Before Vatican II, After

[RoyNeary2001]

How would you explain the difference in the Church in the United States between before and after Vatican II to someone who was born in the late 1960s, passed through the Church during the late 1970s, early 1980s?
I inherited the Catholic faith through my great grandparents, maternal grandmother and mother. My mother, uncle and aunts would have grown up in a small rural Church during the 1950s before graduating from high school during the 1960s. Today, my family on that side varies between the uncle’s faith in an evangelical non-denominational church; an aunt’s tepid religiousity of her husband’s faith in an ethnic inherited tradition; an aunt’s radical feminist antagonism about religion; and, a mother’s indifference about religion. Only my mother and younger aunt were married in a Catholic Church during the early 1960s, and late 1970s.
Church attendance for me was a matter of customary obedience to a mother’s wishes, and pleasing my grandmother, especially regarding Confirmation. This was like eating your vegetables because it was good for me. There was not any conviction to the custom.
The only hint about the Church before Vatican II from the family was off hand comments about the Mass being too long and boring. Otherwise, I have only sporadic evidence from reading and listening about Vatican II from a historical perspective through the debates and controvesy about it.
Please be clear and concise in trying to explain what happened through a sympathetic perspective of a younger person who does not understand it. I fail to miss something here, as far as a privation in my own faith and spiritual formation in the Church. Consider me religiously malnourished, disaffected by the complacency, indifference and antagonisms.
Any further elaborations will arise in replies to sort of the issues here. Thanks.

 

[edwest2]

How would you explain the difference in the Church in the United States between before and after Vatican II to someone who was born in the late 1960s, passed through the Church during the late 1970s, early 1980s?
I inherited the Catholic faith through my great grandparents, maternal grandmother and mother. My mother, uncle and aunts would have grown up in a small rural Church during the 1950s before graduating from high school during the 1960s. Today, my family on that side varies between the uncle’s faith in an evangelical non-denominational church; an aunt’s tepid religiousity of her husband’s faith in an ethnic inherited tradition; an aunt’s radical feminist antagonism about religion; and, a mother’s indifference about religion. Only my mother and younger aunt were married in a Catholic Church during the early 1960s, and late 1970s.
Church attendance for me was a matter of customary obedience to a mother’s wishes, and pleasing my grandmother, especially regarding Confirmation. This was like eating your vegetables because it was good for me. There was not any conviction to the custom.
The only hint about the Church before Vatican II from the family was off hand comments about the Mass being too long and boring. Otherwise, I have only sporadic evidence from reading and listening about Vatican II from a historical perspective through the debates and controvesy about it.
Please be clear and concise in trying to explain what happened through a sympathetic perspective of a younger person who does not understand it. I fail to miss something here, as far as a privation in my own faith and spiritual formation in the Church. Consider me religiously malnourished, disaffected by the complacency, indifference and antagonisms.
Any further elaborations will arise in replies to sort of the issues here. Thanks.

First children need to be raised in the faith. This is a promise given at the time of baptism by the parents. Priests don’t baptize just anyone, a baby or an adult must be raised in the faith. Confirmation provides a spiritual gift to the young lady or young man going through the sacrament. By adulthood, we should reaffirm our commitment to the truth - Jesus Christ.

First of all, I was there before and after Vatican II in Catholic school. The only visible change was a new, smaller altar in front of the large original, the priest faced the parishioners and the Mass was in English instead of Latin. Our prayer books had phonetic breakdowns for the Latin words to make them easy to say. The nuns told us this was done to increase participation in the Mass by the people. After Vatican II, I had no reason to less Catholic or different in any way. We still had Stations of the Cross and all the Holy Days of Obligation.

However, there were people inside and outside of the Church that wanted it to change - to do things differently. But none of the changes commonly associated with Vatican II were even suggested by Vatican II. None.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

So, what was going on? Freedom was the word at the time, and freedom meant, for example, breaking ties with the Church hierarchy:

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

In 1967, some Catholic Universities took the dangerous step of doing it their way in the name of academic freedom. Almost needless to say, Catholic universities soon began to resemble their non-Catholic counterparts. The outside world helped to guide them in the wrong direction.

In 1968, dating meant no sex. It meant the parents of the couple got to know each other. If things went well, you might become engaged, and if you did become engaged, it was a big deal. For the guy, the girl’s father would sit you down and ask, “So, how are you going to take care of my daughter?” The father had been your age at one time so he understood the hormones and the attraction, so it was his job to ask you the practical questions if you were serious about getting married. Very important stuff.

If you were Catholic and got married, it also meant no artificial birth control, but, at the time, the Church knew that The Pill was the hot new thing. I remember guys at the time telling me I didn’t have to worry about condoms if I got married.

Pope Paul VI published a document titled Humanae Vitae in 1968, on The Regulation of Births. He warned Catholics about The Pill and other forms of artificial contraception. He knew The Pill would be a strong temptation. He told married Catholics that if they went with it, or other means, they would regard the love of their life less. And that there would be an increase in promiscuity. He was right.

And there were theologians in the Church arguing against this document, defying the Pope! Some priests even signed a letter of protest against it. Once again - “freedom” was the reason given.

In the 1970s, men in seminaries were taught Humanae Vitae but were also told that the Church would change its postion on artificial birth control someday. When they became priests, they told parishiners that artificial birth control was a personal conscience matter. Fortunately, this is changing, I heard a priest on Catholic radio say that new priests are getting the correct teaching. Things are slowly turning around.

Peace,
Ed