Mass attendance and Humanæ Vitæ

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by NewEnglandPries
Well, perhaps this would be better for a new topic. Feel free to open one. I’ll just say this:
Two studies from the National Opinion Research Center in the years 1963 and 1974 provide us with a before-and-after picture. Part of the picture is that weekly Mass attendance among American Catholics declined to 50 percent from 72 percent. Most of this decline, as measured by yearly studies from the Gallup polling organization, occurred after the release of Humanae Vitae in 1968.
I have seen these studies and heard this from clergy who were around at the time. [edit: Among older relatives and friends] No one I know has ever said, I left the church because they stopped saying Mass in Latin. Usually it’s a long convoluted story that ends up being about divorce and remarraige, not wanting the priest in their bedroom (ie, birth control), or a similar issue.
 
I see. But since most Catholics don’t exactly scurry to read the latest motu proprio, Apostolic Exhortation, etc., and since most of them don’t have a huge impact on most Catholics’ lives, then why was this document so monumentally distressing?
 
I had a professor in formation, a Deacon, who made the comment, “Humanae Vitea was the worst thing that ever happened to the Church.” He made many other statements that didn’t sit well with me and my classmates. His liberal persuasion was loud and clear.

This teaching did cause many to leave, but truth does that when so many refuse to recognize truth. John 6 illustrates how many left when Jesus taught some tough truth, only the 12 stayed.
 
I had a professor in formation, a Deacon, who made the comment, “Humanae Vitea was the worst thing that ever happened to the Church.” He made many other statements that didn’t sit well with me and my classmates. His liberal persuasion was loud and clear.

This teaching did cause many to leave, but truth does that when so many refuse to recognize truth. John 6 illustrates how many left when Jesus taught some tough truth, only the 12 stayed.
But why did it cause many to leave? Was this document shouted from the rooftops? When a Papal document is released, it usually doesn’t exactly make news, and most lay people will probably never hear of it in their lives.
 
But why did it cause many to leave? Was this document shouted from the rooftops? When a Papal document is released, it usually doesn’t exactly make news, and most lay people will probably never hear of it in their lives.
At the time, yes it was big news. And many were under the false impression that the teaching was going to change. I’ll answer more in detail later when I have more time.
 
The fact that I can remember 1968 probably indicates that I did not join in sufficiently.

The Christian lifestyle requires self-discipline, self-denial and proper respect for the reproductive process. Those of us in the West live in a society where greed, self-indulgence and sexual excess are regarded as the norm and any departure from the hedonistic lifestyle is seen as a disorder. Christianity in general and Catholic Christianity in particular have become rather unpopular for that reason and there has been a huge rise in secular hedonism among those who can afford it.

Humanae Vitae reinforced the Church’s traditional view on sexual morality and the sinful nature of attempting to separate it from the reproductive process. It was not the cause of departures from the Church, but a reaction to the forces that have led to our present sick society. Any expectation that the Church might “venialise” lust was misplaced. It remains a deadly sin.
 
I grew up in the 60’s - 70s. The Pope was in Rome, not in our local Churches.

Many lay people (and many priests) and theologians thought that the Pope was going to issue a statement accepting birth control in lock step with the ‘modernism of the age’ and with the same acceptance that was seen in most all other protestant faiths.

And then, to make the situation one step worse:

ad2000.com.au/articles/2008/nov2008p8_2927.html
‘Priests in Baltimore openly rejected the papal encyclical, then signed a “Statement of Dissent” and then had it and its signers published the following morning in The Baltimore Sun, one of the daily newspapers.’
When it finally became evident, through the papal encyclical that artificial birth control use was a mortal sin, that the Pope wasn’t just “some old guy in Rome” and that he read and interpreted Scripture far differently than non-Catholics (and many priests & laypeople & theologians), well all heck broke loose.
 
Part of the picture is that weekly Mass attendance among American Catholics declined to 50 percent from 72 percent. Most of this decline, as measured by yearly studies from the Gallup polling organization, occurred after the release of Humanae Vitae in 1968.
Correlation doesn’t show causation. There were a lot of other changes going on at the time, such as the vernacularization of the Canon, which caused many to doubt its very validity. Besides, today many Catholics who do attend Mass “use their consciences” in matters of birth control, per earlier releases from the Vatican.
 
At the time, yes it was big news. And many were under the false impression that the teaching was going to change. I’ll answer more in detail later when I have more time.
This is true. Populorum Progressio released earlier had allowed “consciences” to be used in determining the size of the family. When the issue of ABC came up, the Pope assembled a group of moral theologians, of which the majority decided ABC was okay. The debate continued for a long time, I remember, while priests and bishops were passing on this information.
 
catholicsagainstcontraception.com/msgr_foy_reflections_humanae_vitae.htm
The most embattled document in Church history is perhaps the encyclical Humanae Vitae, signed on the feast of St. James the Apostle, July 25th, 1968, by Pope Paul VI. Ten years later it remains under constant attack by pen and tongue and conduct.
It was an answer to new questions (cf. par. 3). Unfortunately, by some it was regarded as only so much “in-put” into the solution of great problems and not the definitive answer it was intended to be. Others had already given their own answers to their own questions and what is worse, had claimed these answers to be definitive. When the Pope spoke they were neither prepared to listen nor to humble themselves before the Church. Others attempted to nullify by human reason what was declared with the authority of Christ.
 
I have seen these studies and heard this from clergy who were around at the time. [edit: Among older relatives and friends] No one I know has ever said, I left the church because they stopped saying Mass in Latin. Usually it’s a long convoluted story that ends up being about divorce and remarraige, not wanting the priest in their bedroom (ie, birth control), or a similar issue.
The 60’s and the 70’s were a time of great changes. I think you perhaps have hit in on the head in the discussion of birth control as a reason for many Catholics to leave the Church and not the venacular in mass. Even today if you can ever get a strait answer from a person about leaving the Church, it is not the mass being celebrated in the mass, it will revolve around the church’s teachings on abortion, sex outside of marriage, same sex marriage, homosexuality, women being priest and so on. The change from Latin may have effected a few, but the truth lies more deeply in that many do not want to or simply reject the truth of the Church’s teaching.
Peace,
Dcn. FAB
 
At the time, yes it was big news. And many were under the false impression that the teaching was going to change. I’ll answer more in detail later when I have more time.
It was big news. Not the nuts and bolts, but the fact that the “Church says b.c. is wrong.”

What it did was remove the grey area that existed after Vatican 2. A lot of priests said it was a matter of conscience. Heck, everything had become a matter of conscience.

HV operated as a massive smack down. And at the time, overpopulation was a huge, huge “issue.” Rather like global warming before the scandal broke on the false research.
Overpopulation was something “everyone” knew was a problem (except Chinese and Muslims, who for some reason did not get the bulletin).

So, many took the opportunity to pick up the gauntlet and declare independance from the Church. A lot of these folks were on the fence anyway. BUt it provided a fashionable response. It’s been fashionable to be a lapsed Catholic for a long while, after 1968 it became fashionable for decent people to quarrel with the Church’s stance on birth control.
 
I was a young teen when the encyclical came out and I recall it being preached about and people actually getting up and walking out of the church. At the time I really didn’t understand why. We didn’t discuss it at all in classes in school.
 
My folks grew up in the Depression, both served in their roles to win WW2. My Dad was active Army and my Mom (and many of her sisters) moved to California to construct war planes.

The relief from war created the “baby boomers”. Large families, etc.
The Church of England has stated in the 1958 Lambeth Conference that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents ‘in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife’.[40]
In 1965, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the case Griswold v. Connecticut that a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the “right to marital privacy”. In 1972, the case Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried couples.
Then the 70’s hit. The Vietnam War. Now the “baby boomers” were involved in a war that didn’t effect the world. And now this youthful society was set on rebelling against the deaths, against government entanglements, against traditional family, and against the roles that had long been set for men and for women. Issues which that had been brewing since the turn of the century.

During and after the Vietnam War, television programming echoed what society began preaching - “free sex”, drugs to create your own reality, and rock-n-roll.
 
When a Papal document is released, it usually doesn’t exactly make news, and most lay people will probably never hear of it in their lives.
In part your perception is correct. I would suspect that the average Catholic has only a superficial knowledge of Humanæ Vitæ. Many believe it simply bans the use of artificial contraception but it is about so much more. It was probably one of the most anticipated encyclicals. It was widely anticipated that Pope Paul VI would give the green light for the use of artificial contraception. Many writings on the subject also claim this was the advice given to Paul VI by the commission advising him on this matter. So when it was published its contents were a shock to many. There are diverse reports of this encyclical causing a significant defection from the Church of a lot of people.
 
I see. But since most Catholics don’t exactly scurry to read the latest motu proprio, Apostolic Exhortation, etc., and since most of them don’t have a huge impact on most Catholics’ lives, then why was this document so monumentally distressing?
OK, for starters Vatican II was a big deal. It was covered extensively in the press and was discussed by almost everyone.
Humanae Vitae was big enough news for Time Magazine (when it was still relevant) to make it a cover story. The encyclical has been so wide known that major media gave it prominent coverage on its anniversaries (10th and 25th).

Now when the theory is proposed that it was the encyclical that caused the steep decline in Mass attendance its not proposed as a 1-to-1 theory but rather that the encyclical was the “straw that broke the camel’s back.”

When people lament how much better educated the laity were in regards to the faith prior to Vatican II they are partially incorrect. Yes, people had memorized the Baltimore Catechism but the nuances of the faith were not well known. In the centuries since Trent in the consciousness of Catholics there had been a blending of doctrine and discipline, Church tradition and Sacred Tradition. Those concepts were kind of merged into one in the minds of many. What made Vatican II so radical in many people’s minds was that almost everything the Church did was seen as unchangeable. To generations of Catholics raised with the specter of eternal hell fire if meat was eaten on a Friday, the idea that one could now eat meat on a Friday was mind boggling. And the same with Latin, the idea that Latin had to be used in Mass was engrained in people’s minds, how could the Mass possibly be in English?

People simply were not educated as to the difference between tradition and Sacred Tradition. The laity, and even many clergy, came to see everything in the Church as a free for all. However, people enjoyed many of the changes so there wasn’t a huge problem. Mass attendance did not dip dramatically until 1968. Even despite the many changes that Council was enacting/declaring Mass attendance did not fluctuate wildly but did experience a slow trend downwards until 1968 when it plummeted. For some reason in 1968 and onwards we see dramatic drops in Mass attendance rates. In an era where most people thought everything was changeable and most liked the changes, what would their reaction be when they didn’t like something?

Apparently it was they felt that the Church had obviously been wrong in the past about many things, some of which they said would send us to hell and this was just one more thing they say will send us to hell so who knows if they’re right or not.

Things got even worse when it leaked out that that commission Pope Paul VI set up to review the birth control issue had actually recommended to him that the teaching be changed. National Episcopal Conferences in many parts of the world appeared to revolt by telling people to simply follow their conscience on the issue. The failure of Church leadership to properly explain the changes and nonchanges cannot be overstated.

In the minds of many the Church had lost the credibility to declare what sent people to hell. Many people thought there was nothing wrong with artificial birth control and that meant the Church must be wrong on a lot of things, including the importance of Mass attendance.

So the theory concludes that much of an entire generation lost trust in the Church’s moral authority due to Humanae Vitae and passed on to their children the idea that most things the Church says send us to hell really don’t. These children (who are young adults today) aren’t caught up in rebellion over the encyclical but have inherited their parent’s attitudes towards the Church’s teaching authority on issues that include Mass attendance.

OK, hopefully that’s not overly convoluted. I’m not saying I necessarily buy into this theory 110% but I think its a larger piece to the puzzle than most people are willing to admit. Its sometimes hard to follow the line of logic in a cramped internet post, so obviously we’ll continue to discuss this for a bunch more posts. 😃
 
Well, no Father, that was an excellent summation.

Ah, the cultural and theological meanderings of a young Catholic in one day on the internet…
 
So the theory concludes that much of an entire generation lost trust in the Church’s moral authority due to Humanae Vitae and passed on to their children the idea that most things the Church says send us to hell really don’t. These children (who are young adults today) aren’t caught up in rebellion over the encyclical but have inherited their parent’s attitudes towards the Church’s teaching authority on issues that include Mass attendance.
That actually is the most reasonable explanation of this that I’ve heard, but I’m still not convinced. Having seen the numbers in many different sources, it is not entirely clear to me that there was a mass exodus in 1968 coinciding with the release of Humanae Vitae and not a continued exodus starting with the start of Vatican II, and continuing through this, and through the release of the new missal. Of course all of this may be in part co-incidence; there was a decline in attendance in religious services in the Western world during this time. Perhaps it was not one thing or another that the church did, but more the fact that the church was not able to evangelise to the modern Western world in the face of secularism and atheism. When we figure out how to do this, I think neither the council nor Humane Vitae–nor any other aspect of Catholicism–will be as big an issue as it is to-day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top