Too close to the Catholic harlot of Babylon I guess!
But seriously, my impression is that it is more prevalent in the US, and has a lot to do with our culture of individualism. Each of us likes to be in charge and hates being told what to do, so I think there is a natural aversion to structure or hierarchy.
This charge could be laid at the feet of America's Founders, since, as with the NT church, it began in dissent from the established authority over the body from whence it arose. However, their dissent was not because of an animus against authority in general, in principle, and thus they affirmed the same, and their own respective bodies established their own, and which substantively reproof the corrupt authorities they dissented from, based upon higher authority
As for Protestantism, it also being in compelled dissent, due to allegiance to a higher and infallible authority, with deviation from it by the established authority over the body from whence it arose had become critical is wired and in deed.
However, while it also affirmed authority, and thus the Westminster Confession affirms "it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith," yet, like as the 4tyh century church failed the test of freedom by becoming much like the State in ways and means, the Reformation, in a opposite reaction to a Caesariopapacy, division that was compelled due to basic deviation too often became the solution by Reformers for lesser issues, with some becoming much like what they had escaped (it was not the Catholics who imprisoned holy
John Bunyan), while the most Christian souls, per usual, often became a persecuted remnant. Calvin and the Puritians saw theocracies in which, as with the Inquisitions, the state and its carnal means were employed in service to the church to punish merely theological offenses (as was commanded by popes before them).
Rome, with her papal demigod had so corrupted the Scriptural model of a central magisterium of holy and wise apostles that even the Orthodox had rejected it long before the Reformation, yet which is yet the ideal, and a body of Godly but street-level men as much like those described in 2 Corinthians 6:4-10 as can be found by consent of the faithful, who work to deal with basic issues (cf. Deuteronomy 17:8-13; Acts 15) according to the weight by evidential Scriptural warrant, is what evangelicals should look for. And i think they would be the first to welcome a Peter or Paul.
However, that of Catholicism with
her distinctives is so much in contrast to what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels) that she is not even in the running.
The more hierarchy, the more it is despised.
Just my two cents, of course
As a charge contrasting mainliners with conservative, fundamentalist Christians this does not hold water, for the hierarchy of mainliners can hardly be said to be strongly authoritative, at least not now.
It is partly due to the contrast btwn authoritative preaching and leadership and that of mainline denoms, as well as what is preached (and not preached) that results in liberals feeling most at home there.
Among
other stats showing contrast, Catholics broke with their Church's teachings more than most other groups, such as with just six out of 10 Catholics affirming that God is "a person with whom people can have a relationship", and three in 10 describing God as an "impersonal force." _2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Religious Landscape Study)
80% of Catholics believe it is possible to disagree with the pope on official positions on morality and still be a good Catholic. (Time/CNN nationwide poll of 1,000 adults, conducted by Yankelovich Partners, Sept. 27-28, 1995)
And as is abundantly evidenced, Catholics often disagree to varying degrees on just what is official church teaching, and what magisterial class it falls under, and their respective meanings.
