Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II

[Brennan_Doherty]

Again, correlation does not prove causation.

It does not prove or disprove it. It leaves it open as a possibility which can be reasoned out and investigated further (as that article in Homiletic and Pastoral review I cited above did). One cannot simply say “post hoc ergo propter hoc” as a way of dismissing a rational argument without delving further as to why the changes in the Mass really were not a factor in the decline of Mass attendance. I mean, it’s not as if people are saying a change in Canadian geese migration in the 1960’s caused a decline in Mass attendance.

 

[Ham1]

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.

If you call 1961 remaining steady through 1965. Then you have to aknowledge that attendance remained steady and increased from 1977 through 1985 also. What caused that? What caused the strong drop from 1957to 1965? What caused the steep growth from 1996 to 2000?

I’d have to say it’s FAR more likely that the very populous baby boomers stopped going to Mass in the late 60’s early 70’s when they all attended (mostly liberal) college. These same young people who liked to smoke an occasional joint didn’t stop going to Mass because the liturgy changed. The extremely obvious cause is the change in our society during that time.

 

[marymonde]

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. **.

You’ll refute solid stats with absolutely no evidence to back your statements up, but to defend your points that Vat 2 is unfinished business producing vocations (like 40 years isn’t enough to get the seminaries some good young men), you throw some ridiculous unprovable statement from an unknown source. I had to laugh when I read that. All the priests that have come from trad seminaries are the best formed priests I have ever encountered.

As far as good fruits from the past 40 years? The STL diocese just closed 13 out of 35 parishes in one deanery (southside). The rest are going on the chopping block soon. There are some gorgeous churches being dismantled. St. Francis de Sales was slated to go as well, but the Institute of Christ the King came in and saved it. Deo gratias!

Please, produce some evidence to support there are good fruits coming from the Council. Show me the data and stop the rhetoric.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

If you call 1961 remaining steady through 1965. Then you have to aknowledge that attendance remained steady and increased from 1977 through 1985 also. What caused that? What caused the strong drop from 1957to 1965? What caused the steep growth from 1996 to 2000?

I’d have to say it’s FAR more likely that the very populous baby boomers stopped going to Mass in the late 60’s early 70’s when they all attended (mostly liberal) college. These same young people who liked to smoke an occasional joint didn’t stop going to Mass because the liturgy changed. The extremely obvious cause is the change in our society during that time.

We are talking about Mass attendance here. Thus the first place we ought to look for an explanation in the drop in Mass attendance is the liturgy. That only makes sense. And again, the study done in Homiletic and Pastoral review noted that there was not a similar decline in Protestant church attendance. Rather it remained steady and even raised somewhat. Which does not make sense if the drop in Mass attendance can just be attributed to society. If that were the case, Protestant attendance should have dropped as well over the same time period.

The graph concerning Mass attendance looks somewhat like a stock graph. In a stock graph one is going to have all kinds of minor up and down fluctuations (as in polling, since the numbers are not going to be exactly the same in any two polls). However, the primary concern in a stock graph is where it started and where it ended up. And obviously a steady decline after Vatican II, despite some fluctuation, is portrayed.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

You’ll refute solid stats with absolutely no evidence to back your statements up, but to defend your points that Vat 2 is unfinished business producing vocations (like 40 years isn’t enough to get the seminaries some good young men), you throw some ridiculous unprovable statement from an unknown source. I had to laugh when I read that. All the priests that have come from trad seminaries are the best formed priests I have ever encountered. **But your subjective opinion, in other threads, rejects an ecumenical council of the Church, so it would be difficult to credit whether these were “the best formed priests.” Good Catholics don’t dismiss popes or councils, pastoral or not, so I would have to question whether you know a good priest or not. I’m simply telling you what one of your fellow “traditionalists” said.

And as for solid evidence, you still don’t get it. NO ONE questions the “evidence,” the statistics, no one at all. No one questions that there isn’t a cancer in the Church. We simply don’t believe that it’s the fault of the council or the pope or the Mass. **

As far as good fruits from the past 40 years? The STL diocese just closed 13 out of 35 parishes in one deanery (southside). The rest are going on the chopping block soon. There are some gorgeous churches being dismantled. St. Francis de Sales was slated to go as well, but the Institute of Christ the King came in and saved it. Deo gratias!

Please, produce some evidence to support there are good fruits coming from the Council. Show me the data and stop the rhetoric.

**

And there have been alcoholic priests and child molesting priests and all sorts of problems, both pre and post conciliar. Stop applying rhetoric unprovable by the data. There are lots of reasons WHY the Church has problems. There is no reliable PROOF that it relates to the Council, the Pope, or the Mass, no matter how much you wish you could entwine them.
**

 

[JKirkLVNV]

We are talking about Mass attendance here. Thus the first place we ought to look for an explanation in the drop in Mass attendance is the liturgy. That only makes sense. And again, the study done in Homiletic and Pastoral review noted that there was not a similar decline in Protestant church attendance. Rather it remained steady and even raised somewhat. Which does not make sense if the drop in Mass attendance can just be attributed to society. If that were the case, Protestant attendance should have dropped as well over the same time period.

Not necessarily. In the same time period, Protestants were much slower to embrace the types of things some of the priests and bishops (particularly in the west) were willing to embrace. Protestant worship remained much more traditional for far longer (ie, there were fewer “liturgical” innovators doing to Protestant worship what they did to the Pauline Mass), as is evidenced by the fact that the most rank modernists and liberals, the Episcopalians, didn’t get their prayer book revised until 1978 (and it’s Cranmerian compared to some of the alternate texts that they use today in the US Esiscopal Church). Again, no one isn’t saying that the numbers aren’t, in part, the result of abuses heaped on the Mass or that innovators didn’t go too far (they have).

 

[Ham1]

The graph concerning Mass attendance looks somewhat like a stock graph. In a stock graph one is going to have all kinds of minor up and down fluctuations (as in polling, since the numbers are not going to be exactly the same in any two polls). However, the primary concern in a stock graph is where it started and where it ended up. And obviously a steady decline after Vatican II, despite some fluctuation, is portrayed.

No. It is a steady decline since 1957. That is totally obvious by looking at the graph as a stock graph.

So, once again I ask…why did the decline start 10 years before there were any liturgical changes?

And here are stats that show very similar (actually a little larger %) declines in protestant attendance from 1972 - 1996

elca.org/research/reports/r2minfor.pdf

 

[marymonde]

**

And there have been alcoholic priests and child molesting priests and all sorts of problems, both pre and post conciliar. Stop applying rhetoric unprovable by the data. There are lots of reasons WHY the Church has problems. There is no reliable PROOF that it relates to the Council, the Pope, or the Mass, no matter how much you wish you could entwine them.
**

There is reliable proof, it’s documented, you don’t accept it. I honestly do not wish to discuss this any further with you.

God bless…

 

[bear06]

There is reliable proof, it’s documented, you don’t accept it. I honestly do not wish to discuss this any further with you.

God bless…

Sigh! There isn’t reliable proof. If you wanted to take this stance then you’d have to take the same stance with the Council of Trent. A whole lot of people left the Church before it and a whole lot left afterward. Besides this, the numbers of those attending the Protestant Church was definitely on the rise both before and after. Are we really to say that the council of Trent was a bad thing?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

There is reliable proof, it’s documented, you don’t accept it. I honestly do not wish to discuss this any further with you.

God bless…

It’s DATA, it’s not documentation. And frankly, it’s not a discussion, my friend. I’m simply attempting to keep you from misleading the faithful into the belief that they cannot trust the Vicar of Christ on earth, or a council of the Church united with him, or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. That’s all.

 

[Ham1]

As far as good fruits from the past 40 years? The STL diocese just closed 13 out of 35 parishes in one deanery (southside). The rest are going on the chopping block soon. There are some gorgeous churches being dismantled. St. Francis de Sales was slated to go as well, but the Institute of Christ the King came in and saved it. Deo gratias!

The closing of parishes in St. Louis may have far more to do with the fact that the population has sharply declined since 1950 in St. Louis. It has far more to do with fewer people there than lower % of Mass attendance.

 

[marymonde]

The closing of parishes in St. Louis may have far more to do with the fact that the population has sharply declined since 1950 in St. Louis. It has far more to do with fewer people there than lower % of Mass attendance.

Yes that is true in the northside deanery, lots of urban blight, but the parishes in the southside deanery were in neighborhoods that were fully populated. The part of the city is a booming part of STL, without all the urban blight. I know of one parish that pulled together and went on TV begging for the planned closing to stop. They had a pretty active parish and mass attendance was considered fairly high. It still went. It was very sad to see all the parishoners lose a parish they supported and was not financially in debt.

It’s strange, after I posted that my STL Review came and on the front page is an article on what has happened to some of the closed parishes. 17 out of 20 parishes have been sold at the profit of $20 million.

 

[pnewton]

There is reliable proof, it’s documented, you don’t accept it. I honestly do not wish to discuss this any further with you.

God bless…

Then why did you start the thread?

The article stated, “Liars may figure, but figures do not lie.” I have always been partial to Twain who said there are three types of lies: Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The point is the article is shallow and shows no casuality. It is only convincing to the convinced.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Then why did you start the thread?

Because she had an agenda. Not a question, but an agenda.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is now closed. Thank you to all who participated.