Article - Traditional Catholicism Is Winning

[jwinch2]

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303772904577335290865863450.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
By ANNE HENDERSHOTT AND CHRISTOPHER WHITE:

In his Holy Thursday homily at St. Peter’s Basilica on April 5, Pope Benedict XVI denounced calls from some Catholics for optional celibacy among priests and for women’s ordination. The pope said that “true renewal” comes only through the “joy of faith” and “radicalism of obedience.”

And renewal is coming. After the 2002 scandal about sexual abuse by clergy, progressive Catholics were predicting the end of the celibate male priesthood in books like “Full Pews and Empty Altars” and “The Death of Priesthood.” Yet today the number of priestly ordinations is steadily increasing.

A new seminary is to be built near Charlotte, N.C., and the archdiocese of Washington, D.C., has expanded its facilities to accommodate the surge in priestly candidates. Boston’s Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley recently told the National Catholic Register that when he arrived in 2003 to lead that archdiocese he was advised to close the seminary. Now there are 70 men in Boston studying to be priests, and the seminary has had to turn away candidates for lack of space.

According to the Vatican’s Central Office of Church Statistics, there were more than 5,000 more Catholic priests world-wide in 2009 than there were in 1999. This is welcome news for a growing Catholic population that has suffered through a real shortage of priests.

The situation in the U.S. is still tenuous. The number of American Catholics has grown to 77.7 million, up from 50 million in 1980. But the priest-to-parishioner ratio has changed for the worse. In 1965, there was one priest for every 780 American parishioners. By 1985, there was one priest for every 900 Catholics, and by 2011 there was one for every 2,000. In dioceses where there are few ordinations, such as New York’s Rochester and Albany, people know this shortage well.

Still, the future is encouraging. There were 467 new priestly ordinations in the U.S. last year, according to a survey by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, up from 442 a decade ago.

While some of the highest numbers of new priests are in the Catholic-majority cities of Newark, N.J., and Philadelphia, ordinations in Washington, D.C. (18 last year) and Chicago (26) also are booming. The biggest gains are not only in traditional Catholic strongholds. In Lincoln, Neb., Catholics constitute only 16% of the population yet have some of the strongest numbers of ordinations. In 2011, there were 10 men ordained as priests in Lincoln.

What explains the trend? Nearly 20 years ago, Archbishop Elden Curtiss, then leader of the Omaha, Neb., diocese, suggested that when dioceses are unambiguous and allow a minimum of dissent about the male, celibate priesthood, more candidates answer the call to the priesthood. Our preliminary research on the correlates of priestly ordinations reveals that the dioceses with the largest numbers of new priests are led by courageous bishops with faithful and inspirational vocations offices.

Leadership and adherence to church doctrine certainly distinguish the bishop of Lincoln, the Most Rev. Fabian Bruskewitz. He made national news in 1996 when he stated that members of dissident Catholic groups including Call to Action and Catholics for Choice had automatically excommunicated themselves from the church.

Cardinal Francis George, the longtime leader of the Chicago archdiocese, once gave a homily that startled the faithful by pronouncing liberal Catholicism “an exhausted project . . . parasitical on a substance that no longer exists.” Declaring that Catholics are at a “turning point” in the life of the church in this country, the cardinal concluded that the bishops must stand as a “reality check for the apostolic faith.”

Such forthright defense of the faith and doctrine stands in clear contrast to the emphasis of an earlier generation of Catholic theologians and historians. Many boomer priests and scholars were shaped by what they believed was an “unfulfilled promise” of Vatican II to embrace modernity. Claiming that the only salvation for the church would be to ordain women, remove the celibacy requirement and empower the laity, theologians such as Paul Lakeland, a Fairfield University professor and former Jesuit priest, have demanded that much of the teaching authority of the bishops and priests be transferred to the laity.

This aging generation of progressives continues to lobby church leaders to change Catholic teachings on reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and women’s ordination. But it is being replaced by younger men and women who are attracted to the church because of the very timelessness of its teachings.

They are attracted to the philosophy, the art, the literature and the theology that make Catholicism countercultural. They are drawn to the beauty of the liturgy and the church’s commitment to the dignity of the individual. They want to be contributors to that commitment—alongside faithful and courageous bishops who ask them to make sacrifices. It is time for Catholics to celebrate their arrival.

 

[winkler]

Hi ,
Really a nice discussion is done by you. I have no more knowledge about this religion but i have gone to this temple . I have some knowledge also. In the my opinion, every religion has the similarity - Mercy about the human, animal , etc .
I am also seeing your post regularly . Please provide me the suitable knowledge about this religion .
Thanks .

 

[choliks]

I can’t find the “Like” button. Is there a “Like” button here?

Thanks for the article, jwinch.

 

[jwinch2]

I can’t find the “Like” button. Is there a “Like” button here?

Thanks for the article, jwinch.

No problem. I saw it on Facebook and you can bet that I “liked” it there.

Peace,

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Tradition has always won

• PAX

 

[YoungTradCath]

Ain’t that the truth.

 

[Megan7]

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303772904577335290865863450.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

We do not have like buttons, but we have 5 stars rating system

Thanks for the article!

Pax

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I would ask that people look at the above article from a more neutral point of view and perhaps more importantly imagine that they were a faithful Catholic from the other side of the aisle so to speak. For while there is much that is good about this article there is also from my point of view much that generally uncivil and that picks fights with people that should be our allies.

The most egregious example the linking of liberal Catholics with ‘parasitical…’ but there are plenty of others such phrases in this article that do nothing to build up the Church and much to tear it apart.

And yet, the worst aspect in this article is that it doesn’t address the main problem with our Church, the complete failure of our Church to be good shepherds who feed and maintain the flock. Our religious educations classes are a joke run by caring people who have absolutely no training and absolutely no guidance. (Every single survey that I am aware of show that Catholics (even church going Catholics) are the least aware of their faith of any religion.) The Catholic community is not welcoming of new members. The music is mediocre to bad. The homilies are uninspiring, etc.

I am not saying that any of these reasons are good reasons to leave the Church. They are awful reasons. But for every one person who leaves because of disagreements with ‘conservative and traditional’ teachings there are ten who drift away because they never grew roots in the Church. Every inspiring sermon, every welcoming Catholic, every well taught education lesson removes a rock from the rocky ground allowing the seed sown there to reach fertile soil and put down firm roots.

But such articles as the one above, gives the false impression that the Church must succeed not as the Good Shepherd did by leaving the 99 to save the 1 but by gleefully tossing out the 60 (or at least cheering on their demise) to make the remaining 40 more pure and more attractive.

There are some good things in the article such as the sentence proclaiming that the successful dioceses had developed good vocational offices that were engaging and faithful to the Catholic message. All Catholics whether liberal or conservative, ‘progressive’ or ‘traditional’ should cheer that on. Now if only the Church would extend that to not just the vocational office but to ALL Catholics.

I will end my overly long diatribe with the quote from Pope Benedict demanding ‘obedience’. I have nothing wrong with that. But, I know from experience as a parent that the only time one says something like that (‘do it because I said so’) is in desperation. Worse 9 times out of 10 the desperation occurs because the parent (in other words me) failed at communicating something important. I can always blame the child or blame the school or blame society but in the end I know that most of the blame lies with me. I am the one who knows the most and whose job it is to teach the child. It is my responsibility to be the adult to know who my child is, to know where and how the school and society interact with my child and most of importantly keep the lines of communication open.

The Church has no real hope of getting better until the Bishops, and yes all the rest of us, accept that we personally (not just their/our predecessors) are largely responsible for the straying of so many Catholics many of which commit mortal sins such as abortion and divorce/remarriage. That while it is important to firmly support the teachings of the Church it is equally important to be good shepherds that take care of the little pastoral things like our religious education system, etc.

 

[choliks]

Fair point, but I fail to see the link between liberal Catholicism and uninspiring homilies, mediocre music, and unwelcoming members, etc…

 

[Edmundus1581]

I was going to point out some startling errors in the article, but then I realised that it is published in the Wall Street Journal, so the headline was provided by the editors, not the authors (as is the usual practice in newspapers), and that it’s intended for a non-Catholic audience where “Traditional Catholicism” means something quite different from what it means among Catholics. In the context it was printed, Traditional Catholicism is that form of Catholicism which accepts most (not even all) of what the Church teaches, and isn’t trying to change the rules. ie. most people in this forum would be Traditional Catholics from this POV.

Remember, the media tend to like battles, and easily identifiable groups, so “Traditional Catholicism” is pitted against “Trendy, dissident, Catholicism”. That’s what this is about.

Nuances such as the difference between clerical celibacy, and the ordination of women, as debatable items are not relevant here, as the article is for non-Catholics.

At that level, ie. as an article about the Catholic Church for non-Catholics, I’d say it is quite good.

However, if we were to treat is as an article for Catholics, then it’s poor. My comments on such follow.

---

A shoddy article. Pope Benedict and Cardinal George are both misquoted. Neither is endorsing Traditional Catholicism.

Pope Benedict XVI denounced calls from some Catholics for optional celibacy among priests and for women’s ordination.

Should raise a red flag to an alert reader, as optional celibacy is a legitimate area of debate. It turns out that his remarks were directed to a specific dissident group of European priests who were calling for both optional celibacy and for women’s ordination.

And this, from the article, about Cardinal George.

Cardinal Francis George, the longtime leader of the Chicago archdiocese, once gave a homily that startled the faithful by pronouncing liberal Catholicism “an exhausted project . . . parasitical on a substance that no longer exists.” Declaring that Catholics are at a “turning point” in the life of the church in this country, the cardinal concluded that the bishops must stand as a “reality check for the apostolic faith.”

This is what he actually said:

We are at a turning point in the life of the church in this country. **Liberal Catholicism is an exhausted project. Essentially a critique, even a necessary critique at one point in our history, it is now parasitical on a substance that no longer exists. **It has shown itself unable to pass on the faith in its integrity and inadequate, therefore, in fostering the joyful self-surrender called for in Christian marriage, in consecrated life, in ordained priesthood. It no longer gives life.

**The answer, however, is not to be found in a type of conservative Catholicism obsessed with particular practices and so sectarian in its outlook that it cannot serve as a sign of unity of all peoples in Christ.

The answer is simply Catholicism, in all its fullness and depth,** a faith able to distinguish itself from any cultures and yet able to engage and transform them all, a faith joyful in all the gifts Christ wants to give us and open to the whole world he died to save. The Catholic faith shapes a church with a lot of room for differences in pastoral approach, for discussion and debate, for initiatives as various as the peoples whom God loves. But, more profoundly, the faith shapes a church which knows her Lord and knows her own identity, a church able to distinguish between what fits into the tradition that unites her to Christ and what is a false start or a distorting thesis, a church united here and now because she is always one with the church throughout the ages and with the saints in heaven.

Please also note that Cardinal George’s homily was impromptu, and he regretted even the phrasing of “parasitical”. I can imagine that some people love the sound of those few words, when taken of context.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I would ask that people look at the above article from a more neutral point of view and perhaps more importantly imagine that they were a faithful Catholic from the other side of the aisle so to speak. For while there is much that is good about this article there is also from my point of view much that generally uncivil and that picks fights with people that should be our allies.

Your post came in while I was working on mine! I agree, but please see my comments above about the context of the article.

 

[Edmundus1581]

… I realised that it is published in the Wall Street Journal, so the headline was provided by the editors, not the authors (as is the usual practice in newspapers), …

My punctuation here is not quite right, so just clarifying it. Newspaper headlines are always written by the newspaper editors, and usually with the aim of grabbing attention. The headline is often a misrepresentation of the contents of the article, for which the author is not responsible.

 

[felsguy]

And yet, the worst aspect in this article is that it doesn’t address the main problem with our Church, the complete failure of our Church to be good shepherds who feed and maintain the flock. Our religious educations classes are a joke run by caring people who have absolutely no training and absolutely no guidance. .

May I suggest that you might find it beneficial to broaden your personal experience a little.

.

 

[TempleServant]

… as optional celibacy is a legitimate area of debate. It turns out that his remarks were directed to a specific dissident group of European priests who were calling for both optional celibacy and for women’s ordination…

I had a look at that page. The article said that the Pope denounced priests arguing for optional celibacy. How does that turn into ‘a legitimate area of debate’?

 

[Edmundus1581]

I had a look at that page. The article said that the Pope denounced priests arguing for optional celibacy. How does that turn into ‘a legitimate area of debate’?

The Pope’s Holy Thursday address criticised a particular group of priests for a particular form of dissent on the matter. I never said his address turned it into a “legitimate area for debate”. It already is (a legitimate area…), and his remarks didn’t close it, as implied by the OP article.

 

[pilots13]

I find it hard to proclaim that traditionalism is winning. On a world wide level, it might be. In places like Latin America, Asia, and Africa that might very well be the case. But in the US and Europe it’s a very different story. And that’s where the money is. And I know the Church is about so much more than the money, but the reality of things is, it really is not.

cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html

I came across this interesting study by Georgetown which shows why “winning” might not be the right term. The statistics show # of priests and nuns steadily dropping. Their latest stats showed an uptick in Ordinations, which is good, but then you see that from 05 to 11 we added 13 more Ordinations per year, but lost 3373 total priests. Further more, you have an increasing number of Catholics in the US, but the percent that attends Mass one day a week or more actually dropped a percent from 05 to 11.

My belief is the push towards not just more traditionalism, but almost a push towards undoing everything Vatican II did (good and bad) is hurting the Church in the long run. Everything has to adapt with time, even the Church. Yes the Church is becoming more traditional, turning out more traditional Priests, maybe even having more traditional parishes. But, when I see churches becoming more and more empty, more parishes being merged or clustered, more friends who were raised Catholic leaving the Chruch and new ones not coming in, that’s not really winning.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

The Pope’s Holy Thursday address criticised a particular group of priests for a particular form of dissent on the matter. I never said his address turned it into a “legitimate area for debate”. It already is (a legitimate area…), and his remarks didn’t close it, as implied by the OP article.

So you think that, because it was paired with women’s ordination in the above address, optional celibacy on its own is still a legitimate area for debate in the Roman Catholic Church? By priests or laity or both?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

You know why the Church is in decline? Because it’s a desert of ignorance out there. The ignorant can’t teach the ignorant and closet heretics can’t either.

It’s gonna take some time.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

You know why the Church is in decline? Because it’s a desert of ignorance out there. The ignorant can’t teach the ignorant and closet heretics can’t either.

It’s gonna take some time.

This. It seems odd to blame the rise of so-called traditionalism for the declining numbers in the Church when those numbers have been declining for 30+ years, long before traditionalism was much of a blip on the Church’s radar. It seems more logical to blame the 30+ years of liberalism for the decline. It reaches a point of absurdity when liberals keep saying that to save the Church we need to be more liberal! They had their day in the sun, so to speak.

It reminds me of what a man said to me in the Czech Republic in the mid 1990s. We were attending a May 1 Labor Day party sponsored by the Communist Party (the whole village was there because the commies offered free beer, sausage, and a polka band, but noone was communist). I asked him his thoughts on the communists. He said they had 40 years to show what they could do and that they certainly showed it.

• PAX

 

[pilots13]

This. It seems odd to blame the rise of so-called traditionalism for the declining numbers in the Church when those numbers have been declining for 30+ years, long before traditionalism was much of a blip on the Church’s radar. It seems more logical to blame the 30+ years of liberalism for the decline. It reaches a point of absurdity when liberals keep saying that to save the Church we need to be more liberal! They had their day in the sun, so to speak.

It reminds me of what a man said to me in the Czech Republic in the mid 1990s. We were attending a May 1 Labor Day party sponsored by the Communist Party (the whole village was there because the commies offered free beer, sausage, and a polka band, but noone was communist). I asked him his thoughts on the communists. He said they had 40 years to show what they could do and that they certainly showed it.

• PAX

My comeback is, when people leave the faith, or stop practicing, where do they go. I know in the US the Evangelical and non denominational churches have boomed in the past few decades. These are more liberal, open minded, guitar & drum playing churches than the Catholic Church is.

Here’s a quote from an article written by a Fr. Thomas Reese.

Pew’s data shows that those leaving the church are not homogenous. They can be divided into two major groups: those who become unaffiliated and those who become Protestant. Almost half of those leaving the church become unaffiliated and almost half become Protestant.
Why do people leave the Catholic church to become Protestant?

The principal reasons given by people who leave the church to become Protestant are

that their “spiritual needs were not being met” in the Catholic church (71 percent)
they “found a religion they like more” (70 percent).
Eighty-one percent of respondents say they joined their new church because they enjoy the religious service and style of worship of their new faith.

In other words, the Catholic church has failed to deliver what people consider fundamental products of religion: spiritual sustenance and a good worship service. And before conservatives blame the new liturgy, only 11 percent of those leaving complained that Catholicism had drifted too far from traditional practices such as the Latin Mass.

Sounds like the problem might not be that progressive Catholicism didn’t work, but rather that it didn’t progress far enough.