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

[Colgate]

Quick, but perhaps irrelevant, question. I followed reggieM’s link to further US Catholic data and was surprised to find that the country has less than 2.5 million children in Catholic schools.

Really? I didn’t know Catholic schools were so few in number in the US. Here in Ontario, Canada, they seem to be more numerous than the public schools - I myself went to one.

 

[didymus]

The issue is a lack of proper catechesis and poor sermons from the pulpit. Rarely do priests give a good, convincing and moving sermons on apologetics and they also have trouble telling people how to practically follow the concepts of the faith.

At a former parish my pastor gave not a sermon, but a cri de coeur one Sunday. He said he was available every Sat. afternoon, waiting, and no one had shown up for the past six months – I suspect this may be what led many parishes to “by appointment only”. “At least,” he said, "I’m comforted to know that none of my parishiners are in a state of mortal sin.

Later, he heard confessions all day long on Good Friday – actually took out a 1/4 page ad in the paper to announce it and got a very big response.

While we’re on sermon topics, when is the last time anybody heard one about worthy reception of Communion?

 

[rep140]

Really? I didn’t know Catholic schools were so few in number in the US. Here in Ontario, Canada, they seem to be more numerous than the public schools - I myself went to one.

It’s my understanding that Catholic schools in Canada are state supported. That’s not the case in the U.S. where schools do not get public funds.

 

[Colgate]

Really? I didn’t know Catholic schools were so few in number in the US. Here in Ontario, Canada, they seem to be more numerous than the public schools - I myself went to one.

It’s my understanding that Catholic schools in Canada are state supported. That’s not the case in the U.S. where schools do not get public funds.

Even the public schools are not state supported in the US then? Or is it just denominational schools?

 

[rep140]

Only the public (State operated and open to everyone) schools are funded.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

Exactly. all that need to be done was to reenforce Catholic teachings and education on the Faith and not have the Mass changed, veil down, among others tjhings.

i guess many tought they could beat the world in changes. you know, like let’s see who can modernize first.

what they did was making changes where was not needed and kept what needed to be changed.

sad times in the Church today. well, we will cry with her and laugh with her , no matter what the situation is. i wish we could tell the holy father we are with him at all times. the ship is wrecked but we will stay in.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

and just how it was done? years ago, i remember entering the Church any time of the day and a priest would come and go into confessional then i would go in to make confession. i am talking about daily. priests lived in the Church. they didnt mingle around blending with people wihtout being recognized like today.
today, no priests in the Church, you have to call for appointments for them to hear your confession, this could be 2, 3 days waiting period.
there were times thati call every Catholic Church in town and could not find one priest available.

is this what you call putting reconciliation on its proper place? and how come we have such a confession crisis today, if it was to fix things?

 

[white_sheep]

I agree, and further reiterate that venial sins are not trite, meaningless little things we should not worry about or bother to confess. Even if you have succeeded in avoiding mortal sin it is still a good idea to confess regularly to work on other areas which need improvement. The sacraments are a way through which we receive grace, and should never be relegated to the back seat as if they are some chore we have to suffer through.

 

[reggieM]

Even the public schools are not state supported in the US then? Or is it just denominational schools?

It’s still a woefully small number of students considering the total Catholic population in the U.S. A long time back, Catholic schools were free (and usually mandatory for all children in the parish). They also had to fight anti-Catholic hostility in public schools more. The Canadian system seems very good to me, from what I’ve seen of it. I would fear government involvment in the religious curriculum though --that could be a major problem someday.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If I were a bishop (and no doubt God is rightly to be thanked that I’m not) I would:

1. Immediately put an end to face-to-face confessions and confessions out in the open church. I would reinstate the confessionals with the screens and the doors and the lights that tell you whether it’s empty or occupied.
2. Have more big “penance services” with auricular confessions, well-announced, and not just a month in advance of Christmas or Easter. Bad habits of not going are hard to break, and those could help.
3. I would find a speech teacher or a lawyer and have my priests instructed in how to give a speech. Not some little seminar, but a real course, with practice exercises, grades and everything. It really can be learned, and sermons could be much improved if priests had a better idea how to deliver something persuasively. Sermons really are persuasive speeches, after all, and effective methods of delivery are universal.
4. I would tell my priests: “be brave. Tell the truth. Try for real conversions of heart. I’ll take the heat for it, and I won’t listen to parish complaints caused by it.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Oh yes:

I would also look at the religion books in every school in the diocese; probably throw them all out and prescribe that only the Seton School books could be used henceforth.

 

[Lycorth]

1. Have more big “penance services” with auricular confessions, well-announced, and not just a month in advance of Christmas or Easter. Bad habits of not going are hard to break, and those could help.

I’d go a step further and mandate that confessions be offered for an hour before each Mass on Saturday and Sunday. I shudder to think how many receive the Eucharist with souls stained with mortal sin, and frequent confession is such a boon for us. It’s like not having a sink in the OR for the doctor to use before surgery.

and just how it was done? years ago, i remember entering the Church any time of the day and a priest would come and go into confessional then i would go in to make confession. i am talking about daily. priests lived in the Church. they didnt mingle around blending with people wihtout being recognized like today.
today, no priests in the Church, you have to call for appointments for them to hear your confession, this could be 2, 3 days waiting period.
there were times thati call every Catholic Church in town and could not find one priest available.

is this what you call putting reconciliation on its proper place? and how come we have such a confession crisis today, if it was to fix things?

Exactly. This cavalier attitude towards Reconciliation is part of the fallout of Vatican II. This is what happens when we try to fix what isn’t broken.

Exactly. all that need to be done was to reenforce Catholic teachings and education on the Faith and not have the Mass changed, veil down, among others tjhings.

i guess many tought they could beat the world in changes. you know, like let’s see who can modernize first.

what they did was making changes where was not needed and kept what needed to be changed.

sad times in the Church today. well, we will cry with her and laugh with her , no matter what the situation is. i wish we could tell the holy father we are with him at all times. the ship is wrecked but we will stay in.

So sadly true; instead of sacrificing ourselves for the truth, as the martyrs did, we now sacrifice the truth for ourselves.

 

[edwest2]

Still going on and on about Vatican II? People did not stop using their rosaries. We still went on our knees to kiss Christ on the cross that rested on a purple pillow during devotion. We had blessing of food, Stations of the Cross…

To read a few comments here, it’s like Catholics suddenly went nuts, ran down the street and committed whatever sin crossed their minds. The convent on our school grounds was still open in 1973.

Sheesh. I was there.

Peace,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

1. Have more big “penance services” with auricular confessions, well-announced, and not just a month in advance of Christmas or Easter. Bad habits of not going are hard to break, and those could help.

I agree that would have a very beneficial impact. I can already see these well-attended. Why not have them more often? This is something that could be suggested also if we get a chance (even putting it parish suggestion box could help).

1. I would tell my priests: “be brave. Tell the truth. Try for real conversions of heart. I’ll take the heat for it, and I won’t listen to parish complaints caused by it.”

I think our priests need this more than anything. They need a shepherd and a leader as much as we do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

What exactly are you talking about? You’ve lost me. Confession, while “strictly” or “urgently” needed/recommended in more severe situations, was never meant to be rationed out infrequently. It’s there to be utilized as often – without scrupulosity – as penitents can benefit from it, even when the need is not urgent. That was true before V2 and after V2. The fact that there may have been misunderstandings, misreading of the documents, or opportunities for laxity by those who were expedient, does not mean that there was ever an intent, even informally, to recommend infrequent Confession.

The purpose of the sacrament goes way beyond the necessary and the urgent. It’s a font of spiritual grace as well, in a positive sense. It’s a growth opportunity. Not just the Pope, but many priests, go once/week. What is recommended for the lay person to maintain spiritual health is once/month, minimum.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, and if so, I apologize in advance.

 

[Lycorth]

Still going on and on about Vatican II? People did not stop using their rosaries. We still went on our knees to kiss Christ on the cross that rested on a purple pillow during devotion. We had blessing of food, Stations of the Cross…

To read a few comments here, it’s like Catholics suddenly went nuts, ran down the street and committed whatever sin crossed their minds. The convent on our school grounds was still open in 1973.

Sheesh. I was there.

Not “suddenly”, but eventually. Maybe not “whatever sin”, but eventually the sins of forgoing Mass and the sacraments - and those will lead to other sins, and clearly have.

We “go on” about Vatican II because it did the exact opposite of renewing the Church.

 

[rep140]

We “go on” about Vatican II because it did the exact opposite of renewing the Church.

---

V2 was not the reason for decline in following the Church. Mainline Protestanism had no V2 and they are a bigger basket case than Catholocism.

 

[Akini]

V2 was not the reason for decline in following the Church. Mainline Protestanism had no V2 and they are a bigger basket case than Catholocism.

The data presented is not limited to the US only. It is almost the same everywhere around the globe. In fact, these days people are receiving Holy Communion without even goin to confession. My question is, if V2 was not the reason for the decline, then what is the main cause. I personally believe V2 is responsible for all these, may be I am wrong. God have mercy on me a sinnest of the sinners!

 

[reggieM]

My question is, if V2 was not the reason for the decline, then what is the main cause.

That’s a good question. One starting-point to consider when answering it is the Eastern Rite Byzantine Catholic world before and after Vatican II.
First, the move to vernacular was heavily-encouraged at Vatican II by an Eastern Rite Catholic bishop. For him, there was no problem using vernacular in the liturgy - since the Eastern Rites have used vernacular for a long time prior to Vatican II.
So there’s a simple change: moving from Latin-only to vernacular. Was that evil? No - it couldn’t be because Eastern churches used vernacular and they didn’t have a decline (in fact they are increasing). It only happened in the West.
How big of a change was the move from Latin to vernacular?
Very simply - it was a massive, earth-shattering change.
It doesn’t seem like a big deal now, but it really was.
What happens when a big organization makes a massive, cultural change?
Without very tight controls, things can easily get misinterpreted and misrepresented.

Ok, that’s just one change - Latin to vernacular. It affected the whole world.
So, was Vatican II responsible for the decline?
We could say “yes” because Vatican II authorized vernacular (although the text says that “Latin must be retained”).
But that does not make sense because it would mean that the Western Church would never be able to use vernacular in the liturgy, although the Eastern Rites could without a problem. Why? Are Western Catholics incapable of worshipping God in the vernacular language without running off into heresy and apostasy?
Or, did Western Catholics love the Latin language so much that once it was lost they stopped going to Church?

Let me put it this way … there’s a lot more to the story. The decline that we’re facing now in many countries (not all) had started decades before Vatican II in Europe. Dissent, modernism, lax Catholics, declining Mass attendance … all had been in place in Europe for a while. True, not as bad as it is now, but it was there. Also true, nobody would consider going to Communion without Confession. They were taught correctly. Instead, they just dropped out of the parish.

We could look at the life of St. John Vianney in a fairly typical rural community in France in the mid-1800s. What did he find among the Catholics there? Drunkenness and carousing, a sacrilegious spirit and a very poor attendance at Mass.

Ironically, the way he fixed it was with personal holiness, solid preaching and hours in the Confessional – exactly the things we need today. But the point is – there’s no proof that the documents of Vatican II directly caused the decline or that the changes intended by Vatican II were evil in that way. There’s nothing in the documents that should have caused people to stop going to Confession and stop going to Mass.

 

[Stylites]

This graph seems incomplete, as respondents could both be married in the Church and widowed, or divorced, etc.