Menu Close

Bitcoin For The Church: The Young Won’t Be Fooled

guest post

Guest post by MJ Lisbeth

According to Pew Research and other polls, the Catholic Church in the U.S. is losing six congregants for every person who joins. The Church is also hemorrhaging members in other countries, even in such former bastions of Catholicism as Ireland and Spain. Moreover, for every person who formally leaves the church, others simply drift away. While the Vatican doesn’t seem overly concerned, as membership has grown exponentially over recent decades in Sub-Saharan Africa and in other regions, Church leaders in the U.S. and Western Europe (which, a century ago, was home to two-thirds of the world’s Catholics) are deeply worried. Those leaders, clerical and lay alike, are trying all sorts of things to keep members, particularly the young, in the fold.

If generals are always fighting the last war, leaders of institutions are always trying to woo the young with equally outdated notions of what appeals to them. During my childhood and early adolescence, churches—including the one in which I was an altar boy—started to offer “folk masses.” They were, apparently, a piece of the Church’s attempt to “meet people where they are,” which included the shift from Latin to vernacular languages in the liturgy. I can’t help but wonder whether offering masses said in English that included songs by Peter Paul and Mary actually enticed any young people to stay in the flock, but I recall feeling condescended to with the choice of music. After all, most adults’ ideas about what kinds of music their kids like are off by at least five years, if not more. As an example, I think of the relative who gave me a Monkees album for my fourteenth birthday, in 1972. (OK, you can do the math. But I’m a lady and won’t tell you my age! 😉

At least that relative understood other, far more important, things about me. That is why, even after that misguided gift, I never felt patronized. That relative, in short, was sensitive and sensible.

The same cannot be said for a group of folks who are trying to bring the Catholic Church into the 21st Century. At least, that’s what they seem to think they are trying to do. Cathio consists of “a team of well-established experts and leaders with deep roots in the Catholic Church.” Founded last year, the “Catholic enterprise” has just launched a platform “designed to enable all sectors of the Catholic community to benefit from lower costs and transparent payments,” says Cathio CEO Matthew Marcolini. Cathio advisor Jim Nicholson, formerly an ambassador to the Holy See, explains that in addition to the benefits Marcolini mentions, the Cathio platform will also facilitate “the connectivity of people of good will with good works.”

In other words, this Cathio platform is a sort of Bitcoin for the Catholic Church, which supposedly will make it easier for people to give money and harder for the church to hide its financial dealings. Call me a cynic, but I have my doubts as to whether either of those goals will be accomplished. The Cathio platform will almost certainly make it easier to move large sums of money, but from whom and to whom?

At least Marcolini and Nicholson are, at worst, misinformed about the good intentions of the flock and its herders. Another Cathio board member, however, shows that he is, at best, delusional. Then again, he’s merely confirming some of us have known for a long time.

That Board member once ran for President of the United States and has served as a US Senator from a state in which all of its Roman Catholic dioceses are part of a class-action lawsuit from—who else?—priest sex-abuse survivors. Rick Santorum says that, in addition to making financial transactions more efficient, the Cathio platform also offers the Church the opportunity to better engage young people. “Millennials don’t carry cash, they date on apps and watch on-demand entertainment. We have to be there, we have to learn from successful tech companies, and we have to make it easier for younger generations to engage with the Church.”

Now, I don’t know he defines “young people” and “younger generations.” Does he think they are synonymous with “millennials, who are generally defined as those born between 1981 and 1999? Well, I admit, at my age, 38-year-olds seem young, but I still wouldn’t call them “young people” or part of “younger generations.” Also, while millennials might conduct their lives on their electronic devices, they are using them to do things people of their age have always done: date, make travel arrangements, buy concert tickets and the like. Technology doesn’t seem to bring them back to practices or institutions they might have left behind. And, if anything, the “younger generations”—at least those younger than the millennials—won’t be as enraptured by technologies as millennials because they will have grown up with them.

But where Santorum really misses the boat, so to speak, is in his perception of who isn’t going to church anymore and why. Perhaps earlier generations stopped attending masses or services because they’d rather sleep in or go mountain biking on Sunday morning, or simply because they found those masses or services boring or irrelevant. But today’s young, and even middle-aged and older people, are more likely to be fed up with the church. In part because so much information is available to them so readily on their devices, they are less likely to accept the authority of religious leaders or the validity (let alone inerrancy) of the Bible. Even more important, they are more likely to have friends, relatives or co-workers who are LGBTQ or of a different religion or cultural heritage from what they grew up with. And young men know women who are doing the same work as they are, and possibly doing it even better.

Oh, and they’ve heard all about the sex abuse scandals. Perhaps they were victims themselves and were fortunate enough to get help at a relatively young age and be spared a lifetime of shame, self-loathing, substance abuse and unfulfilled and unfulfilling relationships and jobs.

In brief, if the Church has any hope of re-engaging the “younger generations” Santorum and others want to woo, it has to get rid of the predatory priests and everyone who covered up for and enabled them, for starters. (Actually, it would help even more if those priests, deacons and others didn’t molest kids at all, but that might be asking for too much too soon.) Then, it has to finally start respecting women’s bodies and minds. That means, among other things, supporting birth control and contraception and not punishing women when they come forward as rape victims. Finally, for once and for all, it has to end any and all bigotry, whether against LGBTQ people or anyone else.

If the Church is willing and able to do those things, it just might stanch the outflow of young people. Best of all, for the Church, such actions don’t require technology and wouldn’t cost the church anything. But I don’t expect the church to adopt such ideas: Even if the American and European churches become relics like Stonehenge, the church still has the Global South—at least until its young get smartphones and make gay friends.


  1. Avatar
    davey crockett

    Good article!! The other thought i would ad is that most of these church organizations don’t give good or even relevant advice and are definitely hard of hearing. Have had to counsel several times in my life and the church was the absolute worst place to go and listen to for help and guidance and to be heard. Am reminded of what i learned in college business about human nature. If someone finds a good or service that they like, that person will probably tell family and friends about it. And if they get burned you can be sure they will tell anyone that will listen. I definitely think this is a biggy with churches losing people. In my own life, it’s the people that heard me and gave good advice that are still fondly remembered and respected. I thank God and my lucky stars for these special people. And not a one of them measured up to the church’s standards.

  2. Avatar

    I read an article recently that the Catholic church was considering giving “priesthood power” to some respected married older men in parts of South America that lacked enough priests to carry out frequent sacraments. Of course, whoever was officially interviewed from the Vatican stressed that the church still believed in celibacy for priests, this is just a stop gap measure. I guess the church doesn’t want to admit that in 1st world countries, fewer people want to be engaged with the church, much less become priests.

  3. Avatar

    When I first read about the Cathio cryptocurrency it didn’t even occur to me that this was to be relatable to young people (and I still don’t). I was thinking it was a way for Santorum (et al.) to make money, because if your cryptocurrency is adopted and becomes valuable the early coins that you keep will become much more valuable. It is also a way for the church and church members to create their own economy. Since all currencies (even cryptocurrencies) require trust, I suspect that the trust that is implicitly granted to the Roman Catholic church would help make it (potentially) more popular.
    There is really no downside to creating your own crypto, if it fails so what? And who knows giving a crypto some of the faith granted to the papacy might just give it legs.

  4. Avatar

    If the Catholic Church wants to survive the first thing they need to do is change the conversation on celibacy. Too many men can’t carry it out over a lifetime and it results in pathological behavior that begats even more pathology.

    I remember a conversation I heard as a kid. Gossip had it that a particular local priest was sleeping with his housekeeper, my dad remarked that it was better than some things the man could be doing. I didn’t understand as a kid but I do now!

    If, for whatever reason, the church can’t let go of the contraception ban, they do need to decide that if the mother’s life or health is endangered then the pregnancy can be ended, and that if the doctor says any (more) pregnancies could threaten the mother’s life that she may be sterilized. Doctor’s orders should be enough to end fertility and a woman shouldn’t be asked to risk her life for a pregnancy.

    Again it comes down to a change in how the church understands celibacy, both in the priesthood and vocations as well as in real life.

Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.

Bruce Gerencser