Catholic converts on the rise: East Tennessee among nation's top 10 growth areas

Chattanooga Times Free Press ^ | 6/15/2014 | Kevin Hardy

[markomalley]

There was the man inspired by the written words of Pope Francis. There was the agnostic professor. And there was the widow of a Baptist preacher.

All of them Tennesseans, and all of them recent converts to one of the world's oldest Christian faiths.

In the South, Catholicism is growing. The Diocese of Knoxville was recently ranked among the top 10 in the nation for its rate of adult conversions.

All Southeast Tennessee Catholic parishes, including Chattanooga's, fall under the umbrella of Knoxville's diocese, one of 195 in the United States. A diocese is a geographic collection of parishes grouped together under the governance of a bishop. And many of the dioceses producing the most converts to the church are right here in the South, according to a recent study by Georgetown University's Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate.

Rates of Catholicism have always been strong in the Northeast and Midwest. But not in the protestant-heavy South.

So it's no wonder that Catholicism is growing faster here.

Mark Gray, a senior research associate at the Georgetown Center, said marriage is a common driver of Catholicism, as non-Catholics marry Catholics. And in Tennessee, non-Catholics and Catholics are more likely to marry simply because there are not enough Catholics to marry only other Catholics.

In the Volunteer State, about 8 percent of people are Catholic. That compares with 40 percent in Massachusetts and the national average of 24 percent.

"Tennessee is the third-least Catholic state in the country, which is exactly where we would expect these conversions to occur, because that 8 percent are likely marrying non-Catholics," Gray said.

In the Catholic Church, conversion is a commitment. It's more formal and involved than switching from one protestant church to another. And conversion is a commitment to the faith, not necessarily a particular church.

Before joining the church, converts take part in a college-like class that can last from nine months to a year.

"It is a very long program, and it's not something we take lightly, nor do the people becoming Catholic take it lightly," said Marvin Bushman, the director of religious education at Cleveland's St. Therese of Lisieux. "It is a big commitment."

Knoxville Bishop Richard F. Stika said the church is growing from rising minority populations, mainly Hispanics. Knoxville recently established a Vietnamese parish. And this part of the country is attracting more retirees and families, many of whom are Catholic.

"We're a growing Church, both in people who are choosing to become Catholic as well as people moving in from out of town," Stika told the diocesan newspaper, The East Tennessee Catholic.

At St. Therese, Brenda Blevins oversees the Catholic conversion program, called the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults, or RCIA. The Diocese of Knoxville, which includes 47 parishes, receives about 350 adult converts each year through RCIA.

Some come after marrying or dating a Catholic, but Blevins said many of their recent converts were single. And the RCIA program doesn't want people to just marry into the church.

"We want people to be here because they want to be and because they feel a call," she said.

And each convert has his own story. There are the college-age brothers who just joined together. And the widow of a Baptist minister who married a Catholic. Some come from protestant churches; others have never been baptized into any faith.

"I think part of the reason the Catholic Church is growing so much in Southeast Tennessee is because Southeast Tennessee is part of the Bible Belt," Blevins said. "And there are a lot of faithful Christians here."

[NKP_Vet]

God bless him and tell him this former baptist said Welcome Home!

[FourtySeven]

#119 is an excellent excellent reply certainly better than anything I’ve tried. But we shall see if, once again, Daniel returns to the question, “What is the basis for assurance in all of what you describe to me Mrs Don-o?” (Which has essentially been his responses to me every time when I have given similar responses/evidence)

All the while of course again, never answering his own question unless directly challenged and even then, only to assert “Scripture”. Neglecting of course the fact of his opinion on Scripture as well.

But perhaps I’m too jaded. We shall see what he says. I certainly can’t read minds (although sometimes it seems in these circular discussions it seems I can)

[cloudmountain]

Above all, Latinos who convert say they want to know God personally, without a priest as a middleman.

If Latinos consider a priest as a "middleman" then there weren't really Catholics and missed the ENTIRE purpose of a priest. Their role isn't "middleman," for heaven's sake.

So, Protestantism allows people to know God more personally than Catholicism. SOMEone is selling them a bill of goods.

[ansel12]

Yet they appear more devout as they attend church more and vote for christian principals more than the Obama supporters they leave behind.

[daniel1212]

The answer you've given thus far reduces to: their basis for assurance should be an internet persona called daniel1212.

Are you just being insolent or playing ignorant? Seriously? I asked questions , and even without giving my answers, then the evasive response you give is to charge me with claiming infallibility, and which perverse Roman logic means whoever makes a truth claim must be claiming infallibility, versus the veracity of the claim resting upon the weight of evidence.

Tell me then whether the basis for such things as the widow's assurance that Elijah was a prophet (1Ki. 17:24) was based upon the premise that she was infallible, or the evidence provided to her? Now explain what one could have assurance of Truth that Isaiah was a prophet of God and spoke of Christ, without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and why i cannot likewise obtain assurance based upon evidence.

At least Mrs. Don-o alone attempts to respond to the fundamental questions in a sincere and civil manner. As for you, you are simply exampling more avoidance of dealing with the presuppositions behind a primary parroted RC polemic, which precipitate the questions I asked which require answers. Thus at least until you are willing to engage them then you are just another example of RC apologists being an argument against being a RC.

[daniel1212]

This is one of the best replies I’ve seen to daniel’s challenge, which he issued to you earlier and repeats despite the precise point you make here.

A best reply is to reason that asking questions that presuppose i have a correct answer means i am claiming infallibility? What absurdity. The Pharisees should of thought of that one when faced with such Scriptural reproof from John the Baptist or the man born blind!

No evidence is apparently good enough for him other than to agree with his interpretation of Scripture. That is his “basis of infallibility” as best as I can tell.

That is also false and absurd and makes a mockery of the appeal to reason which the Lord and apostle engaged in, seeking to persuade souls by "manifestation of the Truth." (2Cor. 4:2)

But your response is another example of RC thinking, in which the idea that determination and assurance of Truth cannot be realized on the strength of evidence, most supremely that of Scriptural substantiation, is rejected, but that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for that. Agree or disagree? It is not complicated.

This reasoning is what is behind the often made response, "the catholic church gave you/the world the Bible" and thus we need to heed here, which is so often posted, and all evidence of compelled to support her. Thus the presuppositions behind this must be dealt with.

He claims it’s just Scripture. He claims his basis for Truth is the written Word. But what he continually refuses to acknowledge is that it is his *opinion* of Scripture that is ultimately his “basis”.

Which are more perverse charges based on perverse logic. Tell me, upon what basis did souls have assurance than an insect-eating man in the desert was a holy prophet of God, and an itinerant Prophet was the Divine Son of God/Messiah? Was the basis for their assurance the premise of their own infallibility, or that these men manifested they were of God in accordance with what Scripture teaches. Answer me clearly. It is not complicated.

I’ve tried to demonstrate this to him using personal experience, our own shared experience

What you demonstrated with either avoidance or ignorance, stating that faith is a gift of God (a given) then in response to the fact that such texts as Lk. 1:16 do not require an infallible magisterium, you resort the circular reasoning of RCs, that one cannot obtain certainty of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, but must submit to the AIM of Rome, only by which can one obtain certainty of Truth, including that the magisterium of Rome is assuredly infallible.

I just don’t know how helpful it is to continue to repeat the question when it’s obviously not answered, at least not that I can see.

That has been answered, that "assurance of Truth must be to substantiation from a wholly Divinely inspired source of Truth, but which the Romanized mind contorts into a claim of assurance based upon personal infallibility, versus the weight of Scriptural warrant. Again, if only the Pharisees had come up with that, but even they were not that illogical.

What is the answer to your own question Daniel? Are you going to claim it’s Scripture, again, for the umpteenth time, as if the Bible gets up off the table, talks to you in an audible voice, and tells you, “No you’re reading me wrong. This is how I should be read...”? That is essentially what Scripture instrumentally does in comprehensive study, comparing Scripture with Scripture, thus teaching such things as that OT historical accounts such as Joshua's long day and Jonah and the fish were literal, not folk tales or fables as in popular modern RC scholarship .

But which is not simply thru personal study, which Rome hindered for centuries in the interest of her indoctrination, but with the help of those whom the Spirit gifts as teaches, while

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm ),

But not as assuredly infallible, as all my conflate with and be supported by Scripture, thus the abundant use and appeal to OT Scripture in the NT, as the Lord and His church established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. Thus the Lord opened up the minds of the disciples to understand the Scriptures, but which He substantiated His Messiahship, not tradition. (LK. 24:44,45)

Now what is the answer to my own questions FourtySeven? You have avoided them answer clearly and forthrightly so far, but is the instrumental basis for your assurance of Truth that of the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, or can one rightly discern Truth without this, but thru examination of evidence, if it is in accordance with what Scripture teaches. Answer me, it is not complicated.

[cloudmountain]

Yet they appear more devout as they attend church more and vote for christian principals more than the Obama supporters they leave behind.

ALL of them??? ALL of them attend Mass more?? Gee, how would you know that? From our media? Are YOU at all those "Hispanic" attended Masses? Daily Masses too?

ALL of them vote for Christian principles? They can ONLY vote if they are American citizens, remember?
And, since WHEN do our godless politicians put "Christian principles" on the ballot?
THEN they have to register to vote AND know how to read so they can read the ballots to vote for those "Christian principles" which SO MANY of our (bwaaahahaha) "concerned" politicians put on the ballot. I CAN'T keep a straight face!

I attend daily Mass, recite the group (well, there are three or four of us) rosary after Mass and USUALLY do the Stations of the Cross as well. Does that make ME more devout too?

You are assuming that our godless politicians EVEN put "Christian principles" on the ballot. I don't see any.

TAXES are raised to help the poor, in theory, but people still manage to stay poor, so those taxes seem wasted, don't they?

By the way, I know you mean well. God bless you and your family.

[ansel12]

Yet the data shows them as seemingly more devout as they attend church more and vote for christian principals more than the Obama supporters they leave behind in the Catholic denomination.

[FourtySeven]

Now what is the answer to my own questions FourtySeven? You have avoided them answer clearly and forthrightly so far...

No I haven't. And it truly does disappoint me that you believe so. I gave you (a while ago not on this thread, but a month ago now at least, so I'm not going to go searching for it for proof, I'll let God be my witness on that, as you should be as well), my own testimony, *not* "based on Rome" (the implication being it's a blind faith, without reason) but ...

, but is the instrumental basis for your assurance of Truth that of the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome, or can one rightly discern Truth without this, but thru examination of evidence, if it is in accordance with what Scripture teaches. Answer me, it is not complicated.

...based on evidence that again, was and is (still) from my own personal experience! Which is the method of Christianity all along anyway, how the Gospel is spread truly. NOT via Scripture study, but from one witness to another. I gave this to you before, I said this to you before in the context of my own testimony, and you STILL dismissed it, which is why we (you and I) are at where we are now. Convenient dismissals of "falsity" and "absurdity" not withstanding, nor relevant in a true search of Truth.

What is the answer to your own question Daniel? Are you going to claim it’s Scripture, again, for the umpteenth time, as if the Bible gets up off the table, talks to you in an audible voice, and tells you, “No you’re reading me wrong. This is how I should be read...”?

That is essentially what Scripture instrumentally does in comprehensive study, comparing Scripture with Scripture, thus teaching such things as that OT historical accounts such as Joshua's long day and Jonah and the fish were literal, not folk tales or fables as in popular modern RC scholarship .

But which is not simply thru personal study, which Rome hindered for centuries in the interest of her indoctrination, but with the help of those whom the Spirit gifts as teaches, while

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same."(http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm )

SoI was right. We return to what I predicted all along. Predicted based on past experience with you. "Scripture says what I say it says because when I study it, it says what I say it says. Or, it says what Spurgeon says, or what the WCF says. As long as it doesn't say what the Catholic Church says it says, it's fine."

This is essentially your position. And it is circular, not mine. You can dismiss this as "false" and/or "absurd" all you want, but it's plainly evident to anyone reading this objectively.

I'm confident Mrs. Don-o, D-fendr, and anyone else who wishes to go down this road with you will come to the same conclusion. I will not, since you are not even willing to remember how I took the time to give you my reasons APART "from Rome" why I am a Catholic, and thus it is YOU who continue to return to the same tired "polemics", not I, until and unless you are willing to face and honestly answer D-fendr's question. Because truly, this is where YOU are at.

[JPX2011]

I'm confident Mrs. Don-o, D-fendr, and anyone else who wishes to go down this road with you will come to the same conclusion. I will not, since you are not even willing to remember how I took the time to give you my reasons APART "from Rome" why I am a Catholic, and thus it is YOU who continue to return to the same tired "polemics", not I, until and unless you are willing to face and honestly answer D-fendr's question. Because truly, this is where YOU are at.

Bravo.

[cloudmountain]

Yet the data shows them as seemingly more devout as they attend church more and vote for christian principals more than the Obama supporters they leave behind in the Catholic denomination.

"the data"??? What is your source of "the data" to which you refer?

Side note: Our parish has coffee and doughnuts after the 11:00 Sunday Mass. I am ALMOST tempted to go to THAT Mass instead of the usual 8:00 A.M. Mass, JUST for the doughnuts!
But since I am also going to Weight Watchers, I will stick with the earlier Mass! Dang.

Also, please show me where there were "Christian principles" on ANY ballot?

Obama supporters? Why would I be concerned about those idiots? I am Catholic and I didn't vote for him ever. NONE of my friends (None are Catholic.) voted for him either!

[JPX2011]

I am Catholic and I didn't vote for him ever.

Well, according to the resident demographer/statistician/psychohistorian your very Catholicity perpetuates the Obama regime. Every ill that has befallen the United States can be intricately tied back to the infiltration of the United States by the Catholic horde. Islam isn't the existential threat, it is Catholicism. Catholicism makes America weak, makes it liberal and will be its ultimate destruction. And he has the Glenn Beck chalkboard/flow chart routine down pat to prove it.

[ansel12]

Here is the Pew data for Hispanic Catholics and Hispanic Evangelicals.

"Also, please show me where there were "Christian principles" on ANY ballot? Obama supporters? Why would I be concerned about those idiots? I am Catholic and I didn't vote for him ever. NONE of my friends (None are Catholic.) voted for him either!

Your friends don't change the fact that the majority of Catholics voted for Obama and vote democrat.

As far as you not being able to connect Christian principles to voting, well I think we can both agree that the majority of Catholics and the majority of Evangelical Christians obviously differ on their goals in voting, on what most of us would call christian principles, like abortion and marriage, and the homosexual agenda, and general conservatism.

[daniel1212]

Yes, and thanks for the quote. It's actually not from the "Byzantine Rite"

Yes, and thanks for the correction. Eastern Orthodox should have used.

So this is an excellent reference, and it's good to know you're conversant with reputable Orthodox/Catholic sources.

I try to go to the horses mouth.

Yes, but I presume when you say the infallibility "of Rome," you mean the infallibility "of the Church" whose leading See is in Rome.

Since both claim (as can be substantiated) to particularly be the one true church, and the EOs reject papal infallibility and his full claim to power, the distinction is fitting.

Infallibility is not a personal characteristic of a pope, as if he were an all-purpose oracle.

I understood this, while further descriptions of it are not pertinent here, as the point is the RC looks to the his church for assurance of Truth based upon the premise of her assured veracity, with the pope being infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and the bishops, who receive their pastoral power immediately from the Pope, also being infallible when (briefly stated) speaking to all the church in union with the pope, in defining a matter of faith and morals that the church has always taught.

How rare that is can be gauged by a remark by Pope John XXII

More side bar details, but RCs typically do this in dealing with infallibility, that of focusing attention on the rarity of the pope himself having spoken infallibly after V1, though they disagree how many, while ignoring the past (as the definition applies retroactively) and that of conciliar infallible teaching. And of which there is also disagreement as to what magisterial level the degree of assent required, as well as their meaning to varying degrees.

But the typical RC recourse when faced with contrary evidence is to the church being infallible as being essential for determination of Truth, and which somehow even means that if i make any Truth claim then it amounts to a belief in my own personal infallibility as my basis for assurance, rather than the weight of evidence, as seen in Scripture.

For the other instances --- there is no official complete list, but this is as good as any..

This has basically become a red herring as it is not a response to the questions asked, so let ask me reformulate them:

1. What is the instrumental basis for your assurance of truth, even if that assurance can increase? In other words, is an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium essential for determination of Truth (Rome), such as which writings and men are of God and their meaning, or can it be upon the weight of evidence by which one is persuaded something is of God?

2. Is a infallible magisterium essential for providing and preserving faith, or can it be thru Scripture and non-infallible teachers (which does not translate into inability to teach Truth), the veracity of which is dependent upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation?

3. Does being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation mean that such is assuredly infallible?

4. Is willful, knowing dissent from that professed magisterium (via its teachings) rebellion to God?

Note again that these are asked in response to often made assertion when faced with evidence to contrary to RC claims, "the catholic church gave you/the world the Bible" and thus we need to heed her.

Which if it is to have any weight as a response, means that the instrument and steward of Scripture is the assuredly correct definers and interpreters of it, and that this infallible office is essential to do so, whereby the RC has assurance. Thus the presuppositions behind this must be dealt with.

Now I have to go make some Mint-Pistachio Pesto. Please feel free to follow up when you can.

Sounds like Mr. Don-o and kids are being blessed.

[cloudmountain]

Well, according to the resident demographer/statistician/psychohistorian your very Catholicity perpetuates the Obama regime. Every ill that has befallen the United States can be intricately tied back to the infiltration of the United States by the Catholic horde. Islam isn't the existential threat, it is Catholicism. Catholicism makes America weak, makes it liberal and will be its ultimate destruction. And he has the Glenn Beck chalkboard/flow chart routine down pat to prove it.

I see. It's all the Catholic's fault.
NO WONDER Beck was dumped by Fox. O'Reilly is Catholic. Lol. Beck never said how anti-Catholic he was. I guess he hid that fact when he was hired by FOX. Stupid of him to hate people because of their faith. Oh, that's right, Hitler did too.

FROM Wikipedia:

Religion in the United States is characterized by a diversity of religious beliefs and practices. Various religious faiths have flourished, as well as perished, in the United States. A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives, a proportion unique among developed nations.

The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation.

According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) (2008) 76% of the American adult population identified themselves as Christians, with 51% professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant or unaffiliated, and 25% professing Catholic beliefs.

=========================================

So, 25% "professing Catholic beliefs"--NOT necessarily attending Mass, but "professing Catholic beliefs" are the CATHOLIC HORDE, as you write.

And this HORDE makes America weak and liberal and will destroy us? Are you SO sure of this? How sad for you to HATE. Hatred is a poison.

Well, I didn't realize that you were such a VIRULENT Catholic hater. You would have been RIGHT there with all the Catholic persecutions, wouldn't you?
Aren't you PROUD of yourself?
It's amusing since the FIRST PROTESTANT was FATHER MARTIN LUTHER, Catholic priest and theologian. I guess YOU are still protesting in your Catholic hatred.

But,that's okay with me. Your hatred will eat your insides as it is POISON.
I will even PRAY for you that you find some peace with your Catholic-hatred.

Hatred is Satan's joy.

[cloudmountain]

I didn't know the ballots included our faith.
I guess SURVEYS said that. If you know ANYTHING of statistics you KNOW that the "survey" is, by far, the LEAST reliable source of information.
But if you knew that you wouldn't be quoting them.

[ansel12]

LOL, anything but what is important for pro-life politics.

[cloudmountain]

As far as you not being able to connect Christian principles to voting, well I think we can both agree that the majority of Catholics and the majority of Evangelical Christians obviously differ on their goals in voting, on what most of us would call christian principles, like abortion and marriage, and the homosexual agenda, and general conservatism.

LOL!

[ansel12]

Judging by the fact the Catholic vote is majority pro-abortion democrat, and the Evangelical vote is majority pro-life republican.

And the fact that the left fights viciously for more Catholic immigration, knowing that in time will also vote.

It is why changing our immigration laws was one of JFK’s and the democrat party’s most important goals.

[JPX2011]

Whoa! You got me all wrong. I’m a fellow Roman Catholic. It’s my fault, I forgot the /s tag. My apologies. What I wrote was a slight caricature of the argument that Catholic voting patterns are the cause of our discontent. And that this argument, taken to its logical conclusion, requires extreme measures in order to ensure national survival.

What we have to understand is that this line of thinking only arises when individuals put country before God. This is a pathology that is evident in protestant thinking. Because their theology is so aligned with their political philosophy they can’t help but believe that ensuring the survival of the United States is a holy quest. For them, God does not exist outside of the Stars and Stripes.

And I do believe what you wrote could certainly be applied to others.