New Study on the Decline in Vocations

  • Thread starter Thread starter misstherese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The authors present lots of statistics and charts, which I don’t dispute, but apart from that, they introduce a great deal of interpretation by continually referencing the time frame to the Second Vatican Council. Is it their agenda to criticize Vatican II?
 
Last edited:
Is there any info on the authors. It presents like a scientific paper

one is a soil scientist and engineer. The other is a computer science person.

Interesting choice of papers
 
Last edited:
I will offer a couple of comments.
  1. Correlation is not causation. Some of the things which correlate may be partial causes, or may be impacted by other issues which are not examined.
  2. It appears that the primary emphasis of the study is to “show” (I would prefer the term “imply”) that liturgical change is the driving cause of the loss of vocations.
  3. The following quote appears below a study showing the increase in the SSPX from 1970 forward: “Given the depth of the current crisis, described visually in so many of the previous figures, it is inconsistent
    for any prelate or cleric concerned for the good of the Church or the salvation of souls to simultaneously hold
    a determined resistance to cooperation with a society of religious life whose only fault is lack of canonical
    status within the Church. The statistics herein seem to validate the basis on which they were founded in 1970.”
That, I think, may be a telltale. according to Pope Benedict, “the only fault is a lack of canonical status” is a complete misrepresentation of the distance between the SSPX and the Church. And if anyone should know intimately the distance between the SSPX and the Church, it is this Pope, who while working under Pope John Paul 2, was the go between of the Society and the Pope. In short, he was in the trenches during JP2’s reign, trying to bring about reconciliation.

Neither seem to have any indicated background in sociological study. Although the mention CARA briefly (for a source of statistics), CARA would never start with a presupposed cause, and simply run through numbers to imply that correlation is causation.

There are a multitude of issues at play. Not mentioned, for example, was the correlation of the sexual revolution, at least in the US, and what part that might have played in priests and religious leaving their vocation. Nor are the twin issues of priests leaving to get married, and priests leaving because of sexual abuse issues addressed. There are no questionnaires, nor are there any references to other studies which may have had questionnaires, nor any studies, notes, or other materials which any of the groups noted may have had, all together or sporadically as to those requesting release. Given that at least in some circumstances Rome may have been involved in the release from vows, there is no showing either of any information, or even that Rome was involved (in other words, source materials). It may be that such materials are confidential, but even abstracts might possibly be available.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there could be shown a correlation between the Vietnam War and the decline of religious. To which I might be inclined to say “So?”
 
Last edited:
Throughout the period from 2001 to 2014, worldwide, there is an actual modest growth in the total
number of religious of about 0.15% per year.

🙂
 
misstherese said:
I haven’t heard of Christendom Restoration Society before, but this study, after looking it over and reading it, looks very thorough. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Just because the study is thorough doesn’t mean its correct.

The assumption is that Vatican 2 and liturgical reform caused the decline in the number of religious vocations, and the statistics presented show a correlation between the two events.

I don’t see causation here at all. Other religious concerns have also seen steep declines during the same period, groups that were not affected by Vatican 2 at all like Methodists and Episcopalians.

Further, the nature of the Catholic Church’s population in America has really changed over the past 50 years. 50 years ago, many of our Catholic forefathers who came from the backwaters of the Austrian Hungarian Empire and other places were still alive and had very different attitudes.
 
Augustinian said:
The assumption is that Vatican 2 and liturgical reform caused the decline in the number of religious vocations, and the statistics presented show a correlation between the two events.

I don’t see causation here at all.
Click to expand...
Not at all? I can see that it could be argued that there were other factors external to the Council that could also be at play here, but I think it is bold to absolve the Council of all responsibility.
 
It does make me wonder, for example, if forgoing conventional religious habits was a contributory cause of lowering vocations or just a sign of the times, both most likely?
 
Last edited:
R_H_Benson said:
Not at all? I can see that it could be argued that there were other factors external to the Council that could also be at play here, but I think it is bold to absolve the Council of all responsibility.
Click to expand...
Correlation means that something MAY or MAY NOT have caused something. It is one of many factors playing into an event. If there are many correlating factors, all MAY or MAY NOT have caused it. It may be a multitude of causes which in isolation would not have caused the event but together did.

Overall, the scientific method does not allow us to use our biases and personal feelings about things to cause us to take leap in saying that because this proceded that, this caused that. The only time we actually can say something is a cause is if it is a certain cause.

So when the OP sad “I don’t see causation here at all”, it does not mean “I don’t see this as being a possible cause.” It is saying “I don’t see a certain cause here.”
 
I see this all the time, and in a word- NO!

One of the most wonderful things about Vatican II was Prefectae caritatis

All religious orders were asked to look at their Constitutions and make sure that what they were doing was still in the spirit of their founders. What became a “habit” was, in many cases, the clothing that a widow would have worn at the time of the founding. When looking at those requirements, and seeing how many habits had morphed into very unfunctional clothing, the changes were made.

Br. JREducation wrote volumes about this in the old forum.
 
Well I don’t need a statistical study to see what’s taking place in my own dioceses.

When they make a priest a pastor who’s only been ordained five years, it suggests that the Bishop is limited on how many priests he has.

Jim
 
I wonder if the number in vocation increased significantly if their research would claim the quality of those taking vows decreased since Vatican ii?
 
The Council does not have responsibility for the chaos; otherwise there would not have been areas where the chaos did not intrude.

Poland is a prime example,. They, through the next two decades were very orderly and focused on implementing the changes coming from the documents. Polish society had far more to deal with than secularism and the hedonism and independence which the Americas exhibited; and it did not have the history likewise which western Europe had been experiencing for several centuries. The bishops, including Wojtyla, were prepared to implement the various documents and did so in spite of Communist control at the time.

The western bishops in large part had little control of the implementation; had too long been bureaucrats rather than leaders, and for the large part appeared. now in hind sight, to be baffled as to how to provide direction. That ended up devolving to lower levels who went off in all sorts of directions. There was a far greater sense of autonomy amongst those who stepped into leadership roles, including not a few theologians.

Nor did third world countries experience the chaos. Again, secularism and hedonism, as well as a wild streak of independence, were not part of their societies.
 
Too many reacted as if they were teenagers who had not been taught self control for the previous 10 years, and went to “live with grandpa and grandma”.

Not all orders completely threw out their habits; and I suspect that if one went through all of the changes as they occurred in each community, one would find that the habit “change” was often a sign of something deeper.

My parents had numerous relatives who had joined two different groups (congregations, orders etc.). One in particular I am familiar with. A good part of the chaos within at least some of the orders appears far more to be an issue of how regimented they were prior to Vatican 2, and how the orders reacted after; rather than lives which were essentially controlled from the top, down, and were vary regimented, they went through a reordering where a lot of that regimentation was removed. Many of those orders had women who went from the family home at the age of 18 or younger, to an order in which what you did and when you did it was laid out for you by your superior. In short, there was minimal flexibility in one’s life; suddenly, each was exercising more “control” over daily/weekly life. The issue of going back to the original charism of the order was implemented too fast, leaving older sisters adrift. For example, if one was in an order which had started out as missionary, but over time had shifted to teaching, suddenly moving back to something many, if not most had no experience of was disorienting.

Anyone who has watched children who were raised in strict families has seen what happens all too often when those children suddenly leave home for college. Some make it through; too many are suddenly adrift with too many choices and no experience of how to make a choice.

Those orders and congregations which have modified, but retained habits also have a far clearer view of what their charism is, and attract women who are drawn to that charism; and community life is more structured than those groups which lack a clear charism. The habit is less the issue and more the “canary in the coal mine” of deeper issues.
 
I have mixed feelings about this.

Sure, the authors have an agenda in mind. If they regard the SSPX as having only one problem, the lack of canonical status, I would wonder what else they are oblivious to. Since they draw larger conclusions from the data trends, I am surprised they did not comment on this trend: the anti-religious authority movement that has impacted on “liberals” and “conservatives” in the last few decades, in the West.

The SSPX, like Call to Action, has benefited temporarily from being a rallying point for those with complaints. But the SSPX is also suffering losses as complainers break off in various directions. The 2018 SSPX membership has far less experience working or training in the actual Church, itself, than the 1978 membership, for example. If you bring up the 2018 SSPX, you may as well bring up the PNCC data, as well.

But the fact that this analysis has a flaw does not mean it has no value. There are trends and correlations that deserve further inquiry.
 
commenter said:
The 2018 SSPX membership has far less experience working or training in the actual Church, itself, than the 1978 membership, for example. If you bring up the 2018 SSPX, you may as well bring up the PNCC data, as well.
Click to expand...
Do you have any stats on the SSPX faithful- how many in 2018 were raised in SSPX chapels or converted from non-catholic faiths— as opposed to how many were raised in the Catholic Church?
 
Augustinian said:
40.png
commenter:
The 2018 SSPX membership has far less experience working or training in the actual Church, itself, than the 1978 membership, for example. If you bring up the 2018 SSPX, you may as well bring up the PNCC data, as well.
Click to expand...
Do you have any stats on the SSPX faithful- how many in 2018 were raised in SSPX chapels or converted from non-catholic faiths— as opposed to how many were raised in the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind the SSPX does not include laity, it only includes clergy, religious, and seminarians. It would be hard to measure laity, I don’t have stats.

But then I am responding to the Study in the Thread, which treats the SSPX only as a religious order. The Study did not try to compare data on laity served by the Jesuits, or Franciscans, either.

I admit my comparing SSPX clergy to PNCC clergy is an imperfect analogy. The PNCC clergy in 1915, for instance, were far more experienced in the RCC than the PNCC clergy in 1935; it gradually became a separate entity. A temporary solution gradually became permanent.
 
Last edited:
otjm said:
The Council does not have responsibility for the chaos; otherwise there would not have been areas where the chaos did not intrude.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the council did ask for during those years? I’m asking because I’ve heard a lot of different things, that the priest facing the people was not specifically stated, that Latin was supposed to be kept somewhat, Gregorian chant given the highest place in the mass. It makes me wonder what sort of masses were being said when the changes were first made.

It reminds me of what St. John Bosco said during his time, “There will be an Ecumenical Council in the next century, after which there will be chaos in the Church.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top