adult population.

“New England had a net loss of one million Catholics. Big losses in both the number of Catholic adherents and their proportion occurred also in Massachusetts, and in Rhode Island, the nation’s most heavily Catholic state where the proportion of Catholics dropped from 62 percent to 46 percent. New York state lost 800,000 Catholics and they dropped from 44% to 37% of the adult population.”

“The decline of Catholicism in the Northeast is nothing short of stunning,” said Barry Kosmin, a principal investigator for ARIS.

The ARIS study estimates that self-identified Catholics in 2008 numbered about 57.2 million, 25.1 percent of the population. This contrasts to about 50.9 million who made up 24.5 percent of the population in 2001, and 46 million who made up 26.2 percent of the population in 1990.

The percentage of Christians in the U.S. declined from 86.2 percent in the 1990s to 76 percent. ARIS attributes 90 percent of the decline to the non-Catholic segment of the Christian population. The mainline Protestant segment, which includes Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians/Anglicans, and the United Church of Christ, particularly declined. They constitute just 12.9 percent of the population, down from 18.7 percent in 1990 and 17.2 percent in 2001.

Baptists, the largest non-Catholic Christian tradition in the U.S., grew by two million but declined as a percentage of the population.

Among self-described Christians, the number of persons who identified only as “Christian,” “Evangelical/Born Again” or “non-denominational Christian” grew the most. In 1990 they numbered less than 200,000 people, five percent of the U.S. population in 1990, to over 8 million, 11.8 percent of the U.S. population, in 2008.

Mark Silk, director of the Public Values Program, in a statement said the split between mainline and evangelical Christians is “collapsing.”

“A generic form of evangelicalism is emerging as the normative form of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States,” he said.

The percentage of Americans claiming no religion jumped from 8.2 percent in 1990 to 14.2 percent in 2001. Their numbers have increased to 15 percent, with Northern New England now the least religious section of the country.

“The ‘Nones’ are the only group to have grown in every state of the Union,” said study investigator Ariela Keysar.

The study reports that only 69.5 percent of Americans say there is “definitely a personal God.” About 12.1 percent professed belief in a “higher power” but not a personal God. Only 2.3 percent of respondents denied the existence of God, while about ten percent professed uncertainty or said there was no way to know if God exists.

Copyright @ CNA
(http://www.catholicnewsagency.com)

[GonzoII]

[GonzoII]

Ping.

[Erik Latranyi]

Is it any wonder Obama was elected by large margins?

Is it any wonder the Northeast no longer has any conservative Senators?

Is it any wonder why the areas showing the greatest decline are also those with the highest crime, drug and divorce rates?

[Tax-chick]

Anyone who’s “stunned” wasn’t paying attention for the past 25 years.

[Mad Dawg]

I haven't been paying attention, and I'm still not stuned, neither me nor my beeber.

All being Catholic meant to the people who voted for Teddy the Hutt was some kind of tribal identity. Their kids aren't going to buy into that. They'll just quit going to church. Of my parents 5 kids, only two go to church and only one to the church my parents went to.

[Tax-chick]

Northeastern states are losing population, period. Practically everyone who hasn’t died is moving to The Villages.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, of course it's not so much the abuse, which seems to have been no greater in the Catholic Church than in other groups, but the frequency and, one might say, relish, with which the media and anti-Catholics, knowingly or unknowingly, spread the lie that somehow this is a uniquely Catholic problem. And I'd guess that had some effect.

But most people are sane and thoughtful (despite the election of Obama) and know or intuit that the perversion of some Christian ministers is not in itself a reflection on the Gospel or on any particular group.

Of course, some, and many of these are in the media, don't care much about the truth, and one aspect of that is that any stick, even one that doesn't exist, will do to beat the Catholic Church with.

I think that outside of demographic shifts the causes are more likely to be parents with vapid,"cultural", or "tribal" commitments to the Church. And among these one could distinguish (a) the crypto-Jansenists (maybe predominantly of Irish background?) who never really believed or taught orthodoxy anyway from (b) the "Spirit of Vatican II" mob who thought that aggiornamento meant "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere -- and have a guitar." Since neither of these is the Gospel, they both lack the staying power, the life and joy nurturing aspects of true Catholicism. It's no great surprise that the children of families lost in such error show no great desire to perpetuate these perversions of the Gospel.

[kitkat]

***What? You didn’t think that priests diddling kids would have repercussions?***

Yes, it did. And you can thank the communist infiltrators for that. The Church is taking care of it, and it’s time you stopped blaming Catholicism for it. The Church is chucking those priests out, where they used to send them off for treatment and re-assigned them to other parishes.

I don’t suppose you remember that the psychiatrists recommended treatment for child abusers, do you? They can be cured, they can be cured, was the call from the psychiatrists who later changed it to “They can’t be cured.”

Put the blame where it belongs.

[Iscool]

What? You didn’t think that priests diddling kids would have repercussions?

As you can see, they are still in denial...But hey, I'm not complaining...Perhaps those that leave, or never start the Catholic religion will come to Jesus Christ rather than the 'Church'...

[Mad Dawg]

Some people find that ad hominems are always more fun than reason and virtue.

A “religion” which excuses stupidity, despises reason, and takes recourse to personal attack when feeble efforts at argument fail will have difficulty presenting itself as Christian.

Jesus says He is the Truth. Paul says the Church is the Body of Christ. Those who turn from the truth and have contempt for the body but claim to love Jesus have some ‘splainin’ to do.

[Iscool]

Jesus says He is the Truth. Paul says the Church is the Body of Christ.

AND NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY HIM...Not a church...And no, Jesus says the (c)hurch, the assemblies of believers, is the Body of Christ...

When Jesus says 'have faith', He means faith in HIM...When you guys say faith, you mean faith in your 'Church'...Faith in your popes...Faith in your sacrements...Faith in Mary...

[Iscool]

A “religion” which excuses stupidity, despises reason, and takes recourse to personal attack when feeble efforts at argument fail will have difficulty presenting itself as Christian

Ha...So we have to be smart like you guys to be Christians...Or to understand Christianity???

And we don't have your reasoning that says 'let's just shuffle these queers around the country so no one will suspect we want to keep them'??? Man, you have got to have a better argument than that...God clearly is not on your side on these issues...

[bobjam]

Once, “Evangelical” referred to a church that started in someone’s living room, grew quickly and moved into a strip mall in suburbia. Mainline Protestants looked down on these churches as, at best, a place where spirituality runs about 6 inches deep, and at worst one step removed from snake handlers and Kool-Aid sippers. Now all of that is changed.

“Evangelical” is no longer a particular denomination, but a term applied to individual congregations within a wide variety of denominations. “Evangelical” generally means the congregation is serious about Biblical teachings and learning, outreach oriented, and somewhat to extremely contemporary in worship. In other words, an “Evangelical” parish in ECUSA (which is what mine was before we all walked out) would have a lot more in common with an “Evangelican” congregation in PCA or the Southern Baptist Convention than with other ECUSA parishes.

Christianity in America is aligning into three groups- Traditionalists (Conservative Catholics, Orthodox and high Anglicans), Evangelical Protestants, and Liberals (liberal Catholics, mainline Protestants, etc.). The so-called moderates fall into the Liberal wing because most of them are members of denominations controlled by liberals (such as PCUSA). When it comes to addressing social issues, Traditionalists and Evangelicals are almost always on the same side while the Liberals are on the other (case in point: Terri Schiavo).

[Liberty1970]

In a similar vein, I've long observed that the real religious fault line today is not between Lutheran and Catholic and Methodist and Baptist, etc. It is between Christians and humanists. That is, between those who acknowledge God and His Word and seek to live under it, and those who (explicitly or implicitly) consider human 'wisdom' to be the standard by which all else, including the Bible, is to be judged.

I don't see how people in the latter category can be considered Christians (and I fear that God will reject them as such, regardless of any professions of faith they may utter), yet humanism is alive and well throughout the various branches of Christendom today. That said, it is also worth pointing out that humanism is really just Satanism without Satan. Both seek to dethrone God and raise up a rival in His place.

[HenpeckedCon]

Well at least it's good to see that California and Texas have an increasing population of Catholics. Huh, what's that you say?

[bobjam]

That’s a good point. I think “Humanist” is a better term than “Liberal”. So we have Traditionalists, Evangelicals and Humanists. The Traditionalists and Evangelicals have different ways of going about the same Truths and Commandments (most differences are in terms of worship style and church governance), yet they often borrow ideas and methods from each other. Traditionalists have borrowed the Alpha course, while more and more Evangelicals are rediscovering the value of Lent. Both groups admire and respect Billy Graham and John Paul II.

[donmeaker]

I agree that it is not so much the abuse, but the cover that the church provided for the molestors. The church hierarchy moved the molesters from parish to parish.

Catholic doctrine seems to have an adversion to defocking priests, and seems to teach forgiveness after confession and penance. Those two doctrines were frequently combined, and led to the practice of giving serial abusers a new chance to molest kids. The Church extended G-d’s grace to the molesting priests in a way that did not protect children.

[Mad Dawg]

Yeah.

I think that the bishops were (understandably) totally unprepared for this. And when it was really, uh, blossoming they were advised by their stable of shrinks that it was curable and all that. So the initial failure to respond can at least partially be laid at the feet of the shrinks.

And, also my couple of experiences with this kind of thing in the Episcopal Church involved sweeping under the rug with about as much efficiency as in the Catholic Church. I know that one guy ended up being a bishop.

But I do think the RC’s dropped the ball summink awful.