Liturgical abuses at Mass today

[stanley123]

amarischuk:

LOL, their are lies, d*mn lies and statistics.

… Furthermore, the survey does not give the surrounding data…perhaps there were 20 or 30 annulments in 1929 or 1931.

Let’s take your figures, which are a little high for that period, but even suppose that they were true. And then lets take the figure of 30,000 annulments per year today in the USA (which is really a lot smaller than it is). Still, you have an increase of 1000. If you look at the number of divorces in the USA at large, during the same period to time, you will find that this number has incresed by a factor of about 6. It really doesn’t matter how you look at it. The facts are startling and show that the increase in the number of annulments granted by the RCC over this period of time is enormously larger than the iincrese in the number of divorces in the USA society at large. It could be anywhere from one hundred to one thousand times more for the RCC annulment rate increase.
Why have these cultural and societal changes affected the RCC more than the US society at large? I think we have to look at what happened in the RCC and did not happen in society at large. What stands out are two big changes in the RCC-

1. The changeover from the TLM.
2. The easing up in the grounds required to get an annulment.

 

[severinus]

stanley123:

What I think that the figures show is this:
There may have been changes in the general ambience or atmosphere of the USA culture since 1930. But these changes have impacted both the nonRC and the RC population about equally.
However, we have noted a much larger number of family breakups in the RCC for the period from 1930 -1989, than in the USA at large. In fact, it is of the order of an increase of one thousand times more annulments than the increase in divorces in the USA during this period of time.
Note: in 1930, you had the TLM.
The argument rests on the correlation between the replacement of the TLM by a liturgy which in some cases lessens the sense of the Sacred by introducing an informal and casual approach to worship and the deterioration in catechesis, and the increase in the number of annulments, scandals, and the numerical decrease in seminarians. This correlation under different conditions and settings marshalls support for causality. although I do not claim that it proves it axiomatically. We have to admit that there may be underlying third variables which may be related to the ones under consdieration, but nevertheless, just as in the cse of lung cancer and cigaret smoking, the high correlation lends support to our underlying belief that cigaret smoking “causes” lung cancer. Although it is not proven axiomatically, still the correlation between cigaret smoking and lung cancer strengthens and reinforces our belief that cigaret smoking is a danger to our health and is something to avoid.

From catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/07-96/3/3.html

In 1980 the worldwide total of annulments was 89,065, 71.8% of which were given in the U.S. The total U.S. 1984-1991 production was 322,350 annulments while the rest of the world was giving 107,176 declarations of nullity; percentage-wise the 6% of the world’s Catholic population in the U.S. received 75% of the world’s 429,526 annulments while 94% of the world’s Catholic population received 25% of them. Is marriage American style that much different from the marriage style of the rest of the world?

And from cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=35132:

Archbishop Amato [secretary of the CDF] reported that in 2002-- the last year for which complete statistics are readily available-- there were 56,236 annulment petitions heard by ecclesiastical courts, and 46,092 annulment decrees handed down. Of these decrees, 30,968 were issued by tribunals in North America.

Did the Church abrogate Novum Ordinem Missae in the rest of the world? If one wishes to impute to the New Mass the break-up of marriages, one must answer why the annulment rate in the US vastly exceeds that rate in other countries, whose populations are similarly ‘afflicted’ with the New Mass.

Answer carefully: Are you taking the position that the Novus Ordo Missae is something to be avoided?

 

[stanley123]

severinus:

Archbishop Amato [secretary of the CDF] reported that in 2002-- the last year for which complete statistics are readily available-- there were 56,236 annulment petitions heard by ecclesiastical courts, and 46,092 annulment decrees handed down. Of these decrees, 30,968 were issued by tribunals in North America.

Did the Church abrogate Novum Ordinem Missae in the rest of the world? If one wishes to impute to the New Mass the break-up of marriages, one must answer why the annulment rate in the US vastly exceeds that rate in other countries, whose populations are similarly ‘afflicted’ with the New Mass.

Thank you for your response on this.
The question in my mind is not whether or not the annulment rate for the RCC at this point in time is roughly the same as the divorce rate at this point in time. More or less, I hope we can agree on that, at least for the USA, it is roughlythe same for the members of the RCC as compared with the American society at large.
The question that I am raising is whether or not the RCC has experienced an explosion in annulment rate and breakup of families, much greater than the increase in divorce rate of the surrounding population, over the period from 1930 to the present point in time. I think that the figures show that it has. Would you agree to this?
Now the question would be (assuming that you agree so far), what is it about the experience in the RCC during this period in time, which is not present in society atr large which has caused the RCC to experience a much greater increase in the number of family breakups?

 

[Michael_Welter]

I’m not convinced that you can equate the increases in annulments granted with an equal increase in family breakups. It’s possible that the increase in annulments granted, as you have alredy stated, is due to a relaxation in the rules of annulment. Therefore, it possible that families were breaking just as much in the 30’s, but not getting annulments.

You see, numbers can say whatever you want them to say.

 

[mosher]

YinYangMom:

Oh, but where is the trust in the Catholic Church???

Especially in the U.S. we can find exceptions to every thing. But on the whole, it takes a number of years to go through the seminary successfully and advance toward the priesthood. There are spiritual advisors provided along the way, aren’t there?

What I’m saying is just because we’ve been Catholic all our lives and now have access to certain documents and read them on our own does not make us fully knowledgeable in all matters of what a priest may and may not do in particular circumstances.

It seems to open that ‘interpretation’ caveat we apply against sola scriptura. We have to trust that on the basic level the interpretation of church documents used in training our priests is being properly disseminated. Yes, there are some areas where it will not, but overall, the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit and these abuses will not prevail whether or not we take the time to nit-pick every move every priest makes in every parish.

Now, in matters where it’s out of control - with the obvious abuses supported not only by the priest but by the lay people on the various commissions/committees basically running parish operations - then I almost feel we should descend upon the parish as a group and pray the rosary outside it for a month or two - something that dramatic…and then leave it up to Mary, the Saints and Christ Himself to turn that parish around. It needs healing, definitely, and the way to heal it is to pray over it, not just abandon it.

As for the annulment statistics provided by another poster…it could also be that more people applied for annulments overall, not just a matter of more were granted. The underlying numbers need to be present to determine the true relationship here. Statistics are devious little things…

Here is the problem that I see. There are a couple of assumptions that are being made in your post. The first assumption is that a majority of seminaries do adequate training of seminarians. This is not true. There may be a handfull of decent orthodox seminarias in the US. While in the seminarias there may be some suffering souls that are good orthodox men how are trying to get through the process it is important to know that the general state of seminaries here in the US is very poor. This is a two-fold problem. The first side is poor seminary instructors and administration some of whom have a very warped idea of what orthodoxy is in the Church. The second seminary that I attended was a good example of this problem. While Michael Rose’s book was very anacdotal the problems that he points out are very present at a majority of seminaries in the US both diocesean and inter-diocesean and sometimes even worse in the seminaries of Religious Orders. The second fold (so to speak) is that individual diocese have very liberal vocations committees and directors and the Bishop is either sympathetic to liberal agendas or is unaware of the existing problem.

The second assumption is that all of us have always been Catholic which is not the case. Generally my wide experience in this matter is that “cradle-Catholics” tend to be the most uneducated in thier faith. The influx of converts and reverts is definatelly a gift of the Holy Spirit to enliven the Church once again in the area of a good faith-knowledge base. While it is true that the average lay person may not fully understand the nuances that exist in the language that the Church uses at times it is my general contention that instructional documents are pretty self-explanitory. Also, the major complaint of seminary instructors is that a large population of priests never pick up a church document after they leave the seminary and so today we are in truth finding a much more educated and up to date laiety than clergy.

I don’t think that most people really understand the poor training that our clergy as received in a good number of seminaries. I know of one seminary where the chair of theology teaches that St. Joseph is the biological father of Christ and where the CCC is thrown in the garbage on the first day of class. While there are good priests and good seminaries out there it is far from being a process that can be trusted. From a person who knows all of this very intimatelly I can tell you that all is not well.

 

[stanley123]

Michael Welter:

It’s possible that the increase in annulments granted, as you have alredy stated, is due to a relaxation in the rules of annulment.

I agree with you on this. That’s why I mentioned it in post #41.

 

[jay29]

This is what I mean when I say out of control. These scenes belong in some theater. These are from an earlier thread from the LA Diocese run by Cardinal Mahoney. I am gladly stepping on the toes of the priest/cardinal when I say these types of actions do not belong in any church. I pray for the people of the LA Diocese.

http://www.recongress.org/2005/pix/ydlit/med_P2170221.jpg

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

I don’t think that most people really understand the poor training that our clergy as received in a good number of seminaries. I know of one seminary where the chair of theology teaches that St. Joseph is the biological father of Christ and where the CCC is thrown in the garbage on the first day of class. While there are good priests and good seminaries out there it is far from being a process that can be trusted. From a person who knows all of this very intimatelly I can tell you that all is not well.

OK. But how would one answer the following objection?
The seminaries are working under license from the Vatican and we should trust the Vatican and the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church in this because the Church has received the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. the Church has withstood problems for 2000years and if it has withstood problems for this length of time, we are all sure that it will get through this one nicely also.
This is basically the objection that I get if I mention the increase in annulments or if I object to clown Masses or cowboy Masses or the general casual atmosphere prevalent in the post Vatican II services.

 

[stanley123]

jay29:

This is what I mean when I say out of control.

And of course there are the clown Masses, and dancing girls, and slide shows, etc. I went to a Sunday Mass expecting a time of serious prayer and reflection and instead I was treated to a horrific enormous rock band, and terribly loud horrendous rock music. Sorry, but I persoanlly don;t get much out of this. What message do you think that the leaders of the RCC are trying to get across when they celebrate this type of liturgy? The argument can be made that the results of promoting an atmosphere of casual, less serious approach to liturgy has impacted deeply on the Catholic population and a correlation may be seen in the number of growing scandals, the explosion in annulments, the closing down of Catholic schools, fewer candidates entering the seminaries, etc.

 

[jay29]

Stanley123 you are right. As I said before, Pope Benedict needs to take control of the liturgy if the bishops choose not to. I think mass should be taken very seriously and not have a light hearted approach to it. Eastern Rite Catholics are very reverent in reguards to there liturgy. If you have never been to one, you really need to go. Its not a party atmosphere. Even the the RC and Eastern Rite Catholic masses are not the same they need to be equally reverent.

 

[Michael_Welter]

stanley123:

I went to a Sunday Mass expecting a time of serious prayer and reflection and instead I was treated to a horrific enormous rock band, and terribly loud horrendous rock music. Sorry, but I persoanlly don;t get much out of this. What message do you think that the leaders of the RCC are trying to get across when they celebrate this type of liturgy?

The Mass that I attend has a band, with guitars (Acoustic, Electric and Bass), keyboards, drums, and several excellent singers. I like it, as that kind of music touches my soul and draws me closer to God. I feel the same way about traditional choral music as you do about about contemporary praise & worship music. Ours is a diverse Church with the wisdom to provide a diverse musical style.

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

OK. But how would one answer the following objection?
The seminaries are working under license from the Vatican and we should trust the Vatican and the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church in this because the Church has received the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it. the Church has withstood problems for 2000years and if it has withstood problems for this length of time, we are all sure that it will get through this one nicely also.
This is basically the objection that I get if I mention the increase in annulments or if I object to clown Masses or cowboy Masses or the general casual atmosphere prevalent in the post Vatican II services.

The license from the Vatican came from them trusting the USCCB to regulate the seminaries. They were to make regular visits to make sure the seminaries are running in accord with the faith. This has never really been done nor have the local bishops been vigilint and/or the seminary staffs have been beligerant. Further, the last time that the Vatican made the rounds itself it told the seminaries when it would be on campus to which they proceeded to clean things up for that time interval after which things went right back.

All of this has nothing to do with the promise of Christ to hold up His church against error. The Church is never in error however people all the way up can be in error but the Church will never teach officially anything that is in error. The education and training of clergy and theologians is not covered in this promise. If it were covered then the Arian heresy, and every other heresy would not have existed because they all started with the clergy if not a specific Bishop. While it is true that we will get through it how many souls have to be put in jeopardy while we are cleaning house.

 

[stanley123]

mosher:

The Church is never in error however people all the way up can be in error but the Church will never teach officially anything that is in error. The education and training of clergy and theologians is not covered in this promise. .

Interesting thought that “people all the way up can be in error”. All the way up - would that include bishops, cardinals and a Pope?
The argument against this is that this could not happen since the Church is indefectible and cannot defect. In other words the Church has not defected in the matter of its seminaries, annulments, scandals, clown Masses, cowboy Masses, etc., because of its indefectibility.

 

[stanley123]

Michael Welter:

The Mass that I attend has a band, with guitars (Acoustic, Electric and Bass), keyboards, drums, and several excellent singers…

However, is it true that the Pope has excommunicated every Catholic who sings something other than the Gregorian chant: ?

“Therefore, we command under sentence of excommunication that, in the singing and reading of your churches, you carry them out in no other way than that which Pope St. Gregory handed down with all your powers. For if, which we hardly believe, anyone should try, now or in the future, in any way whatsoever, to lead you back or turn you aside to any other tradition beside the one which we gave to you, we not only command that he be excommunicated from the holy body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but we declare by our authority and also the authority of all our predecessors the he shall remain in perpetual anathema for his presumptuous audacity.”

Pope Leo IV in Una Res

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Stanley, why do you lump a “decree of nullity” (AKA an annulment) with liturgical abuses?

A decree of nullity means that a sacramental marriage never happened. It doesn’t mean that a true sacramental marriage is legalistically overturned, like a civil divorce.

Yes, there are more of them today than 60 years ago. There are more children born out of wedlock today than there were 60 years ago too. Is THAT due to the “abundance” of decrees? Hardly.

Are more people today aware of limitations that impede sacramental marriages then they were 60, or 600, years ago? Yes. 600 years ago, Sir Dimbulb could easily marry Lady Slowtop even if neither one were literate, or even capable of reasoning past a level that would have a person today declared wards of the state and forbidden to make decisions for themselves, simply because Sir D and Lady S were members of a social class for whom marriage had come AT THAT TIME to mean exchanges of wealth or other property, certainly NOT what the Church taught marriage meant and means today.

Even as little as 20 years ago, men in certain parts of the U.S. could legally RAPE THEIR WIVES, because a wife was viewed as her husband’s legal property. Once married, she could never say, “Not tonight, I’m sick, I’m tired, I just don’t want to.” Is THIS part of what marriage means to a Christian? Of course not.

 

[pnewton]

stanley123:

However, is it true that the Pope has excommunicated every Catholic who sings something other than the Gregorian chant: ?
but we declare by our authority and also the authority of all our predecessors the he shall remain in perpetual anathema for his presumptuous audacity.”

Pope Leo IV in Una Res

Anathema is no longer a canonical penalty. The disciplines of Pope Leo IV are not in effect today.

 

[Michael_Welter]

stanley123:

Interesting thought that “people all the way up can be in error”. All the way up - would that include bishops, cardinals and a Pope?

The pope is infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals. However, he is also human, and a sinner, just like you and me. That’s why he goes to confession weekly.

 

[pnewton]

stanley123:

What stands out are two big changes in the RCC-

1. The changeover from the TLM.
2. The easing up in the grounds required to get an annulment.

There are many other factors left out. How about the increase in the availibility of information? Wouldn’t this make the the knowledge of the canon law associated with annulments easier to obtain?

How about an decrease in the priest/ parish ratio? Would not the lack of time for proper marriage formation lead to more non-sacramental marriages?

Here’s a unique one. Hos about the increase in protestant marriages being considered, because of those who have converted needing to normalize marriage situations.

All in all, I do not see how the TLM can even show up on the radar when it comes to annulments.

 

[otm]

stanley123:

These are questions, which I think are very easily answered. Here’s why I don’t buy your argument. These influences that you have mentioned (the effects of the media? The advance of relativism? Easy, inexpensive, no-fault divorce? Less stability in employment? The growth of materialism, especially when compared to the time of the Great Depression? Greater mobility? )
These things have hit everyone in the USA, not just Catholics - right?
However, let’s look at the divorce rate in the USA and how it compares with the annulment rate in the RCC in the USA and see if there is any difference at all:
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.
Now did you say that the increase in annulments is due to the surrounding culture??
If so, then why has the number of annulments in
the RCC gone up by more than one thousand times more than the number of
divorces in the surrounding culture?
Remember in 1930, you had the TLM exclusively in the Latin rite RCC.

I understand your concern, but don’t sing a one note song…

 

[mosher]

stanley123:

Interesting thought that “people all the way up can be in error”. All the way up - would that include bishops, cardinals and a Pope?
The argument against this is that this could not happen since the Church is indefectible and cannot defect. In other words the Church has not defected in the matter of its seminaries, annulments, scandals, clown Masses, cowboy Masses, etc., because of its indefectibility.

Actually the Pope can be in error he just can’t be in error when he speaks with his authority as Peter. Papal infallability only covers very few things. Magisterial infallability covers even less. This is why St. Thomas speaks of the responsibility of correcting those even if they are priest, bishop or pope.