Post Vatican II numbers show continued decline

[Timothysis]

Are you saying that a reverent and well catechized family could not stand up to the “Idiot Box” and the “flapping in the breeze secularist”? hmmm? Do all of our Catholic families today just bow down to the MTV godd and submit to the consumption will of the almighty TV?

And are you saying that a monumental change in society has no effect on those who live in it? Someone on this forum posted an excellent essay saying that the effects that we saw beginning in the 1960’s was due more to the disintegration of the Catholic culture/neighborhoods beginning after the second world war. Before, the neighborhood Catholic Church was the center of the community’s life, but when people started moving out of the cities and moved into the suburbs due to the post-war economic prosperity, everything changed. Only a fool would subscribe to the narrow point of view that Vatican II “caused” all of this. Had Vatican II happened in the 1930’s no one today would even still speak about it. Remember, also, that the Pauline missal was not even published until 1970. Are you saying that all of the ills of the 1960’s did not begin until 1970? How many Catholic couples used the newly introduced pill to protect from conception? How many men subscribed to the newly created playboy culture and enjoyed the newly uncensored movies depicted graphic sex and violence that started to come out in the 1960’s? Interesting, too, isn’t it that protestant denominations have seen a fall in members since the same time. Explain to me how Vatican II caused that!

 

[GratefulDad]

And are you saying that a monumental change in society has no effect on those who live in it? Someone on this forum posted an excellent essay saying that the effects that we saw beginning in the 1960’s was due more to the disintegration of the Catholic culture/neighborhoods beginning after the second world war. Before, the neighborhood Catholic Church was the center of the community’s life, but when people started moving out of the cities and moved into the suburbs due to the post-war economic prosperity, everything changed. Only a fool would subscribe to the narrow point of view that Vatican II “caused” all of this. Had Vatican II happened in the 1930’s no one today would even still speak about it. Remember, also, that the Pauline missal was not even published until 1970. Are you saying that all of the ills of the 1960’s did not begin until 1970? How many Catholic couples used the newly introduced pill to protect from conception? How many men subscribed to the newly created playboy culture and enjoyed the newly uncensored movies depicted graphic sex and violence that started to come out in the 1960’s? Interesting, too, isn’t it that protestant denominations have seen a fall in members since the same time. Explain to me how Vatican II caused that!

It all adds up, it is part of the entire environment, the watered down version of our Faith. Hiding behind what the secularist do and have done to our society is NOT the answer either. Are you saying your happy with the direction Vatican II has put us on and their are no adjustments needed. I just think we can be stronger than that.

This is what Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York had to say:

“Maybe the greatest threat to the church is not heresy, not dissent, not secularism, not even moral relativism, but this sanitized, feel-good, boutique, therapeutic spirituality that makes no demands, calls for no sacrifice, asks for no conversion, entails no battle against sin, but only soothes and affirms.”

 

[Trick]

Of course, no one ever gives an ounce of credence to the societal changes that occurred in the late 50’s and, especially, the 1960’s. How much of an effect do you think the introduction of the pill in the mid 1960’s had to do with anything or the rise of the Playboy magazine culture? Who do you think changed the world more, the Vatican II council or the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show? Do you think that Church attendance and enrollments in the seminaries would have remained unchanged if Vatican II never happened? Woodstock didn’t happen as a response to Vatican II; which do you think is more indicative of the state of younger people then, Vatican II or Woodstock?

And Pat Buchanan is a loon.

 

[pnewton]

Newton, I don’t think I am following you here? These numbers are from Kenneth Jones.

Who is he? None of the source documentation is referenced. The article is by some blogger. Holy Family is one of your links. This whole thing is hogwash. When the blogger used the phrase “morally corrupt churchmen” I recognize that this is common among dissenting Catholics. It is used to separate the Church from the, well, the Church. Secular papers love Catholic dissenters and print them over official sources all the time. As far

 

[brotherhrolf]

Tim. It wasn’t the breakup of the ethnic neighborhoods (although as a New Orleanian I would question that the Irish Channel of my grandparent’s day had been severely weakend by my parent’s moving out to the ‘burbs’. Societal ill? Naw, GI Bill. There were more than enough Irish, Italian, French and German kids on my block in Kenner - all catholics and they had been intermarrying from before WWII). I saw more really “ethnic” neighborhoods when I was stationed in Chicago in 1971 and they were still going strong.

Playboy culture? I had never seen a Playboy magazine until I arrived at my squadron in Chicago in 1971. I was 20 years old, a devout Catholic, and a virgin. I was by no means unique. We were still busy being “pitts” and “frats” even in 1970.

The Pauline missal may not have been published until 1970 but my Catholic boy’s high school in New Orleans used what was recognizably the NO Mass starting in September of 1967. We left in May of that year with the brothers in cassocks and large sections of the Mass were still in Latin according to the 1965 missal. We came back in September with the young brothers in black slacks, white shirts, and ties and the older brothers in cassocks…not exactly an example to us of “oh how good and pleasant it is when brothers get together in unity”. I sang Latin in the choir for the class of 1968’s graduation. We didn’t have a choir for my 1969 graduation. We had three of my classmates on guitars and we sang Simon and Garfunkle.

What Vatican II said and what actually happened are two different things. Let me point out that I was a late teenager when everything started to change. My parents were of the “greatest generation” and they were in their prime. Most parents I knew were not in any, way, shape or form permissive. I have a copy of the 1965 St. Joseph’s Missal. Vatican II envisioned a reform of the 1962 Missal. What happened was a very rapid, bewildering “change for the sake of change” itself movement. A willy nilly rush to change the Mass. Announcements made from the pulpit…in two weeks we will no longer chant the Gloria in Latin…in two weeks we will no longer chant the Credo (much less even say the Credo today).

No, it wasn’t society. It wasn’t the Pauline missal. There were elements in HMC who wanted change - change at any cost. My three classmates who inflicted Simon and Garfunkle on my class still play for alumni functions and are now balding, white haired, fat musicians playing the same stuff they played forty years ago. Their reason? Shock. They wanted to see just how far they could push the brothers. And what happened?

You can’t blame what happened after Vatican II solely on societal changes. It was a combination of societal changes and forces within HMC.

 

[Timothysis]

It all adds up, it is part of the entire environment, the watered down version of our Faith.

So, the “watered down version of our Faith” is responsible for:

Bebop Jazz, rock and roll, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, rockabilly, swing, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Marlon Brando, Chuck Berry, the Beach Boys, marijuana, smack, Woodstock, the Monterey International Festival, acid, Charles Manson, the Hells Angels, psychedelic rock, hippies, Timothy Leary, God is Dead, Hugh Hefner, Playboy, the Grateful Dead, the Doors, love ins, tune in, turn on , drop out…

Hiding behind what the secularist do and have done to our society is NOT the answer either.

I never said it was. But once an inch is given one can very seldom ever get it back.

Are you saying your happy with the direction Vatican II has put us on and their are no adjustments needed. I just think we can be stronger than that.

I don’t think that the Church is in any better or worse shape than it has been in centuries past. Read the history of the popes and see that they all had something to deal with.

This is what Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York had to say:

“Maybe the greatest threat to the church is not heresy, not dissent, not secularism, not even moral relativism, but this sanitized, feel-good, boutique, therapeutic spirituality that makes no demands, calls for no sacrifice, asks for no conversion, entails no battle against sin, but only soothes and affirms.”

A good quote but it is not one that addresses anything that I ever heard Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict preach against.

 

[Timothysis]

You can’t blame what happened after Vatican II solely on societal changes. It was a combination of societal changes and forces within HMC.

Nor can one try to lay the sole blame on the Vatican II council. One would have to be blind to ignore the huge societal changes that happened in the 50’s and 60’s .

And while not “all” neighborhoods dissolved at one time there is no denying the shift in the dynamics that occurred in America after the second World War.

Also, I can assure you that the rise of the mainstream media had as much to do with societies perceptions of things than anything else.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Tim, what I was trying to say is that I lived through the times. “Societal changes” might work up north but here in south Louisiana it was a different story. I can remember the reaction at UNO for the very first Earth Day. “Who are these clowns?” “Jesus” used to walk down Esplanade Ave. in NO in 1968. He was a hippie and an object of derision. The rich kids at Loyola and Tulane tried to get us to join in Viet Nam protests before I enlisted and were met with “nothing”. My high school and UNO served us working-class kids. My father worked two jobs to put the three of us through Catholic high school. When I turned 18, I was told if I wanted to go to college, I had to put myself through. I did. I worked full time at $1.60 and hour while going to UNO.

I’m going to my 40th high school reunion in two weeks. Many of us enlisted (I went to boot camp with a classmate in the class ahead of me and a classmate in the class behind me). Most of us enlisted in the Navy because we were an NJROTC high school starting in 1968. “Societal change” had no meaning in my life until I moved to Baton Rouge to go to grad school at LSU in 1976. That’s when I met DW - the youngest child of a chemical engineer who worked at Exxon. My father was an aircraft mechanic.

We have been married for 30 years and her ideas are 180 degrees out from me. She did the hippie stuff. My friends were like me. We worked minimum wage jobs and went to a state university. I didn’t have mama and daddy supporting me as did most of my classmates.

I got the been there, done that award. The societal changes you refer to didn’t exist in Catholic south Louisiana unless you had a mama and daddy like my wife.

 

[otjm]

It all adds up, it is part of the entire environment, the watered down version of our Faith. Hiding behind what the secularist do and have done to our society is NOT the answer either. Are you saying your happy with the direction Vatican II has put us on and their are no adjustments needed. I just think we can be stronger than that.

You are confusing two things. I for one am happy with the path that Vatican 2 put us on. What I am not happy with is the path that liberal theologians put us on. The failure to distinguish between the two is a constant problem with those on the right who constantly carp at Vatican 2 (often exposing their near total ignorance of the documents themselves) and the failure to distinguish between what, for example, John Paul 2 had to say, or Cardinal Ratzinger, or Benedict 16 (to distinguish statements in time sequence), and what, for example, Father McBride of Notre Dame “fame”, or Father Charles Currin had to say.

The whip-snap that occured, the issue that caused such tremendous doubt and rejection of what Rome had to say, was not something that occured out of the documents of Vatican 2. They occured out of the dissent of Humanae Vitae, a dissent that was immdeiate, widespread and deadly becuase it was not out of an issue of this liturgical practice or that liturgical practice. It was an issue of sexual morality that went right to the heart of marriage (and obviously, if one follows the sexual morals changes from the 60’s “free love” to today’s “friends with ;benefits” and “no strings attached” and exemplified in the Vagina Monologues (there goes Notre Dame again). People said “the Pope dioesn’t know what he is talking about - period” on the issue of contraception. It was an extremely short path from that to “the Pope is out of touch with the real world” to anything the Pope wanted to make a point about. Is your gripe about liturgical experimentation? Nothing in the Vatican 2 documents indicates that is the direction the Church is to go. But what is the basis beneath all the experimentation? Rejection of authority. Where do we find direct, in-your-face rejection of authority? It starts with the immediate rejection of Humanae Vitae.

This is what Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York had to say:

“Maybe the greatest threat to the church is not heresy, not dissent, not secularism, not even moral relativism, but this sanitized, feel-good, boutique, therapeutic spirituality that makes no demands, calls for no sacrifice, asks for no conversion, entails no battle against sin, but only soothes and affirms.”

I think the Archbishop is right on point. I don’t think that the issue he points out is a fruit of Vatican 2; it is a fruit of the rejection of authority and leadership of not just the Pope, but also the bishops in union with him. The sheep are scattered; they no longer hear the shephard, let alone follow him. What does sexual license entail? A reaction to the sexual urge that is based on “feel good, boutique, therapeutic spirituality that makes no demands (what does chastity demand?), calls for no sacrifice (what does marital love demand? Self - giving)…entails no battle against sin (how many have had their conscience so beaten down that they see no wrong morally in sexual activity outside of marriage?)…” I think the Archbishop is right on point as to what is wrong. I don’t think that what is wrong is due to Vatican 2. and I would bet good money the Archbishop doesn’t either.

 

[GratefulDad]

Who is he? None of the source documentation is referenced. The article is by some blogger. Holy Family is one of your links. This whole thing is hogwash. When the blogger used the phrase “morally corrupt churchmen” I recognize that this is common among dissenting Catholics. It is used to separate the Church from the, well, the Church. Secular papers love Catholic dissenters and print them over official sources all the time. As far

Well Newton, Kenneth Jones is good enough to be quoted by the Catholic Radio Association. Are they flakes too?

catholicradioassociation.org/whycatholicradio.htm#_ftnref2

This is directly from Pat Buchanan’s writings. Do you too think Buchanan is a loon?

townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2002/12/11/an_index_of_catholicisms_decline

CatholcCulture.org, put Mr. Jones’ report up. Are you familiar with that site? If not you should be.

catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=22821

How about his book on Amazon
amazon.com/Index-Leading-Catholic-Indicators-Vatican/dp/0972868801

 

[pnewton]

Well Newton, Kenneth Jones is good enough to be quoted by the Catholic Radio Association. Are they flakes too?

I don’t know. What is their authority in the Church? Again, who is Kenneth Jones? Does anyone know? There are zero links in the articles you linked to this information.

 

[GratefulDad]

I don’t know. What is their authority in the Church? Again, who is Kenneth Jones? Does anyone know? There are zero links in the articles you linked to this information.

Oh Good Grief.uch:

uslawyersdb.com/attorney916

 

[pnewton]

Oh Good Grief.uch:

uslawyersdb.com/attorney916

Thanks. Enough said. Case closed for me.

He is a personal injury schister ( excuse me, lawyer)

 

[GratefulDad]

You are confusing two things. I for one am happy with the path that Vatican 2 put us on. What I am not happy with is the path that liberal theologians put us on. The failure to distinguish between the two is a constant problem with those on the right who constantly carp at Vatican 2 (often exposing their near total ignorance of the documents themselves) and the failure to distinguish between what, for example, John Paul 2 had to say, or Cardinal Ratzinger, or Benedict 16 (to distinguish statements in time sequence), and what, for example, Father McBride of Notre Dame “fame”, or Father Charles Currin had to say.

The whip-snap that occured, the issue that caused such tremendous doubt and rejection of what Rome had to say, was not something that occured out of the documents of Vatican 2. They occured out of the dissent of Humanae Vitae, a dissent that was immdeiate, widespread and deadly becuase it was not out of an issue of this liturgical practice or that liturgical practice. It was an issue of sexual morality that went right to the heart of marriage (and obviously, if one follows the sexual morals changes from the 60’s “free love” to today’s “friends with ;benefits” and “no strings attached” and exemplified in the Vagina Monologues (there goes Notre Dame again). People said “the Pope dioesn’t know what he is talking about - period” on the issue of contraception. It was an extremely short path from that to “the Pope is out of touch with the real world” to anything the Pope wanted to make a point about. Is your gripe about liturgical experimentation? Nothing in the Vatican 2 documents indicates that is the direction the Church is to go. But what is the basis beneath all the experimentation? Rejection of authority. Where do we find direct, in-your-face rejection of authority? It starts with the immediate rejection of Humanae Vitae.
I think the Archbishop is right on point. I don’t think that the issue he points out is a fruit of Vatican 2; it is a fruit of the rejection of authority and leadership of not just the Pope, but also the bishops in union with him. The sheep are scattered; they no longer hear the shephard, let alone follow him. What does sexual license entail? A reaction to the sexual urge that is based on “feel good, boutique, therapeutic spirituality that makes no demands (what does chastity demand?), calls for no sacrifice (what does marital love demand? Self - giving)…entails no battle against sin (how many have had their conscience so beaten down that they see no wrong morally in sexual activity outside of marriage?)…” I think the Archbishop is right on point as to what is wrong. I don’t think that what is wrong is due to Vatican 2. and I would bet good money the Archbishop doesn’t either.

Agreed, it was the entire environment of the day that has helped to unraveled us.

 

[GratefulDad]

Thanks. Enough said. Case closed for me.

He is a personal injury schister ( excuse me, lawyer)

Hey, If you want to stay in the 60’s go for it. Not everyone can see the forest for the trees.

 

[otjm]

Thanks. Enough said. Case closed for me.

He is a personal injury schister ( excuse me, lawyer)

If we are going to heap calumny on the profession, let’s do it correctly: it is shyster (from personal experience).

As in: “I am a liar”.

“I mean, lawyer (dang those southern accents…)”.

 

[pnewton]

If we are going to heap calumny on the profession, let’s do it correctly: it is shyster (from personal experience).

I am sure many of us have such experiences. My personal interaction with lawyers notwithstanding, I am sure they do not teach statistical gathering and analysis in law school. If the many was a doctor, I would find that too strange, although at least they have familiarity with science. An advisarial profession such as law is about as far removed from being able to do unbiased research as one can get. It would be like a long haul trucker writing a paper on global warming.

 

[otjm]

I am sure many of us have such experiences. My personal interaction with lawyers notwithstanding, I am sure they do not teach statistical gathering and analysis in law school. If the many was a doctor, I would find that too strange, although at least they have familiarity with science. An advisarial profession such as law is about as far removed from being able to do unbiased research as one can get. It would be like a long haul trucker writing a paper on global warming.

Harsh, man, harsh!

They do not teach statistical gathering and analysis in law school, but they do teach how to reason and come to a conclusion. Just because they also teach the ability to take either side and argue it to a conclusion doesn’t mean that lawyers can’t think.

And as to unbiased research, I am inclined to think that is an oxymoron.

But then maybe that is due to having practiced for 12 years… even if that was a long time ago.

 

[pnewton]

Harsh, man, harsh!

They do not teach statistical gathering and analysis in law school, but they do teach how to reason and come to a conclusion. Just because they also teach the ability to take either side and argue it to a conclusion doesn’t mean that lawyers can’t think.

And as to unbiased research, I am inclined to think that is an oxymoron.

Me too. There is no way I could be unbiased. Truck drivers are also taught to think. That does not make them effective lawyers. One needs the tools as well as intellegence to perform any task.

But then maybe that is due to having practiced for 12 years… even if that was a long time ago.

LOL. Well, they say practice makes perfect Even with the people I know that are lawyers, my professional bias comes out. I believe in justice, not fairness, and lawyers and police are like cats and dogs, oil and water, Sonny and Cher.

Yet, I officially and formally apologize for my slander upon the legal profession. I was totally wrong to make such comments. The fact that this site is owned by an attorney in no way haw coerced this apology. But if I am not banned, I guess the apology was accepted.

 

[otjm]

Me too. There is no way I could be unbiased. Truck drivers are also taught to think. That does not make them effective lawyers. One needs the tools as well as intellegence to perform any task.

LOL. Well, they say practice makes perfect Even with the people I know that are lawyers, my professional bias comes out. I believe in justice, not fairness, and lawyers and police are like cats and dogs, oil and water, Sonny and Cher.

Yet, I officially and formally apologize for my slander upon the legal profession. I was totally wrong to make such comments. The fact that this site is owned by an attorney in no way haw coerced this apology. But if I am not banned, I guess the apology was accepted.

Ah, yes, Justice. That illusive figment of the imagination that keeps society from either imploding, or exploding.

Justice all too often is a question of who’s ox was gored the worst.

Would that we would have a criminal justice system in which the DA sought truth and justice, as opposed to just another conviction… ah, my bias too is showing. But 6 years of criminal defense will do that to one. That, and 12 years of divorce practice ending with a client precipitating a murder - suicide tends to make one - what, cynical? I have been called that; my answer is that I am not cynical; simply a realist.

But perhaps we need to get back to the topic at hand. There’s lies, damned lies, and statistics as some wag said. It is too easy to quote some statistic without understanding how it was actually achieved, and what it actually shows. Having said that, the Church in Europe is somewhat beyond a critical state in general; and the US & Canada are not quite such shining stars as they are often made out to be.

But for an interesting twist: Poland, since the time of its release from the rule of Communism, has shown a noticeable decline in generally accepted measures of “Catholicity” for lack of a better term. Given that 1) it is generally accepted that Vatican 2 documents were widely read and studied, and 2) that the reforms of Vatican 2 were generally much better implemented than elsewhere (e.g. Europe and the US), and 3) that the change from Communist domination came long, long after Vatican 2, then it must be presumed that the changes to the people in the pews (or no longer in the pews, if you will) is not due to Vatican 2 documents and their alleged vagueness, nor to the “spirit of Vatican 2” (which essentially did not haunt Poland).

Given that the release from Communism and the resultant turn to a consumer focused economy, far greater freedom of information (I am not sure that access to television and other mediums of “popular entertainment” qualifies as information, but you get the picture), in short, Poland becoming “modernized” appears to have had far greater negative impact on faith than all the allegations brought against Vatican 2. Consumerism, secularism, rampant loss of a moral code and specifically of a sexual moral code has had far greater impact on the people in the pews than all the blather we hear about why the Church is doing so poorly (ecumenism, non-congruent liturgical change, “spirit” of Vatican 2 - add your favorit whipping boy).