Catholicism as an Evangelizing Faith

[Frodo]

This question may have been posed before, but I haven't seen any threads on it as of yet, so here goes:

Why is it that Catholics seem to have a harder time than Protestants or Mormons in spreading their faith by winning converts?  It seems to have had that energy and drive centuries ago.  What will it take for Catholicism to take on a more aggressive stance necessary to become a more evangelical faith, one that can out-compete its Protestant and Mormon counterparts?  A younger, more energetic Pope, perhaps?  

[RI]

Catholicism doesn't really want to be an evangelizing faith. There's a reason why conversion is a six month process.

[Frodo]

Catholicism doesn't really want to be an evangelizing faith. There's a reason why conversion is a six month process.

Then how do the Jesuits fit in? 

[patrick1]

This question may have been posed before, but I haven't seen any threads on it as of yet, so here goes:

Why is it that Catholics seem to have a harder time than Protestants or Mormons in spreading their faith by winning converts?  It seems to have had that energy and drive centuries ago.  What will it take for Catholicism to take on a more aggressive stance necessary to become a more evangelical faith, one that can out-compete its Protestant and Mormon counterparts?  A younger, more energetic Pope, perhaps?  

From my observations, Roman Catholic focus on this is basically where the more receptive and growing audience is- the developing world.

[Frodo]

This question may have been posed before, but I haven't seen any threads on it as of yet, so here goes:

Why is it that Catholics seem to have a harder time than Protestants or Mormons in spreading their faith by winning converts?  It seems to have had that energy and drive centuries ago.  What will it take for Catholicism to take on a more aggressive stance necessary to become a more evangelical faith, one that can out-compete its Protestant and Mormon counterparts?  A younger, more energetic Pope, perhaps?  

From my observations, Roman Catholic focus on this is basically where the more receptive and growing audience is- the developing world.

Understandable, but don't they have any interest in reinvigorating the Faith in the developed world?  We have Protestant Christians who have rediscovered their faith (i.e. become 'born-again') -why not 'born-again' Catholics?  There are a great number of Catholics out there (and on this forum) whose faith has lapsed.  There is potential there...  

[TJ in Oregon]

This question may have been posed before, but I haven't seen any threads on it as of yet, so here goes:

Why is it that Catholics seem to have a harder time than Protestants or Mormons in spreading their faith by winning converts?  It seems to have had that energy and drive centuries ago.  What will it take for Catholicism to take on a more aggressive stance necessary to become a more evangelical faith, one that can out-compete its Protestant and Mormon counterparts?  A younger, more energetic Pope, perhaps?  

From my observations, Roman Catholic focus on this is basically where the more receptive and growing audience is- the developing world.

Understandable, but don't they have any interest in reinvigorating the Faith in the developed world?  We have Protestant Christians who have rediscovered their faith (i.e. become 'born-again') -why not 'born-again' Catholics?  There are a great number of Catholics out there (and on this forum) whose faith has lapsed.  There is potential there...  

Yes, there definitely is and it's something that has lay forgotten for too long. It's been mentioned on this forum before that although the Church is retaining its members better than almost every Protestant denomination it still has a net loss of people via conversion because of the very low number of converts of Catholicism. The Church is starting to try to address this with the New Evangelization and Year of Faith now, though to be honest other than talking about it and praying I'm not sure what we're actually doing about it. But we have to start somewhere.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I've sometimes wondered this myself. I think the reason is that Catholicism is kind of a tough sell to the type of person with the mindset that leads to conversion or joining the type of churches that are growing rapidly. "I was so bored and unhappy with my life but found new meaning and purpose through Jesus Christ" isn't as uplifting as following the decrees of a bunch of celibate old men and going through more monotonous motions and rituals. The church does seem to have some evangalization efforts aimed at ex-Catholics but this seems pretty silly to me, these are people who have already had experience with Catholicism and said that they don't want to be Catholic. Any marketer knows that it makes more sense to target people unfamiliar with your product than those who have tried and not liked it.

Contrary to popular belief even mainline churches evangelize, often quite fervently (Hispanic Lutherans for example are the type of thing some people might joke about not existing, but they are actually fairly common in the Twin Cities, the ELCA's work with immigrants probably plays a role.)

[patrick1]

BRTD, you may not believe in it personally but those monotonous rituals are called sacraments. Some find comfort in physically and spiritually receiving Christ in their lives. There is purpose and multiple layers of meaning and millennia of history behind these rituals.  Some find beauty in what you see as boredom.

As for 'ex-Catholics', the majority are not like someone like afleitch who had a long exposure to the faith and rejected.  There are many who had very little exposure to the religion.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

BRTD, you may not believe in it personally but those monotonous rituals are called sacraments. Some find comfort in physically and spiritually receiving Christ in their lives. There is purpose and multiple layers of meaning and millennia of history behind these rituals.  Some find beauty in what you see as boredom.

Some might, but typically those are the people who aren't in the seeker mindset. I should know this better than anyone, remember what I was like a year ago? There's a reason why more "spirit filled" churches have no problem scooping up people who have no familiarity with them and often haven't been to church in years on non-holidays/weddings/funerals if even that. There's a reason my church has in its only seven year history had to move four times because the current building got too small and is even now holding a fundraising campaign to finally buy a building because the current rented space is too small while the Minnesota Catholic diocese has had to close several churches.

As for 'ex-Catholics', the majority are not like someone like afleitch who had a long exposure to the faith and rejected.  There are many who had very little exposure to the religion.

So if you're saying people who leave as teenagers (probably when most former Catholics do) don't have long exposure it's worth considering how many come back. I bet that even counting only those who do go back to a church eventually a majority go to a non-Catholic one.

[TJ in Oregon]

BRTD, a ton of Catholics don't understand the Church's teachings very well on a ton of issues, in part because of the movement away from Catholic schools and a confused response for how a religious education should be carried out, and in part because of confusion an disarray within the Church itself about what Vatican II was and what it wasn't. I for one will admit that the religious education I received growing was desperately lacking and I doubt I'm alone in that regard.

This is aimed at that demographic.

[patrick1]

BRTD, you may not believe in it personally but those monotonous rituals are called sacraments. Some find comfort in physically and spiritually receiving Christ in their lives. There is purpose and multiple layers of meaning and millennia of history behind these rituals.  Some find beauty in what you see as boredom.

Some might, but typically those are the people who aren't in the seeker mindset. I should know this better than anyone, remember what I was like a year ago? There's a reason why more "spirit filled" churches have no problem scooping up people who have no familiarity with them and often haven't been to church in years on non-holidays/weddings/funerals if even that. There's a reason my church has in its only seven year history had to move four times because the current building got too small and is even now holding a fundraising campaign to finally buy a building because the current rented space is too small while the Minnesota Catholic diocese has had to close several churches.

As for 'ex-Catholics', the majority are not like someone like afleitch who had a long exposure to the faith and rejected.  There are many who had very little exposure to the religion.

So if you're saying people who leave as teenagers (probably when most former Catholics do) don't have long exposure it's worth considering how many come back. I bet that even counting only those who do go back to a church eventually a majority go to a non-Catholic one.

With a 2000 year history I would say the RCC has a pretty successful business model.  It is an investment that Warren Buffett would make- a permanent, tangible product.  Your church sells the emotion and flash, a dot.com.     

Many of the Catholics who supposedly left the faith never had any real exposure to it in the first place at all.  See the baptism and self id thread for examples.

[All Along The Watchtower]

BRTD, you may not believe in it personally but those monotonous rituals are called sacraments. Some find comfort in physically and spiritually receiving Christ in their lives. There is purpose and multiple layers of meaning and millennia of history behind these rituals.  Some find beauty in what you see as boredom.

Some might, but typically those are the people who aren't in the seeker mindset. I should know this better than anyone, remember what I was like a year ago? There's a reason why more "spirit filled" churches have no problem scooping up people who have no familiarity with them and often haven't been to church in years on non-holidays/weddings/funerals if even that. There's a reason my church has in its only seven year history had to move four times because the current building got too small and is even now holding a fundraising campaign to finally buy a building because the current rented space is too small while the Minnesota Catholic diocese has had to close several churches.

As for 'ex-Catholics', the majority are not like someone like afleitch who had a long exposure to the faith and rejected.  There are many who had very little exposure to the religion.

So if you're saying people who leave as teenagers (probably when most former Catholics do) don't have long exposure it's worth considering how many come back. I bet that even counting only those who do go back to a church eventually a majority go to a non-Catholic one.

Just because a religion is failing to "keep up" with a narcissistic, consumerist culture that has no place for traditions or historical awareness, doesn't make the religion less relevant.

[afleitch]

As for 'ex-Catholics', the majority are not like someone like afleitch who had a long exposure to the faith and rejected.  There are many who had very little exposure to the religion.

You should always be careful when making anything as sweeping as that. Amongst Catholics in Scotland my experience is probably typical once someone leaves the Catholic state education system. I'd still consider myself  'culturally Catholic', and amongst Celtic minded people there's a stronger association that can often remain, but I've been suprised at the sheer number of people I grew up with who are no longer Catholic. I've 3 siblings and 5 adult cousins. Out of the 9 of us only 1 goes to church and 6 of us have basically professed to not believing in it. Amongst 30 or so school friends I met up with at my reunion two weeks ago, there's probably only about 6-10 that still attend church even semi-regularly and probably the same number who say they don't believe in god. And all of these are people who were raised Catholic from birth. I don't see how longer exposure to Catholicism amongst those under 30 'keeps' people on board. Probably quite the opposite. Certainly, people of my mothers generation still associate, but it's fairly loose.

[bore]

As for 'ex-Catholics', the majority are not like someone like afleitch who had a long exposure to the faith and rejected.  There are many who had very little exposure to the religion.

You should always be careful when making anything as sweeping as that. Amongst Catholics in Scotland my experience is probably typical once someone leaves the Catholic state education system. I'd still consider myself  'culturally Catholic', and amongst Celtic minded people there's a stronger association that can often remain, but I've been suprised at the sheer number of people I grew up with who are no longer Catholic. I've 3 siblings and 5 adult cousins. Out of the 9 of us only 1 goes to church and 6 of us have basically professed to not believing in it. Amongst 30 or so school friends I met up with at my reunion two weeks ago, there's probably only about 6-10 that still attend church even semi-regularly and probably the same number who say they don't believe in god. And all of these are people who were raised Catholic from birth. I don't see how longer exposure to Catholicism amongst those under 30 'keeps' people on board. Probably quite the opposite. Certainly, people of my mothers generation still associate, but it's fairly loose.

Speaking as someone else who goes to a catholic state school in Scotland (though not in Glasgow) I can basically confirm this. Of my friends I'd say a majority are atheists and only about 10-15% of people go to church every sunday, it's the exception rather than the norm to be a fervent believer. And yet were you to ask most of my classmates if they were Catholic they would say yes. Almost everybody knows and responds to prayers and most people go up for communion. People still identify as catholic, but the actual religous faith isn't really there.

[DemPGH]

Evangelizing as it's normally understood is not something they have ever really had to do throughout the vast majority of their history - because they dominated, literally. Anyone who dared break off from them had to evangelize. And once the Latin Church's vicious grip on political domination subsided (and that's not to whitewash Protestant brutality at all), other groups, while free, had to evangelize to stay active. Vatican II might have been the first real gesture at anything remotely resembling evangelizing, and that wasn't all the way until the late 1960s.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

And yet were you to ask most of my classmates if they were Catholic they would say yes. Almost everybody knows and responds to prayers and most people go up for communion. People still identify as catholic, but the actual religous faith isn't really there.

Gah, I can't stand that. The American Midwest must be the part of the world where that mindset is the weakest because i Have never met someone like that.

[patrick1]

As for 'ex-Catholics', the majority are not like someone like afleitch who had a long exposure to the faith and rejected.  There are many who had very little exposure to the religion.

You should always be careful when making anything as sweeping as that. Amongst Catholics in Scotland my experience is probably typical once someone leaves the Catholic state education system. I'd still consider myself  'culturally Catholic', and amongst Celtic minded people there's a stronger association that can often remain, but I've been suprised at the sheer number of people I grew up with who are no longer Catholic. I've 3 siblings and 5 adult cousins. Out of the 9 of us only 1 goes to church and 6 of us have basically professed to not believing in it. Amongst 30 or so school friends I met up with at my reunion two weeks ago, there's probably only about 6-10 that still attend church even semi-regularly and probably the same number who say they don't believe in god. And all of these are people who were raised Catholic from birth. I don't see how longer exposure to Catholicism amongst those under 30 'keeps' people on board. Probably quite the opposite. Certainly, people of my mothers generation still associate, but it's fairly loose.

You missed my point, such as it is,  I think.  I am not saying that there are not many with long exposure who do not leave. Indeed, I would say the majority of people with long exposure (school etc) do leave or simply don't feel the need/desire to go.  I would fall in this category also.  What I am saying though is that there are more people who got the water dumped on their head and were at a few Christmas masses or something growing up.

Re: Your point and Bore:  I also went to Catholic schools for 16 years.  Here in the Northeast, I would say there is a similar ratio of people among my peers who actually show up on Sunday. Among my friends I would say there has been a slight uptick lately because some are starting to bring their kids.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

What I am saying though is that there are more people who got the water dumped on their head and were at a few Christmas masses or something growing up.

That reminds me, if you fall out and return getting baptized again is far more exciting and fulfilling because it's something that YOU'RE doing, and not your parents. Pretty much every young adult-oriented church baptizes adults including ones that were already baptized, even if they also baptize babies.

[patrick1]

Evangelizing as it's normally understood is not something they have ever really had to do throughout the vast majority of their history - because they dominated, literally. Anyone who dared break off from them had to evangelize. And once the Latin Church's vicious grip on political domination subsided (and that's not to whitewash Protestant brutality at all), other groups, while free, had to evangelize to stay active. Vatican II might have been the first real gesture at anything remotely resembling evangelizing, and that wasn't all the way until the late 1960s.

Sorry but that isn't very right at all. There are probably thousands of Catholic saints and martyrs in the cause of evangelization, and found on every Continent.  Vatican II in many ways created more of a sensitivity to the cultural controversy surrounding conversion.

[patrick1]

What I am saying though is that there are more people who got the water dumped on their head and were at a few Christmas masses or something growing up.

That reminds me, if you fall out and return getting baptized again is far more exciting and fulfilling because it's something that YOU'RE doing, and not your parents. Pretty much every young adult-oriented church baptizes adults including ones that were already baptized, even if they also baptize babies.

That is a good example on the differing approaches or sales pitches right there.  It seems your church and others like it offer a home to people rebelling against their parents values etc.  The RCC in the West likes to sell a return to the Holy Mother Church. The one, holy apostolic stretching back unbroken to St Peter...  I suppose if either approach makes people better human beings then both sides are doing their jobs. But alas, I generally don't see the church going folk as any less screwed up than anyone else; probably the opposite is true.

[DemPGH]

Evangelizing as it's normally understood is not something they have ever really had to do throughout the vast majority of their history - because they dominated, literally. Anyone who dared break off from them had to evangelize. And once the Latin Church's vicious grip on political domination subsided (and that's not to whitewash Protestant brutality at all), other groups, while free, had to evangelize to stay active. Vatican II might have been the first real gesture at anything remotely resembling evangelizing, and that wasn't all the way until the late 1960s.

Sorry but that isn't very right at all. There are probably thousands of Catholic saints and martyrs in the cause of evangelization, and found on every Continent.  Vatican II in many ways created more of a sensitivity to the cultural controversy surrounding conversion.

Point well taken. I would say, don't confuse "evangelizing" with "empire building." Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a great example. But of course, if a person like Cyril (and many more, I'm sure) can become a saint, the whole process of canonization is questionable at best.

[patrick1]

Evangelizing as it's normally understood is not something they have ever really had to do throughout the vast majority of their history - because they dominated, literally. Anyone who dared break off from them had to evangelize. And once the Latin Church's vicious grip on political domination subsided (and that's not to whitewash Protestant brutality at all), other groups, while free, had to evangelize to stay active. Vatican II might have been the first real gesture at anything remotely resembling evangelizing, and that wasn't all the way until the late 1960s.

Sorry but that isn't very right at all. There are probably thousands of Catholic saints and martyrs in the cause of evangelization, and found on every Continent.  Vatican II in many ways created more of a sensitivity to the cultural controversy surrounding conversion.

Point well taken. I would say, don't confuse "evangelizing" with "empire building." Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart is a great example. But of course, if a person like Cyril (and many more, I'm sure) can become a saint, the whole process of canonization is questionable at best.

Yep, I see where you are coming from too.  There was a lot of evangelization/conversions that came at the end of a sword or gun.  Conversely, there were also many instances of the evangelizers winding up in some native crockery...  I think The Mission did a good job of portraying this complicated and often tragic process.

Funny to me is the many foreign, third world priests here across parishes the US. Spreading the good news to whitey.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

What I am saying though is that there are more people who got the water dumped on their head and were at a few Christmas masses or something growing up.

That reminds me, if you fall out and return getting baptized again is far more exciting and fulfilling because it's something that YOU'RE doing, and not your parents. Pretty much every young adult-oriented church baptizes adults including ones that were already baptized, even if they also baptize babies.

That is a good example on the differing approaches or sales pitches right there.  It seems your church and others like it offer a home to people rebelling against their parents values etc.  The RCC in the West likes to sell a return to the Holy Mother Church. The one, holy apostolic stretching back unbroken to St Peter...  I suppose if either approach makes people better human beings then both sides are doing their jobs. But alas, I generally don't see the church going folk as any less screwed up than anyone else; probably the opposite is true.

Unless your parents are militant atheists, Santorum-esque Catholics or more conservative evangelicals, I don't think it's much of a rebellion or going to offend them.

This whole region is just big on lack of sectarianism and fluid identity. Maybe it's because it's so integrated, the Catholics are all largely spread out so it's not like they feel like they're "special" or some sort of minority nor is it a dominant element of the culture in those places. People will usually identify as "raised something" but no one expects you to stay that, if you were raised Catholic and don't believe in God anymore than you were simply raised Catholic but now aren't. Same if you were raised Lutheran. Intermarriages are pretty common so it's not like you feel that you "belong" to some sort of greater community that goes beyond the religious level because it's very likely half your family doesn't. I remember in college whenever the student church groups would have ads in the school paper or put up flyers or whatever they would often make a fuss in them about how they don't care what denomination you were raised in and were welcome anyway, same with the Christian youth groups I knew of in high school (oh how I hated those), they would often emphasize how they were open to all Christian teens, not just those baptized/confirmed in that denomination. The concept of some sort of immutable religious identity just doesn't seem to be all that strong in the Upper Midwest.