Relatively few catholics prefer the TLM

[stmaria]

What makes you think so? Christianity Today says the problem is across the board.

christianitytoday.com/outreach/articles/americanchurchcrisis.html

This is from your link:
Denominational Differences
“A breakdown of overall attendance percentages by church type shows decreases across the board in evangelical, mainline and Catholic churches.
The most significant drop in attendance came at the expense of the Catholic Church, which experienced an 11% decrease in its attendance percentage from 2000 to 2004. Next, and not far behind were mainline churches, which saw a 10% percentage decline. Evangelicals experienced the smallest drop at 1%.”

One should expect the Catholic Church to increase because it is the only Church that has the True Real Presence. The others are false churches that have nothing True about them.
The problem is that less than 40% of Catholic believe in the Real Presence of Christ. In their minds there is no difference between the Protestant Faith and the Catholic Faith. Belief in the Real Presence has been dropping since the promulgation of the New Mass.

 

[otjm]

I am going to quote from an article I have quoted from before. I do this as it goes to the question of what happened in some other countries:

"What is needed is broad-based, formal statistical
evidence on developments since Vatican II, particularly on
developments directly related to the liturgy. My purpose
in this article is to provide such evidence. To do so, I have
collected data on Mass attendance of U.S. Catholics over
the period 1939 to 1995. I compare these data with data on
Mass attendance of English and Welsh Catholics over the
shorter period 1959 to 1996 and with data on the church
attendance of U.S. Protestants over the same period as for
U.S. Catholics.

The picture that emerges is distressing. Mass
attendance of U.S. Catholics fell precipitously in the
decade following the liturgical changes and has continued
to decline ever since. This decline moreover is not an
isolated phenomenon, confined solely to the Church in
America. In England and Wales, the time pattern of Mass
attendance has been just as bad, perhaps even worse.
Church attendance of Protestants, in contrast, has followed
a much different path. For most of the period it was
without any discernible trend, either up or down.
In recent years it actually has risen. The notion
that the Catholic fall off was simply one part of
a larger societal trend, therefore, receives absolutely
no support in these data."

unavoce.org/Novus_ordo_record.pdf

Articles that want to make a point do so, often by ignoring data that would contradict the point they are trying to make.

For example, it is not correct to say that the Protestants have been unaffected; that flies in the face of reality.

Mainline Protestant churches - Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian and United Church of Christ, have all shown great losses in the timeframe noted. Protestants as a whole may not have shown the losses, but it is dishonest to pretend, as the article does, that there have not been churches being impacted.

Ignoring this fact allows the author to simplistically point to the changes in the liturgy as the source of the fall out in the Catholic Church. It flat out ignores what was going on at the same time - the introduction of the Pill; the breakdown of the family unit because of no-fault divorce; the massive loss of faith in society in general (anyone actually remember the civil rights marches, and the Viet Nam war, along with Watergate) which in turn spilled over into loss of faith in the hierarchy; the list goes on and on. Coupled with this is the infection, starting from an Episcopal theologian, of Situational Ethics, which was in part at the root of the breakdown in the moral code, both within the Catholic Church and the mainline churces.

Protestants voiced their reactions to this by moving to the evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic churches; with that movement, the author can say with a straight face that the Protestants didn’t lose membership; but the facts are not exactly as he proposes. And the mainline churches did not lose because of liturgical changes in the Catholic Church.

Whether he was Cardinal at the time he made the statement, or Pope, I would suggest that he was not correct that the changes in the liturgy caused the drop in attendance of about 50% - for approximately 70% attending Mass regularly in the 50’s to now about 35% in the US. Did some leave? Yes; and one has to ask how any truly committed Catholic, one who actually back then believed in the True Presence - would leave. They wouldn’t become Protestant, on the whole; they might go to the Orthodox, or, if available, Eastern rites; but neither have shown any massive influx. And they would simply stop going? Those who really believed in the True Presence were also those who were taught that missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin.

And none of the article recognizes that age wise, those attending most loyally now are those born before before 1943; the group that should have been the ones falling out most heavily. Their attendance is over 50%; while those who are post Vatican 2 births - those 18 to 43, attend at about 21%. That has to do with catechesis, not changes in the liturgy.

I told you before, and I’ll say it again; the author simply ignores a wealth of information that is contrary to his basic premise. The article is essentially worthless. He plays pick and choose as to what statistics he wants to look at. Sorry; that doesn’t fly.

 

[otjm]

Well, the gentleman who wrote the article didn’t just make up the stats on his own.

No, he just ignored any of the statistics that would have shown that the loss is due to something other than liturguical changes.

 

[otjm]

This is from your link:
Denominational Differences
“A breakdown of overall attendance percentages by church type shows decreases across the board in evangelical, mainline and Catholic churches.
The most significant drop in attendance came at the expense of the Catholic Church, which experienced an 11% decrease in its attendance percentage from 2000 to 2004. Next, and not far behind were mainline churches, which saw a 10% percentage decline. Evangelicals experienced the smallest drop at 1%.”

From CARA statistics, charting Mass attendance weekly from September, 2000 through Sept. 2004:
9/2000 : 33%
1/2001: 36%
2/2002: 39%
4/2002: 34%
5/2002: 35%
1/2003: 33%
5/2003: 34%
10/2003:32%
3/2004: 33%
9/2004: 31%

I am more inclined to believe that CARA asks questions in a way that gets a consistent answer, and does better polling, than whatever source your reference was using. CARA has been doing polling for a long time on Catholic matters.

One should expect the Catholic Church to increase because it is the only Church that has the True Real Presence. The others are false churches that have nothing True about them.
The problem is that less than 40% of Catholic believe in the Real Presence of Christ. In their minds there is no difference between the Protestant Faith and the Catholic Faith. Belief in the Real Presence has been dropping since the promulgation of the New Mass.

Your statistic of only 40% of Catholics believing in the True presence is also suspect, as it may not actually show what the poll says it shows; rather than sidelining the thread, I would suggest that you research what Jimmy Akin said about the polls. The net answer is that it is much more likely the poll shows a lack of understanding, due to a lack of catechesis, on the specifics of why the Church believes in the TRue Presence and how it conveys that, than an actualy disbelief.

In other words, if someone cannot explain Transubstantiation, that does not automatically mean they do not believe in the True Presence.

Note: I do not question that some Catholics do not believe in the True Presence; only that the poll doesn’t necessarily show what it purports to. Akin’s article is well presented.

 

[SFD]

otjm:

In other words, if someone cannot explain Transubstantiation, that does not automatically mean they do not believe in the True Presence.

This is very true, although I think it is more telling to consider if they accept the teaching (of transubstantiation)…they don’t need to be able to explain it…just give their intellectual assent to it.

Just because I can’t explain the Trinity…does not mean I may doubt it nor question it.

SFD

 

[Marilynclssc]

I allow myself to get so frustrated when I arrive early at Mass to say the Divine Mercy and other prayers, and the HOW YA DOINGs are to loud to allow me to concentrate I know oneday with the help of the Lord.

 

[Marilynclssc]

I allow myself to get so frustrated when I arrive early at Mass to say the Divine Mercy and other prayers, and the HOW YA DOINGs are to loud to allow me to concentrate I know oneday with the help of the Lord.

I will be able to tune out the people who think Mass is there for socializing. What happened to the old days when you cam in and prayed and “kept silent to know that God is Lord”

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Articles that want to make a point do so, often by ignoring data that would contradict the point they are trying to make.

For example, it is not correct to say that the Protestants have been unaffected; that flies in the face of reality.

Mainline Protestant churches - Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian and United Church of Christ, have all shown great losses in the timeframe noted. Protestants as a whole may not have shown the losses, but it is dishonest to pretend, as the article does, that there have not been churches being impacted.

Ignoring this fact allows the author to simplistically point to the changes in the liturgy as the source of the fall out in the Catholic Church. It flat out ignores what was going on at the same time - the introduction of the Pill; the breakdown of the family unit because of no-fault divorce; the massive loss of faith in society in general (anyone actually remember the civil rights marches, and the Viet Nam war, along with Watergate) which in turn spilled over into loss of faith in the hierarchy; the list goes on and on. Coupled with this is the infection, starting from an Episcopal theologian, of Situational Ethics, which was in part at the root of the breakdown in the moral code, both within the Catholic Church and the mainline churces.

Protestants voiced their reactions to this by moving to the evangelical, fundamentalist, and charismatic churches; with that movement, the author can say with a straight face that the Protestants didn’t lose membership; but the facts are not exactly as he proposes. And the mainline churches did not lose because of liturgical changes in the Catholic Church.

Whether he was Cardinal at the time he made the statement, or Pope, I would suggest that he was not correct that the changes in the liturgy caused the drop in attendance of about 50% - for approximately 70% attending Mass regularly in the 50’s to now about 35% in the US. Did some leave? Yes; and one has to ask how any truly committed Catholic, one who actually back then believed in the True Presence - would leave. They wouldn’t become Protestant, on the whole; they might go to the Orthodox, or, if available, Eastern rites; but neither have shown any massive influx. And they would simply stop going? Those who really believed in the True Presence were also those who were taught that missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin.

And none of the article recognizes that age wise, those attending most loyally now are those born before before 1943; the group that should have been the ones falling out most heavily. Their attendance is over 50%; while those who are post Vatican 2 births - those 18 to 43, attend at about 21%. That has to do with catechesis, not changes in the liturgy.

I told you before, and I’ll say it again; the author simply ignores a wealth of information that is contrary to his basic premise. The article is essentially worthless. He plays pick and choose as to what statistics he wants to look at. Sorry; that doesn’t fly.

I suppose the difference is that he is providing actual statistics from parish records (which are more likely to be kept by more mainline denominations) while you are providing us with pure conjecture. And then turning around (based on what?) and nearly accusing the author of dishonesty as if he’s purposely avoiding statistics (that you don’t provide).

So, why don’t you provide this “wealth of information” that the author avoids, thus rendering his article “worthless”?

It is not a mere coincidence that Mass attendance starts dropping after Vatican II in pretty much a free fall in this country, England and Wales. If it were mere societal pressures one would expect a more bumpy, up and down ride with a gradual decline.

The idea that one can drastically alter a centuries old liturgy and impose it all at once on the entire Church and not have it affect Mass attendance (and probably other areas as well) is preposterous, as the liturgy was the most obvious change to the Catholic in the pew.

Here is a quote from Kenneth C. Jones who is another author who has looked at the statistics concerning Catholic life in recent decades:

Here’s another objection. Some people might say that you’re making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument - just because something happened after the Council doesn’t mean it was caused by the Council. Do you have an answer to that?

My response is this. For several decades before the Council, the Church in America was in the midst of an unprecedented period of growth. Immediately after the Council, which was called to renew the Church - to make the numbers even better, really - we were hit with a tremendous decline in every area. The correlation is just too striking to deny.

http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2003/interview_with_ken_jones.htm

God bless.

 

[pnewton]

None of the statistics show a causal relationship. The first study mentioned was in America, England and Wales. Why? Could it be that these figures are the ones best suited to pushing a specific idea? Statistics do not lie, but people can use them to distort the truth. If the Mass is the cause of all our ills, then why do Protestant, who have never had the Real Presence, also have an attendence drop? Why are Catholics flourishing in some areas with the same Mass?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

None of the statistics show a causal relationship. The first study mentioned was in America, England and Wales. Why? Could it be that these figures are the ones best suited to pushing a specific idea? Statistics do not lie, but people can use them to distort the truth. If the Mass is the cause of all our ills, then why do Protestant, who have never had the Real Presence, also have an attendence drop? Why are Catholics flourishing in some areas with the same Mass?

None of the statistics show a causal relationship.

Says who? It would be interesting to know if you consider it even a possibility for statistics to indicate a causal relationship for anything.

The statistics are merely evidence of a causal relationship because it is too much to believe, as Kenneth C. Jones noted above, that this downward trend in the aftermath of Vatican II is merely coincidental.

He probably took statistics from countries like the U.S., England, and Wales because he’s an American and concerned about our country, and statistics are probably more readily available (particularly in English) than they would be for other foreign countries.

There also may be an agenda (or rather, bias) to deny the possibility of any causal relationship between what was done as a result of Vatican II and the drop of Catholic life in pretty much every area (not just Mass attendance) regardless of what the statistics point to.

There is a bit of fluctuation in the Protestant group but overall their attendance seems to stay the same or even rise while ours continues to go down.

 

[pnewton]

Says who? It would be interesting to know if you consider it even a possibility for statistics to indicate a causal relationship for anything.

Not in light of contradictory evidence, like the dip in attendence of Protestants and the success of Catholicism in other countries.

The statistics are merely evidence of a causal relationship because it is too much to believe, as Kenneth C. Jones noted above, that this downward trend in the aftermath of Vatican II is merely coincidental.

Did Vatican II also cause the decline of other Protestant denominations or the increase of vocations in Africa?

He probably took statistics from countries like the U.S., England, and Wales because he’s an American and concerned about our country,

That is the point. When one has any attachment to a specific outcome, it colors the science.

Do I think the changes in the Mass effected the drop in attendence? Not really. I think it is more likely that some of the changes to the Mass and the drop of attendence have more to do with something that is common throughout America and the western nations. Perhaps it is the influence of modernism, the rise of science as the ultimate truth or some other factor. The problem is simply not confined to the Catholic Church so blaming everything on VII is not logical, as I see it.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I don’t know pnewton, I really don’t know. I can only filter things through my own experience. My experience was in very Catholic south Louisiana which translates to very conservative. I saw my parents’ and my neighbors (of the greatest generation) start attending the 8 am Mass on Sunday because it was not sung at all. My wife protested the Vietnam war - I enlisted. When I came back from the service in May of 1974 and enrolled in summer school at my university, the difference from December of 1970 was simply astounding. The first day of class I looked like an absolute geek with my short hair and dress clothes.

It just didn’t occur to me or to my parents’ generation to question the authority of either our government nor HMC. I went to the Vigil Mass in a New Orleans parish which was celebrated far and wide for its 25 minute duration simply to avoid the rapidly declining culture of Mass which included the removal of the altar rails and, I’m sorry, the excreable music.

I don’t consider myself an elitist - I have memories of a far, far different church. I grew up in a far, far different church. So, it is entirely possible that a whole lot of people bailed because of what happened. I went to an Eastern Orthodox church in New Orleans with a classmate to celebrate what we would call The Great Easter Vigil in 1976. I cried…I really did because I recognized that I had entered once again into the sacred.

It deeply saddens me that I am not able to articulate my feelings about that sense of the sacred. My cathedral parish had this sign before the altar of the Tabernacle. From Habbakuk:

20 But the LORD is in his holy temple; silence before him, all the earth!
Far too much emphasis for me is placed upon community rather than we are in the presence of God.

Would that Our Lord grant me the words to adequately explain to you how I feel in a way that is not going to make me look superior. I should not be held to account for the way I was catechized.

 

[otjm]

I suppose the difference is that he is providing actual statistics from parish records (which are more likely to be kept by more mainline denominations) while you are providing us with pure conjecture. And then turning around (based on what?) and nearly accusing the author of dishonesty as if he’s purposely avoiding statistics (that you don’t provide).

The statistics are widely avaliable, and have been for some time. I make not conjecture; he is flat out wrong and I am not going to do all the research for you. Further, he is taking one of the most volatile periods of time in the history of the US and acting as if one item - the change in the liturgy - is the source of loss of membership. If you want to do the research, you are welcome to; I have already given the tip of it - CARA statistics. There are ample sources out there. Dont’ believe me? Get beyond his prejudicial stance and do some research. I for one do not give a writer credit when they take a stance such as his and it is so patently ignoring any and all other factors acting on the issue.

It is not a mere coincidence that Mass attendance starts dropping after Vatican II in pretty much a free fall in this country, England and Wales. If it were mere societal pressures one would expect a more bumpy, up and down ride with a gradual decline.

What free fall? In 1955, attendance at Mass within the last 7 days (reported) was at about 74%, which was the peak level, according to Gallup polls noted in CARA statistics; in 1965 it was at 67%; in 1975 it was at about 56%; in 1987 about 49%; in 1992 down to about 46%; in the Jubilee year it was recorded at 52% and in 2004 it was back down to 40%.

The question is skewed to the higher side because it asks if one was at Mass in the last 7 days; CARA statisitics tend to run several points lower becuase they ask if attendance is weekly (as opposed to the last 7 days). All the graph shows is a gradual reduction in the number of people attedning Mass; but free fall? One would expect a sharp drop and it simply isn’t there. In addition, attendance had dropped 7% from the peak before the Mass changes were made.

The idea that one can drastically alter a centuries old liturgy and impose it all at once on the entire Church and not have it affect Mass attendance (and probably other areas as well) is preposterous, as the liturgy was the most obvious change to the Catholic in the pew.

No, what is preposterous is that people who truly believe in the Faith would abandon it over whether or not the prayers were said in English or Latin; and as a matter of fact, there are no polls showing a massive drop. Nor are there polls showing a precipitous drop. It is gradual over the years.

Here is a quote from Kenneth C. Jones who is another author who has looked at the statistics concerning Catholic life in recent decades:

.

And I deny that it was a tremendous drop. It was a gradual drop that started before the Council, continues while the Council was in session (and interestingly, parallels the acceptance of the Pill), and has continued gradualy, with periodic upswings, to a leveling of in the 33 to 35% range.

I disagree with those who are particularly focused on the differences between the EF and the OF, who attempt to blame each and every problem the Church has on changes in the liturgy. They have an agenda, they are not scholars (if they were, they would or should know of other statistics), and they have a point they want to prove. Frankly, if their articles were published in scholarly journals, they would be shredded for all they are ignoring. That is, if they could even get published. Where they get published is in magazines who cater to their way of thinking.

And if their premise that there is such a drop after the liturgy change were true (and the statistics don’t show a precipitous drop), how do they explain the drop before the Mass change? From Gallup, the peak was 74% at the highest, down to 67% in 1965. That is a 7% drop in all Catholics not attending; but it is about a 9.5% drop in those actually attending in 1957-1958.

You want more statistics? Per CARA: those born before 1943 attending weekly, or once or a few times per year is 73%. Those 18 to 30 is 56%. That makes no sense if the pre Vatican 2 group is the one to be shocked and affronted with the changes in the Mass. Per CARA: weekly attendance, pre 1943 is 52%; 18 to 30 is 21%.

Pure conjecture? Or did I just use a pin to let the air out of your article? I think the latter.

And as I said, just in case you slid over it; the drop off in attendance at Mass correlates much more closely with the introduction of the Pill than it does the change in the Mass, as it starts at about the same time; in comes the Pill, and Mass attendance starts to drop, before any changes in the Mass are made.

 

[lak611]

And as I said, just in case you slid over it; the drop off in attendance at Mass correlates much more closely with the introduction of the Pill than it does the change in the Mass, as it starts at about the same time; in comes the Pill, and Mass attendance starts to drop, before any changes in the Mass are made.

This societal change would have no effect on Protestants, since they do not consider contraception to be sinful.

 

[otjm]

I suppose the difference is that he is providing actual statistics from parish records (which are more likely to be kept by more mainline denominations) while you are providing us with pure conjecture. And then turning around (based on what?) and nearly accusing the author of dishonesty as if he’s purposely avoiding statistics (that you don’t provide).

So, why don’t you provide this “wealth of information” that the author avoids, thus rendering his article “worthless”?

I am not too computer smart or friendly, so I took your challenge.

On the first hit - I just tried Presbyterian churchs (USA) - did I say on my first hit? Yes, On my first hit, I got the following: Measuring Church Attendance: a Further Look, by John P Markum, references Hadaway, et al. (that is a shorthand note to a scholarly reserch article, jusut in case you didn’t know).

Hadaway, et al. reported 36% of the Protestant population claimed attendance at a Saturday night or Sunday worship service, while actual average attendance for all in the county during the same period was below 20%.

The county was in Ohio; the period in question was reporting on a survey in 1993. Guess what: that means a drop off in attendance in the Mainline Protestant Churches.

And that was a scholarly journal being reviewed. Uh, if I can find it, maybe someone else can find others?

Pure conjecture? No, I am not making pure conjecture. But your writer has a point he truly believes in, and went looking for information he thought would support his position. I would suggest that if he had taken a scholarly approach, he would have found an absolute raft of information that would have called his thesis into serious question.

You may choose to believe anything your read; or you may choose to believe anything you read which supports your conjecture. Just because someone writes an article doesn’t mean that they have done good research.

Oh, and while I was at it, I found some more information. Perry Chang, Recent Changes in Membership and Attendance in Mainline Protestant Denominations (he is part of Research Services for Presbyterian Church (USA).

This does not parallel attendance at services from the 60’s onward; but is to your point that the Protestant churches are not seeing much change: loss of membership by percentage, 1994 - 2004:

American Baptist - 18%
Disciples of Christ - 26%
Lutheran (ELCA) - 4.4%
Presbyterian (USA) - 14%
Reformed (RCA) - 9.7%
United Church of Christ - 18%
United Methodist - 4.9%

But they are doing just fine, while the Catholic Church is spiraling out of control.

Not.

Average attendance in the same groups, 2004:

American Baptist - not reported
Disciples of Christ - 33%
Lutheran (ELCA) - 40%
Presbyterian (USA) 47%
Reformed (RCA) - not reported
United Church of Christ - 33%
United Methodist - 41.5%

Granted this is for only a 10 year period, however, the comment that they are not seeing much change is not reflective of the facts.

Ah, but I was only full of pure conjecture.

Nearly accusing the writer of dishonesty? No, I don’t think he intended to be dishonest. I think he intended to prove a thesis, and went about it in a way that shows he knows little or nothing about research, or how to conduct research, or how to even find out what others have found and reported on.

He believes that the change in the liturgy had a damaging and devastating effect on the Church, and that attendance fell off dramatically because of it.

I would never posit that the change in the liturgy was organic, or well done, or even well introduced.

I would posit that the Church has been affected by a number of things, many of them eminating from outside the Church, and some serious ones within the Church. I would futher posit that the dumbing down of catechesis, the breakdown of the extended family and then the nuclear family, the introduction of the Pill and the rampant sexual revolution which still has not played itself out, and the loss of respect for authority which started with the Civil Rights movement, advanced with the Viet Nam war, and was compounded by the immediate reaction to Humanae Vitae have had as much if not more to do with the loss of people attending Mass as the changes in the liturgy. Your boyo is way too simplistic in his approach, and ignores a whole host of events that have impacted the Church. In short, he has an ax to grind.

And if you think that I don’t have a clue as to what the impact was in the changes in the Mass, let me clue you in: I was in college when it hit. And I am not real smart, but I would hazard a guess that if Hadaway did research on Church attendance, there are a whole lot of other people who did so too; and they would show further how much your writer either ignored, or didn’t bother to discover what actually was happening, not only since the introduction of the OF, but well before Vatican 2.

 

[otjm]

This societal change would have no effect on Protestants, since they do not consider contraception to be sinful.

Prior to 1930, all mainline Churches - Catholic and Protestant, held ABC to be sinful.

The first to break was the Lambeth Conference of the Episcopal/Anglican Church in 1930.

Byt the time Humanae Vitae was released, the only mainline church to hold that it was wrong was the Catholic Church.

And as a matter of fact, theologians within Protestant denomenations have been questioning that position seriously. Several years ago I picked up a Protestant magazine, which featured something like 5 or 7 Protestant theologians openly questioning their churches approval; it was quite an interesting article.

However, to say that societal change had no effect on the Protestants is to take a very interesting view of human nature.

It doesn’t take much of a step for an individual who never used birth control in marriage before, to go from the thought "Hmm, my Church allows birth control in marriage, and it keeps me “safe from having kids”, to the thought “Hmm, birth control keeps me safe from having kids in marriage; hunh, bet it will keep me safe from having kids elsewhere”.

The breakdown in sexual mores, and sexual morals, didn’t happen over night. But you can bet your booties it receieved a major push on the downhill slope when people started using birth control more frequently. By the time the Pill came along, people knew from experience that condoms, foam and cervical caps could fail; here was something science said was almost perfect. And it was within a few years of the release of the Pill that the Free Love movement hit the streets.

Contraception had no effect on the Protestants? I think not.

 

[SFD]

Prior to 1930, all mainline Churches - Catholic and Protestant, held ABC to be sinful.

The first to break was the Lambeth Conference of the Episcopal/Anglican Church in 1930.

Byt the time Humanae Vitae was released, the only mainline church to hold that it was wrong was the Catholic Church.

Interestingly, the theological commission that was commissioned by Paul VI to “study the issue”…after 5 long years…came out in support of artificial birth control. This is amazing because what they were “studying” was already condemned.

Artificial birth control was condemned prior to the theological commission’s formation by Paul VI. Both artificial birth control and abortion were condemned in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Dec 31, 1930…and again by Pope Pius XII, These condemnations from Casti Connubii are contained in Denzinger 2239 thru 2244.

53. And now, Venerable Brethren, we shall explain in detail the evils opposed to each of the benefits of matrimony. First consideration is due to the offspring, which many have the boldness to call the disagreeable burden of matrimony and which they say is to be carefully avoided by married people not through virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent) but by frustrating the marriage act. Some justify this criminal abuse on the ground that they are weary of children and wish to gratify their desires without their consequent burden. Others say that they cannot on the one hand remain continent nor on the other can they have children because of the difficulties whether on the part of the mother or on the part of family circumstances.

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
2. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]

Paul VI merely allowed confusion to reign for five years before he issued Humanae Vitae. During this time many Catholics were told the Church would change Her position on ABC…the commission recommended it…hence the revolt against Humanae Vitae.

SFD

 

[otjm]

Interestingly, the theological commission that was commissioned by Paul VI to “study the issue”…after 5 long years…came out in support of artificial birth control. This is amazing because what they were “studying” was already condemned.

You are looking at it all with 20-20 hindsight. As a matter of fact, physical methods had been condemned; when the research on the Pill first started, it was not as a means of birth control; that came after a good deal of research. And there were many who felt that the Pill was different, because it did not act as a physical barrier, but rather acted to regulate the woman’s cycle. You need to understand that the research that has been done in the last 50 years has given scientists a bit more information than they had in the late 1950’s. Because the Pill was so different than previous means of birth control, there were a lot of questions.

Artificial birth control was condemned prior to the theological commission’s formation by Paul VI. Both artificial birth control and abortion were condemned in Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI, Dec 31, 1930…and again by Pope Pius XII, These condemnations from Casti Connubii are contained in Denzinger 2239 thru 2244.

You are preaching to the choir. I am well aware of the status of Moral Theology prior to the introduction of the Pill. They all addressed issues that appeared to be different.

Paul VI merely allowed confusion to reign for five years before he issued Humanae Vitae. During this time many Catholics were told the Church would change Her position on ABC…the commission recommended it…hence the revolt against Humanae Vitae.

SFD

He did not let confusion reign; your answer borders on flippant. There were many people, fairly intelligent people, fairly well educated people, who were of the opinion that the Pill was so different from other means of birth control as to make it acceptable.

We can both agree that they were wrong, and the comments in HV were prescient to the point of being prophetic; tragically and truly prophetic. I have not bone to pick with HV, other than that I think that approaching it in a neo-scholastic fashion instead of a personalistic and phenomenological prospective left many with a feeling that what had happened is that the same “old tired arguements” had been trotted out again. I think the genius of JP2, as exhibited in the Theology of the Body, presents the issue in a way that people get it, a whole lot faster than from a scholastic approach. In fact, the Polish bishops including JP@ when he was bishop had a good bit of (name removed by moderator)ut to the formation of HV; but only some of it was used.

The flippant and yet very pained response of many was “if men had babies, the men in Rome would decide this differently”.

And as much as I would prefer to see the issue addressed differently that P6 did, given the status of timing and events, I am not too sure how many more would have listened. Part of the time it took to resolve the issue was done for the very reason that Rome was very concerned that a short quick answer would simply imply they had made no effort to hear out the matter, but had instead approached it as if there was obviously no question.

We now have over 40 years of experience of ignoring HV; and the things that P6 predicited have come true with a vengance. It is simple to Monday morning quaterback, with 40 years of experience, and say “Well, it was obvious all along”. It wasn’t then, to very many. And to impugn the honesty and integrity of the many who questioned it is to border on judgementalism.

Knowlege of a woman’s cycle was nowhere near as advanced; it was not for no reason that the Rhythm method was known as Vatican roulette.

Part of the revolt against HV was because there had been questions as to whether or not the Pill, because it was not mechanical, was different and allowable; part because the Church never acts immediately when a serious question comes up, and the issue brewed for some time; part because the majority position of the commission was leaked early; part because there was already in place a serious breakdown in acceptance of much of any authority (and that was hardly a Church issue; it had its source in the political world). There were issues in the Church, because those with an agenda - in short, the attitude that oppressive Church authority had been called to end with Vatican 2 documents (a whole 'nother issue) and many were on the verge of exercising their autonomy - particularly among many theologians. HV ended up being the trigger for a hugh rebellion within the Church to legitimate authority.

It was an issue that had been brewing for decades; from the chaos of the late 1800s and the early 1900s, the Vatican had taken on the appearance to many (and not without some reason) as isolated, embattled, embittered, autocratic, authoritarian; the list goes on. In a legitimate attempt to deal with Modernism and the remnants of what many saw as a tremendous loss of authority within the world after the French revolution onward, good, solid legitimate theologians were silenced, and reputations were destroyed. Some of those silenced theologians were later rehabilitated, but the whole process left many theologians more than a little wary of the power that had been wielded. Because of the Church’s own over-reaching and over-reacting to problems, the stage was set for a revolt. We will suffer from the whiplash.

So, I don’t question in the least the decision of HV. I wa a young adult when that hit; and I have seen the fallout ever since. But it is all too easy to give a simplistic response to the issue, and fail to understand anything of what was going on at the time.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Not in light of contradictory evidence, like the dip in attendence of Protestants and the success of Catholicism in other countries.
Did Vatican II also cause the decline of other Protestant denominations or the increase of vocations in Africa?

That is the point. When one has any attachment to a specific outcome, it colors the science.

Do I think the changes in the Mass effected the drop in attendence? Not really. I think it is more likely that some of the changes to the Mass and the drop of attendence have more to do with something that is common throughout America and the western nations. Perhaps it is the influence of modernism, the rise of science as the ultimate truth or some other factor. The problem is simply not confined to the Catholic Church so blaming everything on VII is not logical, as I see it.

If you look at the graph, you’ll see that Protestant attendance ends up slightly rising after Vatican II. Or, as Fr. Andrew Greeley (yes, that Fr. Andrew Greeley) notes:

However, N.O.R.C.’s [National Opinion Research Center] General Social Survey for the last 30 years shows that the decline in Mass attendance continued well after 1972, even into 2002 (the most recent G.S.S. survey year). At the same time, Protestant church attendance held steady. These different phenomena suggest that something had happened to Catholics that had not affected Protestants. Hence there had been a special Catholic revolution distinct from the general cultural revolution in the larger U.S. society and in the Western world.

americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3626

I don’t have any stats on African vocations. I will say that where the reforms, liturgical and otherwise, were not pushed as hard, then maybe Mass attendance didn’t drop as much. Dr. William Marra noted that Poland, since they didn’t alter the liturgy in such a drastic way (as far as retaining Latin, ad orientem posture, not revamping the sanctuary, etc.) that the Polish people hardly noticed that there was that much of a change to the liturgy and other aspects of Catholic life. I would suspect (although I have no stats for Poland) that Mass attendance did not decline the way it did in Western countries. However, John L. Allen wrote a piece on the Church in Africa and among other things he noted:

• A Catholic ethos that can seem preconciliar in terms of its clericalism, theological conservatism, and the devotional character of popular piety.

which to me might help explain why their vocations are strong.

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=23555

This is not a matter of blaming everything on Vatican II. I look at it as the “perfect storm” in a way. The rise of modernism, the decline in catechesis, along with all the other changes in the Church in her liturgy, art, and architecture, all helped. If anything, not drastically altering the liturgy, art, and architecture might have been a good thing to do in the midst of a time like the 1960’s.

 

[pnewton]

This is not a matter of blaming everything on Vatican II. I look at it as the “perfect storm” in a way. The rise of modernism, the decline in catechesis, along with all the other changes in the Church in her liturgy, art, and architecture, all helped. If anything, not drastically altering the liturgy, art, and architecture might have been a good thing to do in the midst of a time like the 1960’s.

That is an interesting thought and I think you may be on to something.