For a denomination canonically difficult to leave, many young (and not so young) American Catholics are migrating beyond the institution’s immediate influence. Research suggests many young Catholics make this decision to leave by the age of thirteen. Scholars predict a steady increase of this exodus and its influence on not just Catholicism but the whole of American religion.
Rightfully so, Pope Francis dedicated the 15th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops to address the related theme of “Young People, the Faith, and Vocational Discernment.” For Catholics, this is an unprecedented gathering promising to listen to young adults “without exception” in order to better accompany them on their journeys to religious maturity. I believe this focus on discernment is an inspired choice that hopefully represents an invitation to more open dialogue with many marginal groups and those just beyond the Church’s margins. That said, I wonder whether the bishops are ready for that dialogue. Allow me to both affirm this emerging approach and express what I think might be one of its limits.
In 2018, Saint Mary’s Press set out to improve the Catholic Church’s understanding of young adults who decide to disaffiliate. Those researchers in collaboration with the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) asked what appears to be a simple question: “Do we know who disaffiliates are?” The admission embedded in this modest inquiry implies that the answer has been “no.” The study then made an even more provocative and humble query: “Do we miss them when they are gone?” The suggestion again is that the answer has been “no,” but should be “yes.” This approach concedes a blind spot that has limited the Catholic Church’s discourse. We have been slow to learn who disaffiliates are and what the tradition and communities are missing as they quietly exit. Why? The governing assumption has been that disaffiliates, and their experiences, represent a problem that must be solved. They have “fallen way.”
In the Saint Mary’s study and the Synod, I see significant first steps in an alternative approach to engage disaffiliated Catholics and their experiences. The more positive curiosity suggested by the admissions embedded in Going, Going, Gone invites closer, more affirming empirical research that may lead to new responses. Like the Saint Mary’s study, the Synod’s documents suggest accompanying all young adults, “without exception,” in discernment that allows each young person the opportunity to discover their singular and original vocation and offer that gift to the human family. With that view in mind, my concern is: Can efforts to accompany young adults in their own discernment truly be about discernment if the Bishops enter that conversation with a forgone conclusion– (that returning to the Catholic Church is the only faithful option)?
As a young practical theologian and educator specializing in contemporary religious practices and experiences—especially disaffiliating young Catholics—I am eager to witness and contribute to the dialogue embodied by the Synod. However, I offer this observation of one restraint that may limit this exciting exchange. Although many contemporary ecclesial, theological, and pedagogical sources explicitly emphasize the mature responsibility young people possess to form their own lives freely, that informed religious choice is only affirmed when it leads to an affiliated religious identity. Likewise, despite the unprecedented intention to listen without exception, the Synod continues to speak of these young adults in language permeated by a narrative of loss and deficiency. Careful examination of the lives of disaffiliated Catholics, however, reveals that their religious lives are more complicated than these pessimistic assessments suggest. In particular, the assumption that leaving religion necessarily results in a nonreligious identity is simplistic and, perhaps, misleading.
According to the Synod’s document, Instrumentum Laboris, the bishops do understand that many young disaffiliated Catholics live with meaning and are developing spirituality and faith, but they rarely turn to the Church in those pursuits. The Synod notes the need to listen and learn more about these changing attitudes toward conventional religion but maintains a pejorative narrative of loss that represents significant barrier to that dialogue. Moreover, disaffiliated young Catholics, the group considered “priority one” at the Synod, are not present in this conversation. The effort then seems a listening with exception.
As the Saint Mary’s Study and the inspiration behind the Synod suggest, in order to understand young Catholics living and learning religiously at the edge of the Catholic Church’s direct influence and affiliation, they must be encountered, not just counted. Contemporary research, including my own, reveals their religious lives are more complex and positive than the common narrative of loss admits. There are promising opportunities in the more fluid expressions of the gospel and tradition found in the lives of disaffiliated Catholics, and there are ambiguities. The practices of these young “non-practicing” Catholics suggest they are maintaining a faithful but critical continuity with tradition even as they reject conventional elements of it. At the very least, they are worth listening to.
According to Instrumentum Laboris, “Young people are asking the Church for a monumental change of attitude, direction, and practice.” Both affiliated and disaffiliated young adults are asking for an “authentic” and “outgoing Church” that can grow and change. When Pope Francis initiated this exciting gathering, he called the Catholic Church to learn “new forms of presence.” That effort asks of all Catholics a convicted and truly open process of discernment to honestly listen and hear young adults, “without exception.” I affirm this timely and inspired dialogue. Such a culture of openness represents the new roads and new life the Church desires. I praise the bishops’ invitation to more open dialogue, and I suggest there is more work to do.