A Deeper Look at the Many Evangelicals Turning Catholic

NC Register ^ | August 5, 2010 | MATTHEW WARNER

[metmom]

Not surprising that your paragon of truth and objectivity publically endorsed Obama for President and was fired from the National Review and is now writing what amounts to a gossip column for Tina Brown...

Catholics put obama in office, as they did Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi and any other number of liberal, Democratic politicians.

The Catholic vote could go a long way to turning this country back to conservatism. Too bad most Catholics are so liberal.

Given your church's voting history, you're in no position to cast stones about people's political views.

[metmom]

Patently not true. "But when we hear that 54 percent of American Catholics voted for President Obama last November, and that this somehow shows a sea change in their social thinking, we can reasonably ask: How many of them practice their faith on a regular basis? And when we do that, we learn that most practicing Catholics actually voted for Senator McCain." - Archbishop Charles Chaput.

It's really irrelevant whether they practice their faith regularly. The Catholic church is more than happy to count them as members in spite of that.

It should own them under all circumstances, or start enforcing its own teachings and deny them communion and not count them as part of that one billion strong.

[AnalogReigns]

In larger evangelical groups I’ve been a part of 1/4 t 1/3 were ex-Catholics....who never heard the gospel or clear biblical teaching in the ceremony-only Churches of their youth.

With Beckwith and others...they just returned to the Church of their youth. And some, like Scott Hahn were fraudulently hyped...”Presbyterian minister” my eye! He went to seminary, and was an elder in tiny tiny house church—and while teaching at a Christian school (where he had fraudulently sworn that he believed their statement of faith—when at the time he did not) converted to Rome. His real story is not nearly as dramatic as the spin about it.

I can’t say I’m worried about any Evangelical-to-Roman Catholic trend, as there are far more ex-Roman Catholics in Evangelical circles, than ex-Evangelicals in Roman Catholic circles.

[ansel12]

Interesting that the years you cited in your chart are the same years that Ronald Reagan voted Democrat.

No they aren't, in 1952 for instance Reagan was already publicly campaigning for Eisenhower, and again in 1956 and also against John F. Kennedy in 1960 and so on.

[Natural Law]

"Catholics put obama in office,.."

There are many who never learned or lived their Catholic faith (like you), but as stated by Archbishop Charles Chaput: "But when we hear that 54 percent of American Catholics voted for President Obama last November, and that this somehow shows a sea change in their social thinking, we can reasonably ask: How many of them practice their faith on a regular basis? And when we do that, we learn that most practicing Catholics actually voted for Senator McCain."

[Antoninus]

The Papists and Cromwellites can fight all they want: The fastest growing “religious” demographic in the US is the nonreligious.

"Non-religious" a nice way of saying, "those who are addicted to their vices" or "those who have made themselves god."

[ansel12]

LOL, yes it is patently true, 54% of Catholics voted for Obama.

[Antoninus]

The numbers leaving the Rc are enormous ..one need only look at the empty churches to see it..

Really? When was the last time you were in a Catholic Church? Ours is full. We generally have 25-40 converts in our parish alone each year.

Here are the facts for those of you who are invincibly ignorant: Those dioceses that have been punished with a liberal bishop are dying. Those dioceses where the bishop is faithful to the teachings and traditions of the Church are thriving.

[Antoninus]

Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reigns of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome.

The historical obtuseness of this post is stunning. First of all, it's got a really moronic spelling error. (reins, not reigns). Second of all, it draws from a pagan source, Zosimus, who wrote 170 years after Constantine's death and *hated* him with a blinding passion.

So we have Protestants using pagan Zosimus to excoriate the first Christian emperor of Rome. Doesn't that strike you as just the slightest bit strange?

[ansel12]

"But when we hear that 54 percent of American Catholics voted for President Obama last November, and that this somehow shows a sea change in their social thinking,

How would that show a sea change, Catholics have been voting liberal since they started arriving in the 1830s and 1840s.

Gore got their vote in 2000. Obama in 2008, Clinton cleaned up with them of course.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

These are the same tired old stories trotted out over and over and over.

The truth is that Rome is bleeding membership and the trend is for RCs to convert away from Rome rather than to Rome.

CATHOLIC TRADITION FADING IN U.S.
(EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS NOW OUTNUMBER CATHOLICS)

Rome is all PR and not much substance.

[RJR_fan]

When push comes to shove, a world-view trumps a navel-view. Too often, evangelical Christians present and understand their faith in Schleiermacher's terms, as a sub-rational intense experience. When life throws a curve-ball at you, though, and your experiences are contradicting your expectations, it takes cold, hard, theological facts to keep your life on track. If the pulpit does not offer content, our people will go where they can find some.

In another trend, many thoughtful evangelicals are also embracing the more rigorous and fact-oriented branch of our own tradition, the Calvinist approach to understanding "life, the universe, and everything." This is causing some turmoil among Baptists -- Ergun Caner, the recently disgraced and demoted dean of the Liberty University School of Theology had a passion for impugning Calvinists.

[BlackVeil]

Very wise words.

[Gene Eric]

>> “swimming the Tiber.” More picturesque.

What a horrid thought.

[Jim Noble]

Gail, I'm glad you left the bastard - but you know very well the Catholic Church does not prohibit divorce, and that being civilly divorced is NOT a bar to the sacraments.

What the Catholic Church prohibits is remarriage after divorce if the other party is alive.

Crazy as it seems, this does appear to conform to Matthew 19 and all of Christian history prior to about 1950.

[Jim Noble]

The Papists and Cromwellites can fight all they want

Yes they can (and they love to do it), but they are disobedient when they do so:

Mark 9:38-41

38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us." 39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.

[verga]

People who blame the victim are despicable. You’re accusing her of something which you have no knowledge of. The only thing that sounds nasty is you. And Catholics wonder why people leave the Catholic church.

Yeah the problem is that I do know what I am talking about. She knew on the very first date that something was "a bit off", but she chose to ignore it. And worse she stuck with him after the first time he hit her, and subjected her children to it.

The children are the only victims here, after the first punch, hit, or slap, she was a willing particpant.

[verga]

Well, I can tell you that my departure from the RCC involved none of the list you supply. Nice language on #4, verga. How does both bitter water and sweet water come from the same spring?

You looked for an excuse to justify your departure, iof that makes you feel beter great but that won't do you a bit of good on judgement day.

BTW look at how Jesus described the Pharisee's and Sudduces, and ask me again about bitter and sweet water.

[verga]

When you talk about someone, you’re supposed to use enough FReeper etiquette and ping them.

I did ping her, to say other wise is for you to bear false witness

And GailA volunteered nothing that indicated that she knew beforehand that he was abusive.

She didn't have to "volunteer" it, I have worked with more than enough abuse "victims" (Male and Female) to know that each and every one of them knew long before they got married, exactly what they were in for.

There are true victims of abuse, they get out after the very first incident. She didn't there fore she gave tacit approval of the abuse.

Point number two in verga’s post was pure speculation on his part. It was totally uncalled for, so, yes, he did accuse her of something of which her had no knowledge, blaming her for marrying a man she knew was abusive. And it remains despicable that he would blame the victim.

Your correct if I was not an expert on abusive situations it would be speculation, the problem is that I have been dealing with it in adults and children male and female for about 15 years.

The problem is that you are so blinded by hatred for the Catholic Church, that you will believe anything nasty about her so that you can attack. This is the part where you say, "Whoa, that Verga is one smart dude, I better apologize and try to make things right."