New Data on Trends within the Catholic Church in the U.S.

[edwest2]

Repression was a common term in the late 1960s. Normal, stable Catholic and Christian life was painted in the negative. Being conformed to that - a conformist – was bad. They wanted us to taste noncomformity. It was claimed to be somehow better.

When you strip away the names and labels for the groups promoting noncomformity, here’s what you get.

Greater use of illegal and harmful drugs, promoted as cool. Even in the 1980s, using cocaine was promoted as ‘fashionable.’ People trusted this idea even though cocaine could and did cause significant health problems. Who benefited? Organized crime. Lives that might have been more productive were stunted or even lost.

Legalizing graphic pornography. Who benefited? Organized crime who would use the addiction model to get primarily men to continue buying and buying and buying. This caused the general perception of women to change.

Showing more skin and sexual situations in ‘regular’ movies plus bad language. As our movies gradually, slowly, sometimes with heated arguments between directors and studio censors to show more, became more sexualized, what was R in the 1970s is what? PG-13 today?

I picked up a major Detroit paper not that many years ago and was shocked to see a new type of “singles” section. It was bluntly obvious that guys were looking for women for brief flings - no names, no attachments, just sex.

On TV, two young, attractive professionals sit down for lunch after having ‘just sex’ the night before. The man wonders if there was something more, the woman dismisses the idea.

We didn’t get here overnight.

Throughout history, people have and still are, doing whatever they want behind closed doors. Today, it’s legalize my behavior. Accept it. Don’t make me feel bad or call me sinful or make me feel ashamed. I like it. I want it. Give it to me. And then they throw out page after page of what they say are good arguments for abandoning both natural law and moral law as Christians understand it.

If we are going to return to being the type of Catholic I grew up with, we need to understand we are responsible for our actions, that we should feel guilt and remorse, and depending on what it was - shame. Now, shame is out the window. So-called comedians go on and on about graphic sexual situations. Amateur Bible scholar Whoopi Goldberg explains Leviticus to her audience. In the 1960s, comedy was ha-ha, that was funny, but not that – Ever. Young singers pose with 90% of their skin showing on magazine covers in the checkout lane. That was a cover for a porn magazine in the 1950s.

In the 1960s, I understood laws were right on two levels, for society at large and for morality in general. In the 1960s, a comedian was arrested for obscenity. In the 1990s, a small group of comedians went to the mayor of New York to have him pardon this man, which he did.

Lawyers and judges were required to legalize vice. That is what happened. Then the ACLU woke up one day and was shocked that there was a Nativity in front of a public building and religious monuments in other public buildings. Out! Or you can display them but they have to be dereligified - turned into another Christmas ornament. In a local suburb, a law was passed that allowed store owners to play religious music on outside speakers, but only the music, not the words.

A few have expressed shock over changes in Nuns’ habits, how about the other changes in our day to day lives that were not asked for but made legal in courtrooms?

Peace,
Ed

 

[wisdomseeker]

I dont think that anybody can deny that after VII things did get more relax.

that is when veils were not to be worn anymore. priests took their garments off. and many other things which the Council gave permission. so no stop to what would come after. once you change one thing, many others follow, there is no stop. and as always the Vatican was very slow to respond letting the sin take root and then try to up root too little too late. that is why we have such a mess today. still the Church insist in keeping the liberals under the umbrella to continue to mislead the people. there is not even warnings of whom they are. i know this is difficult for the popes. and i am in no position to criticize the authorities of the Church. i am just saying that the people probably must bear the sufferings of the Church with her.

but what i dont understand is if the Church saw the liberalism coming from the world, why did the Church played along by also introducing more liberal ideas within the Church instead of speaking against those things?

 

[Lycorth]

but what i dont understand is if the Church saw the liberalism coming from the world, why did the Church played along by also introducing more liberal ideas within the Church instead of speaking against those things?

That is precisely it. That is what baffles me when I look at the state of Catholicism in the centuries before VII and in the decades that have followed it. Why on earth would the Church, after a 1960+ year track record of successfully defending the faith and winning millions of souls and the conversions of entire cultures to Christ, suddenly assume it had to change, to get with the times, and dumb-down things so the average non-religious Joe wouldn’t be put off? That was how the attendees of VII approached renewal of the Church?

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, the saying goes. Frankly, there was not a single thing “broke” about the Catholic Faith that VII needed to address. Not a single thing. The Mass was just fine, the Catechism was just fine, everything was just fine. If “renewal” was what they were after, perhaps exploring new ways to teach tradition instead of throw the baby out with the bathwater and change what didn’t need changing ought to have been the goal. Clearly, with the trends in the Church that we cannot ignore today, the modernizations of the recent past cannot be seen as anything less than a serious mistake.

Thank God our current pope has a stronger ear for tradition. I pray this leads to a counter-revolution, even if it must come slowly.

 

[neiacatholic]

I believe Vatican II corrected the use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation to its proper place.

It was never intended to be used to air our dirty laundry.

It was intended to be a Sacrament that we could receive the forgiveness of God for serious/mortal sins. Sins that completely separate us from God.

Less serious sins are forgiven through Eucharist – which is our main Sacrament of Forgiveness.

I would hope that if people use this Sacrament – how it was intended – they wouldn’t be going to Reconciliation once a week or once a month like they use to.

 

[reggieM]

If we are going to return to being the type of Catholic I grew up with, we need to understand we are responsible for our actions, that we should feel guilt and remorse, and depending on what it was - shame.

Agreed. With the increase in freedom and permissiveness, we have to exert more caution (and responsibility) because we have fewer supports from society to help.

A few have expressed shock over changes in Nuns’ habits, how about the other changes in our day to day lives that were not asked for but made legal in courtrooms?

Two things which I think are essential that have to go into the equation, at least for the U.S. are:

1. The Vietnam War
2. Racism/Slavery/Civil Rights for African Americans

These two things were a wedge used to separate people from “the establishment”.
It was shown that leaders could not be trusted because they supported a war that was going nowhere and they did nothing about the persecution of black people.

Once this wedge was created, all the rest of the moral norms could fall down. Those who tried to uphold Catholic morality in the face of permissiveness were considered to be the same as bigots or unthinking war-mongers. “If we couldn’t trust your morality on black civil rights, why should we trust you on your sexual norms?”

The same thing happens today – sowing distrust of Church teachings ("what about the Inquisition? the Crusades?) and then extending that to any moral norm desired (gay marriage, etc.).

Yes, discrimination based on color or race was very wrong. But that should not be an excuse for dismissing moral teaching on sexuality.

 

[reggieM]

Frankly, there was not a single thing “broke” about the Catholic Faith that VII needed to address. Not a single thing. The Mass was just fine, the Catechism was just fine, everything was just fine.

That’s where some confusion lies. Many will say this – there was nothing that needed change. Then it will appear as if the changes were arbitrary, unnecessary or even done for a bad purpose.

It’s hard to find the data about the Church before Vatican II. An illusion will be created as if there were not serious problems that had to be addressed, but there were. We can’t see them now because we’ve already absorbed many positive changes from Vatican II and we don’t realize it – while at the same time, using those freedoms to admire a prior world.

 

[reggieM]

I believe Vatican II corrected the use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation to its proper place.

I have heard that before (in fact a local priest has said the exact thing).

The fact is – there is nothing in the documents of Vatican II that says any such thing at all. This is a complete fabrication – extending Vatican II beyond what the text says and inventing new norms.

It was never intended to be used to air our dirty laundry.

It was never used as such.

I would hope that if people use this Sacrament – how it was intended – they wouldn’t be going to Reconciliation once a week or once a month like they use to.

Pope John Paul II went to confession daily.

Indeed, in view of the fact that all the faithful are called to holiness, it **is recommended that they confess venial sins also **…

APOSTOLIC LETTER IN THE FORM OF MOTU PROPRIO
MISERICORDIA DEI

Cf. Can. 988, § 2: John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (2 December 1984), 32: AAS 77 (1985) 267; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1458

 

[reggieM]

but what i dont understand is if the Church saw the liberalism coming from the world, why did the Church played along by also introducing more liberal ideas within the Church instead of speaking against those things?

That’s a great question. Like they say, hindsight gives us 20-20 vision. The kind of liberalism that Ed West described came in later. In the late 50s and early 60s, it seemed like society had enough moral foundation that some relaxation in the norms would not cause chaos.

People were trusted with more freedom. That should not have meant that Catholics would go crazy with liberation like children running out of school on the first day of summer vacation (or even more than that).

 

[edwest2]

That’s a great question. Like they say, hindsight gives us 20-20 vision. The kind of liberalism that Ed West described came in later. In the late 50s and early 60s, it seemed like society had enough moral foundation that some relaxation in the norms would not cause chaos.

People were trusted with more freedom. That should not have meant that Catholics would go crazy with liberation like children running out of school on the first day of summer vacation (or even more than that).

At first, people gave sometimes eloquent arguments for this freedom. Those who were criticized for living an alternative lifestyle - mainly living with and having sex with their girlfriend - said, and I heard it: Leave me alone. I am responsible for my actions.

So, it went from leave me alone to “try it, you’ll like it,” to accept my sinful lifestyle completely because you can’t judge me or tell me what to do. And if you don’t you’re a bigot or filled with hate or believe in an invisible man in the sky, making you irrational as well.

The Bible tells us to not be conformed to this world. In the 1960s when many of my Catholic classmates and neighbors were conformed to and lived out their faith, others came along and told us to stop conforming. We sort of missed the fact that a lot of them ended up preferring a sinful lifestyle, especially regarding sex and staying away from Church.

Peace,
Ed

 

[white_sheep]

Venial sins are not trite, meaningless little things.

 

[edwest2]

That’s where some confusion lies. Many will say this – there was nothing that needed change. Then it will appear as if the changes were arbitrary, unnecessary or even done for a bad purpose.

It’s hard to find the data about the Church before Vatican II. An illusion will be created as if there were not serious problems that had to be addressed, but there were. We can’t see them now because we’ve already absorbed many positive changes from Vatican II and we don’t realize it – while at the same time, using those freedoms to admire a prior world.

From the booklet, The Second Vatican Council by The America Press, 1962. IMPRIMI POTEST: John J. McGinty, S.J., Provincial of the New York Province. NIHIL OBSTAT: Francis J. Breidenbach, Ph.D., Censor Deputatus. IMPRIMATUR: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York.

April 23, 1962

The nihil obstat and imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet are free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat and imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.

– Allow me to add, I cannot think of a single thing I would call a freedom that appeared after 1964.

What follows are some excerpts from the section titled Problems of the Modern Church.

The speaker in this interview style piece, is Joseph Folliet, author of World Catholicism Today, and a “Catholic thinker, editor and writer.”

“The first vital problem facing the Church is the existence and activity of world communism, which has already established itself throughout one-third of the earth and is assiduously preparing for conquest of the remaining two-thirds.”

[Historical note: The Intercontinental Ballistic Missile had just been deployed a few years earlier in Russia and the United States. We regularly heard about “Godless Communism” from the American government.]

“In the wake of this sweeping revolution of modern civilization, old moral and intellectual patterns have been abandoned, but nothing has renewed or replaced them. In the present moral crisis the Church has a magnificent opportunity to make her voice heard. Hers is not a closed and dated morality that is unsuitable to a growing civilization. Rather, it is a truly human and evangelical morality, the only one which is apt to provide interior discipline for persons and societies. Of course, the moral and spiritual message of the Church will have no impact on our time unless the faithful take the Gospel seriously and make it enter the whole fabric of their lives.” [Emphasis mine.]

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

– Allow me to add, I cannot think of a single thing I would call a freedom that appeared after 1964.

Ed – how about after 1962 when the Council ended?

 

[reggieM]

At first, people gave sometimes eloquent arguments for this freedom. Those who were criticized for living an alternative lifestyle - mainly living with and having sex with their girlfriend - said, and I heard it: Leave me alone. I am responsible for my actions.

I hope everyone knows that I’m talking about the freedoms that the Church granted through Vatican II and not permissiveness in society. In other words, the Church never gave anyone the freedom for that kind of cohabitation. Not before or after the Council.

 

[edwest2]

To reggieM -

I cannot think of a single secular freedom that occurred after Vatican II. It appears to me, based on comments posted here, that Vatican II is the scapegoat, and somehow the cause of what happened in society after Vatican II. That’s simply not true.

I don’t think any life-changing trauma was caused by the new altar, the priest facing the congregation or nuns walking around in new habits. It was certainly explained to us Catholic kids in Catholic school. Yes, a few older members of our Church did ask what was going on, but instead of responding in Latin, we were responding in English. We had the option to eat meat on Friday. That caused people to fall off the cliff?

In the early 1960s, society was, for the most part, in accord with our beliefs. It was expressed in our media and day to day interactions with total strangers. Adults were called Mister and Missus, you said please and thank you and you saw other parents telling their smaller children to say those things. People said hello as you walked by.

As the years passed, rebelliousness separated children from their parents, concerts became places to get high, and this loosening of behaviors and moral standards was pushed from the outside, not from within the Catholic community.

Some posts make it sound like Vatican II made it OK for people to lower their moral standards, to talk dirty, to get a divorce and to watch immoral movies or TV shows.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lycorth]

That’s where some confusion lies. Many will say this – there was nothing that needed change. Then it will appear as if the changes were arbitrary, unnecessary or even done for a bad purpose.

It’s hard to find the data about the Church before Vatican II. An illusion will be created as if there were not serious problems that had to be addressed, but there were. We can’t see them now because we’ve already absorbed many positive changes from Vatican II and we don’t realize it – while at the same time, using those freedoms to admire a prior world.

Considering the state of the Church and the Faith today, I fail to see any “positive changes” that VII gave us.

The Faith wasn’t broken - the Faith didn’t need to be fixed.

 

[reggieM]

I cannot think of a single secular freedom that occurred after Vatican II.

Ed – Vatican II provided many freedoms to the faithful. We wouldn’t call them “secular freedoms”, but they had a big impact on Catholic life. Relaxed fasting rules, freedom for laity to pursue theological studies, a whole new code of Canon Law, anticipated Masses on Saturdays, fewer rubrics, calendar simplification, doctrinal and moral books permitted in the vernacular, imprimatur not required, freedom to read books formerly on the Index, freedom to attend non-Catholic services as a guest, shorter Masses, laypersons free to participate in many liturgical actions … and far more freedoms for priests and religious.

Yes, a few older members of our Church did ask what was going on, but instead of responding in Latin, we were responding in English. We had the option to eat meat on Friday. That caused people to fall off the cliff?

As above, the list of changes was significant. The Eucharistic fast, for example, moved from 3 hours to 1. The ability to hear everything in the vernacular made the prayers more accessible, but also less formal. A general spirit of laxity came along – all the changes were relaxations of former laws.

Some posts make it sound like Vatican II made it OK for people to lower their moral standards, to talk dirty, to get a divorce and to watch immoral movies or TV shows.

That would be totally false. There is nothing in the Vatican II texts that could support such a thing. But I agree that many believed that Vatican II gave them permission to radically change their moral views. They thought that since Vatican II changed some things that were previously considered sacred and virtually-unchangeable, then it would allow for any other changes.

People took advantage of the situation and abused the privileges they were given. The freedom to attend weekly Mass on Saturday turned into only attending once a month, etc.

 

[irishpatrick]

Georgetown University’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) has published a new report on Frequently Requested Catholic Church Statistics

Here’s one of the many fascinating questions they researched:

http://cara.georgetown.edu/confess.jpg

Hello dear Bishops and Pastors – do you think we have a problem when 39% of Mass-going Catholics do not go to Confession as much as once a year? What do you think – a possible topic for a sermon somewhere there?

I do not believe the numbers. I believe less than 10% go to confession at least once a year!

 

[edwest2]

To reggieM -

Thank you for that list. I still fail to see any causal connection to changes in Catholic Church practices and turning to artificial contraception, shacking up/cohabitating, easy divorce and so on, much less going to Church once a month.

I saw the Catholics around me begin to try the world’s way of doing things in the early 1970’s. The key thing people need to understand is that the surrounding culture and media culture were very agreeable to our beliefs and way of living. It was after small groups of outsiders came in demanding ‘freedom’ and by bringing in their ideas of how this should be done, that the Catholic community slowly began to conform to the world. Why did this happen? Naivete and misplaced trust on our part.

1. Take illegal drugs. They’re cool. Jimi smokes dope. Just listen to Cheech and Chong talk about Santa Claus and his Old Lady – and magic dust.
2. Don’t listen to any authority figures. A Woodstock Nation is coming. Power to the People! Right on!
3. “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Ed – I fully agree. There is no causal connection. In other words, the relaxation of laws that Vatican II directed did not directly cause the breakdown in the Church or society that we saw. Many abused the freedoms granted by taking them much farther than authorized.
I agree also that it was small groups of people who agitated for drugs and sexual immorality. Even the rock music that is taken for granted today as mainstream (Jimi, etc) was considered distasteful and culturally bad. The performers wanted to be considered “underground” and deliberately subversive. They were like obscene books in the prior era.
Amazingly, they became popular icons in the later 70s and remained such until now. They shaped and became our culture and the Church was pushed to the side.

 

[edwest2]

reggie -

I don’t want to make it sound like it’s all bad news, but as I watched it unfold, I was surprised at each new change regarding what was acceptable. I remember watching the first Alien movie and being surprised with the profanity. H.R. Geiger, who designed the Alien, had some pretty demonic imagery in his art book. Recently, at a local local supermarket, I saw a comic book where Bart Simpson is on a movie screen in a drive-in pulling down his pants from behind, with a grin on his face. Some may want to paint this as no big deal, but I view it as a coarsening of the culture.

Our socio-cultural landscape has reached a point where, I hope, the various purveyors of potty humor and endless dysfunction a la Jerry Springer, have run their course. People have IPods and Tablets and other devices and I plan on owning none of them. I’ll stick to books where people don’t use profanity to make their point or shock the reader.

Peace,
Ed