Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II

[Ham1]

It’s interesting that in the US, the steep decline in weekly Mass attendance started in 1957 and actually has flattened out over the last seven years.

I guess we Americans just did a good job anticipating Vatican II and stopped going to Mass early.

 

[bear06]

What do you mean, how it was implemented? If it was poorly implemented, why weren’t the necessary corrections made? What does that say about the ruling ability of the hierarchy and Rome? It implies they are totally inept at producing documents and carrying them out in a proper manner. It’s sounds more like an excuse. That is like me telling my children, I have rules and here they are, but then I let them do whatever they please and not correct them because they implemented them diffferently than what I meant them to be. It’s called chaos and not looking out for the best interest of my children’s souls. I recall a story about a woman asking St. Pio where her deceased children were, for they had died and she wanted to know the state of their souls. He told them they were in hell, because of her permissiveness. Not carrying out your duty to the souls you are entrusted with is a very serious matter, whether you are a parent or a prelate.

Like I said before, if you all do not see the fruits of what is going on in the Church over the past 40 years, I don’t know what to say. I am more inclined to think that when the Church became lax, so did society. The Church is the Pillar of Truth, and when the Truth is hidden, chaos ensues.

The fact is that there are those who are going to disobey no matter what the heirarchy does. Look at the aftermath of Trent. Masterfully done and yet some of it took 100 years to enact. Are we to say the heirarchy was inept at carrying out what they wanted? Yikes. This seems to be a case of us living in the here and now and not looking at history. Sometimes change comes very slow in our Church - especially when society is vehemently against it.

Like I’ve said before, if everything was peachy before Vatican II where in the heck did the Kennedys come from? They didn’t follow the Church before Vatican II or after and they were and are champions for many Catholics.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Like I’ve said before, if everything was peachy before Vatican II where in the heck did the Kennedys come from? They didn’t follow the Church before Vatican II or after and they were and are champions for many Catholics.

Not to mention that a lot of the paedophile priests were educated and ordained PRE VATICAN II.

It’s like trying to blame Britney Spears on the Eishenhower administration.

 

[Ham1]

Not to mention that a lot of the paedophile priests were educated and ordained PRE VATICAN II.

It’s like trying to blame Britney Spears on the Eishenhower administration.

Not a lot. Most. About 75% according to the John Jay report.

 

[bear06]

It’s like trying to blame Britney Spears on the Eishenhower administration.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It’s interesting that in the US, the steep decline in weekly Mass attendance started in 1957 and actually has flattened out over the last seven years.

I guess we Americans just did a good job anticipating Vatican II and stopped going to Mass early.

Now that is fascinating - Thanks ​

Is there anywhere one could find the stats for 1945 or so to 1975 ?

 

[RobedWithLight]

He actually wasn’t being sarcastic. Exaggerating a bit, perhaps. But in France the SSPX has better attendance than the rest of the Church.

I certainly hope so. This “blame the Vatican II game” is simply getting out of hand. The decline in church attendance and priestly vocations isn’t even evident here, and on the contrary, Sunday masses here (in English and Filipino) are well-attended “inspite of” Vatican II. This “traditionalist” penchant for pointing fingers at a legitimate Council for everything that supposedly went wrong afterward is simply unfathomable.

 

[RobedWithLight]

And in addition, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and those alleged “liberals” who allegedly “hijacked” the Second Vatican Council were ordained priests or bishops under Pius XI and Pius XII. Using the same flawed reasoning, we should perhaps blame Pius XI and XII for this ???

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Regarding the logical fallacy, “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc” it needs to be noted that a cause necessarily comes before an effect. Here is a definition (italics are mine):

Exposition:

The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its “effect”. Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition. Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html

In regards to the liturgy and the decline in Mass attendance, we do have common sense,–the liturgy was radically altered,–fewer people went to the liturgy.

Also, as far as further “testing” that the definition above mentions, here is one article from “Homiletic and Pastoral Review” entitled,

Novus ordo Missae:
The record after thirty years
By Dr. James Lothian

Of course I can’t quote the whole thing, but here is a summarizing quote:

“The picture that emerges is distressing. Mass attendance of U.S. Catholics fell precipitously in the decade following the liturgical changes and has continued to decline ever since. This decline moreover is not an isolated phenomenon, confined solely to the Church in America. In England and Wales, the time pattern of Mass attendance has been just as bad, perhaps even worse. Church attendance of Protestants, in contrast, has followed a much different path. For most of the period it was without any discernible trend, either up or down. In recent years it actually has risen. The notion that the Catholic fall off was simply one part of a larger societal trend, therefore, receives absolutely no support in these data.”

catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2000-10/lothian.html

To not acknowledge the significant role the changes in the liturgy had with the decline is like a car manufacturer replacing a successful model with a brand new one which looks significantly different. Sales decline sharply (and yet not with all models). Do you think the manufacturer might actually think that his new model helped cause the decline in sales? That he’s not going to blame it all on societal trends?

Well, here’s hoping that Pope Benedict issues that Motu Proprio.

 

[RobedWithLight]

“We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand”

Pope John XIII Opening Speech to the Council

kinda ironic huh?

Not really.

If you truly believe in the indefectability of the Church, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, then we can truly appreciate what Pope John was actually saying.

 

[Ham1]

In regards to the liturgy and the decline in Mass attendance, we do have common sense,–the liturgy was radically altered,–fewer people went to the liturgy.

Except that the statistics don’t reflect this. The decline began in 1957 and made a steady downward decline through the early 2000’s. If the liturgy caused the sharp decline, why did the sharp decline start more than 10 years before the new liturgy was implemented? Blaming the liturgy doesn’t fit with the facts.

Here is the data: cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

The author of this document makes the claim that it is far more likely that the Pre-Vatican II generation grew up with the idea that Mass must be attended. Subsequent generations did not have this emphasis. This makes far more since to me especially when one considers that Mass attendance by the pre -Vatican II generation has not declined nearly as much as the overall Catholic population attendance has declined.

 

[Unfinished]

I certainly hope so. This “blame the Vatican II game” is simply getting out of hand. The decline in church attendance and priestly vocations isn’t even evident here,

It is QUITE evident here.

and on the contrary, Sunday masses here (in English and Filipino) are well-attended “inspite of” Vatican II. This “traditionalist” penchant for pointing fingers at a legitimate Council for everything that supposedly went wrong afterward is simply unfathomable.

Well, we have a huge Novus Ordo parish with over 5000 families. The have not produced ONE vocation.

On the other hand, my small TLM parish with 200 families has had the opposite effect.

I’m not one of these “Novus Ordo is evil” kind of people, but in every single instance of my experience, the TLM and the community surrounding it has been a more solid, orthodox Catholic community. 5-6 kid families, many vocations, and not to mention a beautiful liturgy.

 

[joeganshert]

This seems like a when did the Church go wrong debate. All I know is that now, young people (myself being one) are not taught how to “deal” with secularism. Religous education does not start in first grade, it starts in the home. The parents are the biggest teachers of the faith, the place where the seeds of faith are deeply sown. So how did the destruction and corrosion of the family begin? And how can the Church bring back the deep family centered faith of my grandparents?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

This seems like a when did the Church go wrong debate. All I know is that now, young people (myself being one) are not taught how to “deal” with secularism. Religous education does not start in first grade, it starts in the home. The parents are the biggest teachers of the faith, the place where the seeds of faith are deeply sown. So how did the destruction and corrosion of the family begin? And how can the Church bring back the deep family centered faith of my grandparents?

The last two observations are VERY cogent. Understand, no one is saying that modernism hasn’t made inroads into the Church, no one is hiding their head in the sand and saying nothing is wrong. The Church has a cancer that must be excised. A large number of people who believe that proposition simply don’t believe that it’s the fault of the Council or heretical popes or the NO Mass, and they don’t want to destroy what is precious and good to kill the cancer (NOTE: there are actually people who treasure the NO as there are people who treasure the TLM).

 

[marymonde]

Well, we have a huge Novus Ordo parish with over 5000 families. The have not produced ONE vocation.

On the other hand, my small TLM parish with 200 families has had the opposite effect.

.

This is a great point. The NO parish that I live right across the street from has not had a single vocation to the priesthood in 40years. No religious either. The TLM parish I attend, with the Institute of Christ the King being here only 2 years, has already sent three men to the seminary with one woman who just left for Italy to enter the convent. There are young men coming all the time discerning a vocation to STL at my parish.

I have discussed this with friends before and we came to the conclusion that Artificial BC has alot to do with the decline as well. Almost every woman I know that lives in the village (predominately Catholic village) is either on the Pill or put their dd’s on them as soon as they go to high school. I have handed out literature, begged them to see they were aborting their own children and cease the use. Some listen, most do not because their answer is to me is, they have never heard that from Father. I have begged the priests here to speak up, one told me, his exact words NOT mine, “The bishop would chew my a** out”. I looked surprised. He told me when he was ordained he spoke out, and he was called into the chancery office time and time again to STOP offending the faithful. Two priests told me they just keep their mouth’s shut and don’t say anything to avoid any controversy. And please do not try to tell me this does not happen, it does all the time. I have friends everywhere who speak with their priests and tell them to defend the truth, and they all are scared. Forget babies dying in their own mothers wombs…

Now at the TLM parish, you will see many families with at least 10 or more children, all homeschooled by parents who do not believe in contraception. This is where our vocations are coming from, fruitful marriages. I know where the occasional orthodox NO parishes are, and you will see a family or two with alot of children, but nothing like what you see at TLM parishes.

It will be a matter of 50-60 years and this will all be moot, TLM vs. NO. Bishops are calling Msgr. Schmitz and Father Lenhardt all the time begging for them to send priests to their diocese. It’s not too difficult to figure out where most of the priests will be coming from in the future. The restoration is in God’s time.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

arish with 200 families has had the opposite effect.

I’m not one of these “Novus Ordo is evil” kind of people, but in every single instance of my experience, the TLM and the community surrounding it has been a more solid, orthodox Catholic community. 5-6 kid families, many vocations, and not to mention a beautiful liturgy.

Unfinished, time will tell the fruits of those vocations. I’ve heard one young man of a “traditionalist” bent say that he felt that the traditionalist orders, both the ones in good standing with the Church and those NOT, have a tendency to throw a cassock on any warm body. I don’t know the truth of it and I freely admit that they certainly couldn’t do any worse than the mainstream hierarchy has done in terms of the vocations that they’ve attracted. We’ll have to see. But also, recall what Ham has stated regarding the John Jay report. I think that’s a rather telling set of facts.

 

[arieh0310]

Unfinished, time will tell the fruits of those vocations. I’ve heard one young man of a “traditionalist” bent say that he felt that the traditionalist orders, both the ones in good standing with the Church and those NOT, have a tendency to throw a cassock on any warm body.

That young man couldn’t be more wrong, what a horrible way to discount orders with high vocations. The FSSP, for example, has to screen and turn away candidates because they cannot house them all. Maybe this young man means that the traditional orders don’t use secular psychologists to turn away candidates with backbones like many diocesan seminaries.

This young man seems to use the same pejorative as those who say that the men who like the TLM are closet homosexuals because the priests and altar boys wear a lot more lace than their NO counterparts.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Except that the statistics don’t reflect this. The decline began in 1957 and made a steady downward decline through the early 2000’s. If the liturgy caused the sharp decline, why did the sharp decline start more than 10 years before the new liturgy was implemented? Blaming the liturgy doesn’t fit with the facts.

Here is the data: cara.georgetown.edu/AttendPR.pdf

The author of this document makes the claim that it is far more likely that the Pre-Vatican II generation grew up with the idea that Mass must be attended. Subsequent generations did not have this emphasis. This makes far more since to me especially when one considers that Mass attendance by the pre -Vatican II generation has not declined nearly as much as the overall Catholic population attendance has declined.

In polls like this there is going to be some fluctuation. So, while there is a downturn in 1957, it ticks back up again in 1961 and remains steady until 1965. Yet after Vatican II there is a very steady and precipitous drop until 1975 (it’s interesting to note that Dietrich von Hildebrand was writing in 1966 about how difficult it was to find a Latin Mass—see link below). It then levels off some and then continues the decline.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

In polls like this there is going to be some fluctuation. So, while there is a downturn in 1957, it ticks back up again in 1961 and remains steady until 1965. Yet after Vatican II there is a very steady and precipitous drop until 1975 (it’s interesting to note that Dietrich von Hildebrand was writing in 1966 about how difficult it was to find a Latin Mass—see link below). It then levels off some and then continues the decline.

Again, correlation does not prove causation.

 

[bear06]

It is QUITE evident here.

Well, we have a huge Novus Ordo parish with over 5000 families. The have not produced ONE vocation.

On the other hand, my small TLM parish with 200 families has had the opposite effect.

I’m not one of these “Novus Ordo is evil” kind of people, but in every single instance of my experience, the TLM and the community surrounding it has been a more solid, orthodox Catholic community. 5-6 kid families, many vocations, and not to mention a beautiful liturgy.

Well, my Novus Ordo has many vocations (although I couldn’t give you an accurate number). What are we doing that most aren’t? Our Church stresses reverence for Our Lord and the need for vocations. As Kirk says, there’s definitely a need to excise the modernism but that doesn’t mean we need to ditch the Novus Ordo. It does mean that we need to make it what it should have been (an Adoremus style liturgy which is what I have).