tp://www.sltrib.com/2002/Dec/12282002/saturday/15323.asp

Latinos Lose Faith The Roman Catholic Church is losing Latinos not to the Pentecostal faith but to no faith at all, according to a new survey of American Latinos. The study, an outgrowth of last year's American Religious Identification Survey, found the percentage of U.S. Latinos who are Catholic dropped from 66 percent in 1990 to 57 percent in 2001, while the percentage of Latinos with "no religion" doubled from 6 percent to 13 percent over the same period. The number of Latino Protestants -- about a quarter of the overall Latino population -- has remained stable since 1990, and the percentage of Latino Pentecostals grew only from 3 percent to 4 percent. Latinos still make up about one-quarter of the country's 62 million Catholics. Ariela Keysar, the study's lead author, said it is most accurate to call these Latinos "unchurched" rather than "unbelievers," because 85 percent of them agree that "God exists" and 76 percent believe in miracles. -- Religion News Service

-- TIO (TIO@aol.com), December 30, 2002

Answers

So, Tio, what are you (as a "Latino") going to do about it? How will you help to draw your Hispanic brothers and sisters back into the Catholic Church?

-- (_@_._), December 30, 2002.

You know, Tio--
Many wayward men and women become ''unchurched'' and fail to take their Catholic Church seriously. I refuse to believe they are persuaded by outside ''evangelization, or turned off by our Church's tenets. In the Latino communities, there is commonly a divorce- related issue which causes it. Once there was practically no divorce, and no artificial contraception, either. Now divorce with remarriage and birth-control are endemic within these communities.

In many homes, this is accomodated by retreating to a ''church'' which tolerates divorce and remarriage. In other words, these lukewarm Catholics trade their faith for their personal convenience.

But the accomodating church never fulfills a Catholic; you should know that. --I believe in my own heart that an immense number of these fallen- away Catholics eventually repent. It may be on their deathbeds; but they come back at last. That's the way God's grace operates in a corrupt world. We have to pray for the grace to be given all those in such circumstances.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 30, 2002.

Dear Gene: it is sad that many of our paisanos and other Latinos are leaving the Church for the reasons you pointed.

I think it is time that we get on our knees and pray for them intensely, so that the Lord may show them the "camino de regreso".

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

It's not just Latinos. I think most Catholics fall away because the 'rules' cramp their lifestyle. My brother, for example, was born and raised Catholic. Now he is unchurched, because 'there is nothing wrong with contraception.' He is what you would call caucasian. He knows that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. But he uses the typical excuses; 'God would not want me to have a child that I cannot afford'; for example. I think this is a common problem.

God bless,

-- Tom (tjb2_99@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

And to be honest, a lot of it is the fault of the Church -- I have a friend who lost her faith because the teachers at our CATHOLIC high school (circa 1976) told us that Jesus wasn't really God, that Mary wasn't really a virgin and that it didn't really matter what you believed as long as you were a "good person". She wound up becoming a Baptist, where they told her that Jesus IS really God, that Mary WAS really a virgin (at least till Jesus was born - they're not perfect!) and that what you believed was what MADE you a good person - all of which she should have, but didn't, hear from our Catholic teachers.

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 31, 2002.

Everyone knows we went through a depressing time right around Viet Nam, Christine.

Bishop Sheen used to like to predict, ''For every action, there comes a re-action.'' The negative things of the 60's and 70's are passing away slowly. It's a normal re-action, equilibrium on the way. Nevertheless, some who re-act over-react. They won't give God a chance. They've forgotten the power of love to transform our souls.

P.S. --Your friend who ''lost her faith'' is sure to come back if we pray for her. Make that a New Year resolution.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

Christine I repeat what I said in another post. I attended a bible study class, about 7 years ago. The MOMSIGNOR,told us that the woman at the well story, was a made up story, to make a point. I was the only one out of about 15 people, challenging him on this. He was very condescending in his reply, and manner. This is a man about 50 years of age. What disturbed me, is that the other 14, either bought it, or were afraid to open their mouth.

No hippy, this fellow. Just a product, of the modernist seminaries. By the way, this church was on the verge of closing,but the Sikh population sent their kids there, (for safety, and educational reasons). You can't blame this on the "roaring sixties".

If I have to , I'll put my hand on the bible for E.C.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

Sent to their schools, that is. Correction Monsignor

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

Wish I could tell what the heck that was about.

Maybe we ought to close down all the churches in America. --Yes, that's fine.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

Indeed not!, Let the heresies continue!.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

Ed--
Explain which heresies; come on.

I know we need a theology lesson today. Have you got the time? I can't offer you egg-nog; but I promise to read your instructions. Come on!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

Someone, who should know better , contradicts the Church, on the Bible.

Says the Woman at the well was a lot of bull!. What is that,if not heresy.

Do you believe. the woman at the well was bull? If you do, you can join that heretical priest, and if you dont, you will have to admit his belief is heresy. Or can you wiggle out of this one too?.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

No, that's not heresy, Ed. You mistake en exegetical belief for a doctrine which is taught in the Catholic faith. However mistaken this person might have been, he didn't deny an article of faith. Heresy is upholding and/or teaching contradictory doctrine. The words of Scripture are open to exegesis. Unless the Church clearly interprets a passage from scripture a certain way, people can an do express opinions. They may be right or wrong; but ordinarily follow their conscience; up to and until the Church condemns or approves their interpretation. No mistaken opinion is heretical unless the priest in question refuses to accept the Church's teaching. Now you understand, don't you?

I've never had to ''wiggle out'' of anything I said to you yet, Ed. Try again; if you can correct me, I'll be a man about it. I won't squirm.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

The church never defines the bible. Then who does. I suppose, if I don't believe the water into wine story, I'm just mistaken. Even if I have 6 years of seminary training. Or maybe the Crucifixction never happened. We only have the bible and a few letters, to tellus. After all we were not there.So we can take our pick, thats fine, I feel a lot better now. What do you have to do to be a heretic. Without the fancy legal words.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

Dear Ed,
stopped short of criticizing you. All I did was explain heresy to you.

Let us know, please; if a priest denies our Lord was crucified. Until then, keep your pants on.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

How about this fella misleading Catholics. This priest has to know better. He cannot cop out on invincible ingorance. Ignorant, yes. but invincible, no. Whatever legal term you want to give it, this guy is poisoning the faithful. And he's not the only one. some of those seminaries are turning out lots of thes men. You know it's so. This enormous problem in the church, is not just happening by itself.Look at Christine's problem. They cannot even replace her priest. Have to close the Church. Hundreds closed in he past 30 or 40 years. I do not need a theology book to see this. It's just there.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

You seem very concerned. Your remedy is of no use, however.

What about heresy, Ed? Don't flit off on another subject. Say what you think is heresy; and put your cards on the table.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

This is my last word on the subject; This bird says that Jesus didn't know that he was God until He started His ministry at age 30.Let's Sikhs speak from the pulpit at Mass. Encourages Catholics to go over to wherever these Sikhs were having their prayers, and pray with them. You can go under with this Novus Ordo situation until every Church closes, but you can triumphantly cry, "Not a word of heresy was ever spoken"! Go down with the ship, captain, You're a brave man.

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

Ed,
God will take in due consideration your fundamental lack of good sense. In some future day we will gather around the table of the Lord and make merry together. I'll save a place for you, Richards-- Happy New Year!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 31, 2002.

Holy New Year Gene. Hope you're right

-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 31, 2002.

The real issue here is, men and women need not a change of religion to be happy or to avoid divorce or whatever. The real issue here is, what men and women should do to avoid divorce is to find the right person. Not to run into a realtionship in blind faith, because of the other person's qualities that he or she possess. What is also happening in the world today, is that people are getting ged up with religion because religion is NOT meeting their needs. People are looking into religion as the ONLY answer instead of looking unto the Lord Jesus Christ. Religion is not the answer to maintain a marriage, Jesus Christ is. Knowing him and having a personal relationship with him. To love him and to walk with him. Many make the stupid mistake without first consulting with God. So, they get married and wind up committing shipwreck.

-- Eugenio Gonzalez (Zapata1955@aol.com), October 14, 2003.

Christine L,

Good to see you still posting! You wrote:

"And to be honest, a lot of it is the fault of the Church"

Now I understand where you are coming from. My Catholic School taught us how to put condums on pickles in the 6th grade, and had 2 gay people talk to us about homosexual sex!

But it isn't the fault of the Church. We cannot say this! The Church is the spottless bride of Christ! She is the Body of Christ! How can she be in error? NO! It is the sinners within the Church that go agains the Church. When we act against the Church, we cannot be counted as the Church. We are only to be counted as "the Church" when we are acting in accordance with the Church!

The Church never has, nor will it ever, accept condoms, or homosexual sex! Yet priests, Bishops, and (God forbid) maybe even the Pope could accept these! But it isn't the Churches fault that these people have decided to commit spiritual suicide. The Church is the Good Mother, and she cannot FORCE us to do what is right. We have a free will. We can choose to reject our mother. It isn't our Mothers fault.

I think you knew that, but I wanted to clarify your point, so that other viewers might not get the idea that the Catholic Church teaches in error (which she does not). The Catholic Church does house sinners, and that is where the problem lies.

God bless you!

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

In any organization with a billion members you will have some sinners and alot of woefully uneducated, undereducated, or misinformed people in leadership and teaching positions...especially in nations with sizable populations of so-called "intellectuals" who reject that organization's core doctrines and ethical teachings.

So with respect to the Catholic Church, you have in every parish a large group of people who know their faith only tentatively. Then you'll have a core group who are more "active" but also don't know much about their faith and all the "whys, why nots, and how comes".

If your DRE and pastor have been trained in the art of non-thinking dissent (which basically means they ask rhetorical "why not"? questions and then in the absence of a reply decide that whatever they dream up is better than the tradition of the Church), you will have the blind leading the blind.

Fortunately though, the Church is not composed exclusively of those sorts of people. We also have many movements, orders, congregations, and local dioceses full of intelligent, formed, and active Catholics who know who Jesus Christ is, what he commands of us in the Gospel, understand how this is to be lived, and fervently seek to bring this Good news to others.

When I was in Latin America I met many current Protestants who left their parishes not because they knew the Catholic faith, but because they didn't and were offered some TLC and food and a job by some Protestant missionaries. They were also offered "a place at the table" in these local congregations which made them feel "empowered" for the first time in their lives. (Most are poor laborers whose whole lives are dictated by powerful overlords.)

It has been said that the winter of the Church is the spring time of sects. But there's more going on. It's not entirely the case that the Catholic Church is loosing people... in reality, there are so many people and so few priests and bishops and physical structures called "churches" - a direct result of 150 years of state imposed anti-Catholic policies in Mexico and elsewhere - that thousands of people grow up without regularly seeing a priest much less having access to the sacraments and catechesis of our faith! In Acapulco, there are 3 million people but only 170 priests! Now how in the world can they be considered "failures" when each priest has tens of thousands of people to care for? Do the math. It's impossible for any one person to hear the confessions of 10,000 people on a regular basis!

What the Church needs then is not a change of doctine as much as more workers to help with the harvest! More charity, more zeal, more apostolates, prayer and study circles, more local groups involved with the parish - we need an energized and educated laity who are serious about their faith and love for Jesus Christ... and more seminarians and priests to bring them Jesus Christ.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

Well, I dislike the term "Latino". I don't understand why that term is used; I can identify much better with "Hispanic". I want to come back the my Church and I am making educated efforts to come back. I'm stuck in "limbo". My mind says no while my heart says yes. For me, it all boils down to doctrine. Some of it is still in me, some I can accept, but some of it is still a garbled mess in my mind. I'm 43 and I shouldn't be going through all of this mess; I wish I were 7 years old again. If I should blame anyone for my mess, it should be the Protestant Propaganda, my deceived heart, and myself for looking over my shoulders.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

I think the term Latino is used because spanish is a Latin-based language as is Portugese, whereas English is Germanic with French, Latin, and Greek words added for good measure.

"Hispanic" references "Hispanola" - which is actually a more exclusive ethnic and cultural group than the Latins are.

Then we have the sizable number of indigenous peoples in Mexico and Central and South America which include the Nuahuatle indians, the Mayans and Incas. There are many indigenous tribes in Mexico where the people barely speak Spanish! And surprise surprise, there is also an undercurrent of real racism down there too - what with the European blooded or mixed people being implicitly regarded as culturally superior and indians considered hicks.

You can be killed in some parts of Mexico by calling someone "que indio" (What an Indian).

In those regions it's not so much that Catholicism reigned supreme as it was the only viable option or organized option to folk religion and pagan custom. Many Mexicans have never foresaken their folk gods and lore, but absent political and priestly castes did foresake their ritual and temples.

It's probably also useful to point out that Mexico passed the most repressive anti-Catholic laws of any nation - including the Soviet Union - back in 1917. Many of those laws were only revoked in 2000.

(For example, the State determined how many religious ministers (priests) any given state or city would be allowed to have. These ministers' vows of celibacy were not recognized. No church could own any building or run any school, newspaper, political party, or radio station. Priests were forbidden to wear clerical garb or make any public display of religion or prayer. They were not considered to be citizens - but if caught were to be tried of high treason.

In Mexico this meant practically that from 1926 to 1999 the Church was politically and publically silent in Mexico. Everything it did had to be done "paralegally" or extra-legally...at any time the local, state or federal government could legally crack down, arrest priests, nuns, lay people, confiscate property, etc.

This also meant that until recently 95% of all children attended only non-Catholic, secular schools - which besides indoctrinating them in atheism, socialism and a hedonist view of sexuality and life, also forced religion into a relatively minimum weekly time frame...

So when you read that Mexico is 80% Catholic or that Protestants are making great strides there... you really aren't getting the full story. In fact, ANY BODY who goes to Mexico with any doctrine is going to win converts.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

Interesting!

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 14, 2003.

The term "Latino" is probably short for "Latinoamericano." Most people take it as synonymous with "Spanish-speakers of the Americas," though it technically includes the speakers of Portuguese (e.g., Brazilians) as well.

The term "Hispanic" does not reference "Hispaniola." The latter is the little-used name of the big island that now consists of Haiti (on the West) and the Dominican Republic (on the East). The words "Hispanic" and "Hispaniola" are independently derived from the Latin word "Hispania" (meaning "Spain).

The island got its name from Cristoforo Colombo, who called it "La Isla Española" (The Spanish Island), a name that was later rendered on Latin-language maps as "Hispaniola."

The word "Hispanic" can be an adjective or a noun. As an adjective, it can mean (1) "Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America," or (2) "Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture." As a noun, it can mean (1) "A Spanish-speaking person" or (2) "A U.S. citizen or resident of Latin-American or Spanish descent."

The 2000 "American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language" has the following convoluted "usage note":

Though often used interchangeably in American English, Hispanic and Latino are not identical terms, and in certain contexts the choice between them can be significant. Hispanic, from the Latin word for “Spain,” has the broader reference, potentially encompassing all Spanish-speaking peoples in both hemispheres and emphasizing the common denominator of language among communities that sometimes have little else in common. Latino —- which in Spanish means "Latin" but which as an English word is probably a shortening of the Spanish word latinoamericano —- refers more exclusively to persons or communities of Latin American origin. Of the two, only Hispanic can be used in referring to Spain and its history and culture; a native of Spain residing in the United States is an Hispanic, not a Latino, and one cannot substitute Latino in the phrase the Hispanic influence on native Mexican cultures without garbling the meaning. In practice, however, this distinction is of little significance when referring to residents of the United States, most of whom are of Latin American origin and can theoretically be called by either word. A more important distinction concerns the sociopolitical rift that has opened between Latino and Hispanic in American usage. For a certain segment of the Spanish-speaking population, Latino is a term of ethnic pride and Hispanic a label that borders on the offensive. According to this view, Hispanic lacks the authenticity and cultural resonance of Latino, with its Spanish sound and its ability to show the feminine form Latina when used of women. Furthermore, Hispanic —- the term used by the U.S. Census Bureau and other government agencies —- is said to bear the stamp of an Anglo establishment far removed from the concerns of the Spanish-speaking community. While these views are strongly held by some, they are by no means universal, and the division in usage seems as related to geography as it is to politics, with Latino widely preferred in California and Hispanic the more usual term in Florida and Texas. Even in these regions, however, usage is often mixed, and it is not uncommon to find both terms used by the same writer or speaker.

With the above in mind, each person can make an informed choice (?) as to whether to use "Latino" or "Hispanic." Muy buenas noches, amiguitos.

-- (noah@j.webster), October 14, 2003.

Hi, Jake H.

Nice to see you.

You said:" Christine L good to see you still posting."

I don't think Christine is still posting. I think that was a older post from last year.

"My Catholic school taught us to put condoms on pickles in 6t grade.."

Now this is sad! This kind of evil should be stopped dead in its tracks, Jake. It sounds as if the parents did nothing. Where where the parents when this went on? Evil thrives when good men do nothing! Somebodys parent should of made the teacher eat the pickles.

It sounds as you went to a satanic school with perverted teachers! Who in there right mind would sit there and slip a condom on a pickle?

"...two gay people talked to us about homosexual acts."

Again, where where the parents when these freaks of nature where talking of this demonic garbage in front of children? Is the school still doing this with the pickles? If so what is the name of the school? Why don't you put a end to this garbage for the future of Gods' children? I don't think it would be to hard.

PS: I am not taking a cheap shot at your Mom, Jake. I know your Mom is a very special and holy Lady. I am refering to the Parents of all the children.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 14, 2003.

noah-

Interesting, interesting!

I remember when the word "latino" became a political buzz word around my area. Back in the 60's, it seemed that most were running around looking for an indentity. People were calling themselves "Aztecos" or becoming Brown Berets. It was as if my culture had been put through a molcajete in trying to bring all spanish speakers under one label. Somewhere in all of that mix people forgot that there was already one label that fit all of us-- American. I guess we could meet half-way and say "Americanos". Well, the little box in those important questionaires and applications that require an answer from me will be checked off as "Hispanic", pronounced "ee-span-eek". I suppose that with a name like "Rodriguez", "hispanic" would be ok. I don't like the ring of "latino". Neither label offends me, but being ignored is another story.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 15, 2003.

Topping for a response from Jake.

-- . (Where@parents.com), October 16, 2003.

Jake,

If you know little boys and girls are having to put condoms on pickles than you have a duty to speak up.You must be a man and have the courage to speak up and STOP this. You must believe in your-self. [Does Christ want you to ignore this?]

"..But it isn't the Churches fault that people have decided to commit spiritual suicide.."

No, but it is the fault of parents that let sodimites come to a Catholic school and talk this to their children about this. What did you learn by putting a condom on a pickle JAKE? What did you learn by listening to the gay dudes?

"..yet priests, Bishops and (God forbid)maybe even the Pope."

No Jake. The Pope wouldn't agree with you putting condoms on pickles. This is something that needs to be stopped right away.

No it is NOT the Churches fault Jake! This is what a perveted teacher will do to a devolp[ing] child[s] mind if not stopped.Please don't be a whimp about this.

You should be a Catholic man and [at least] stop letting little boys and girls stop playing with condoms and pickles like you had to do.

Believe in yourself Jake, and stop this. Do you want help?

God bless you, and all the children that somone is getting a "cheap thrill" from.[Do you thik the teacher enjoyed watching the young girl [s] put a condom on a PICKLE?dMaybe he got a thrill watching you do this Jake?

Please be a man, Jake, and put a end to this.

-- . (David@excite.com), October 18, 2003.