U.S. Catholicism: Decline and Fall

[reggieM]

How many Bishops and Priests use “Team Player” and “Obidence” to suit their own views and at the same time see the lay people in the pews fall away.

The U.S. Bishops and Priests have to get back to Tradition, teaching and defining sin in their homilies. Say Reverent Masses free from Liturgical innovations. Defend Church dogma and teaching issues in the media. Get the Catholic Schools back in gear and in line.

Most importantly, LISTEN AND OBEY ROME AND THE HOLY FATHER!!!

How many Bishops and Priests threaten oidence and are not team players when The Holy Father and Rome give directives???

I totally agree with that. But how about this … when we find bishops, priests and religious who are faitfhul to the teachings of the Magisterium ((and there are many more of them each year), then we shouldn’t go against **that **tide.
In other words, we should continue to support EWTN, CA and many great orthodox-traditional apostolates arising these days and truly become team players with them.

 

[Malkin71]

I totally agree with that. But how about this … when we find bishops, priests and religious who are faitfhul to the teachings of the Magisterium ((and there are many more of them each year), then we shouldn’t go against **that **tide.
In other words, we should continue to support EWTN, CA and many great orthodox-traditional apostolates arising these days and truly become team players with them.

I agree! Support the Bishops, Priests, and Religious who are are Faithful, Loyal to the teachings of the Magisterum. EWTN, CA, Also, many fine print Magazines and Publishers!.

 

[JReducation]

Mother Angelica went the tide when she founded EWTN! Read her Biography by Raymond Ayrroro. She locked horns with her Bishop and Cardnial Mahoney!
She brought back Trdaitional Habit and founded her Order. She was also digusted by a play at World Youth Day that led her to bring back what was being lost in the Church. Traditionalism and Reverence.

“Different Styles of Leadship” has led to the “U.S. Catholicism: Decline and Fall”. Mother Angelica has helped alot of people to see and identify the problems.

How many Bishops and Priests use “Team Player” and “Obidence” to suit their own views and at the same time see the lay people in the pews fall away.

The U.S. Bishops and Priests have to get back to Tradition, teaching and defining sin in their homilies. Say Reverent Masses free from Liturgical innovations. Defend Church dogma and teaching issues in the media. Get the Catholic Schools back in gear and in line.

Most importantly, LISTEN AND OBEY ROME AND THE HOLY FATHER!!!

How many Bishops and Priests threaten oidence and are not team players when The Holy Father and Rome give directives???

Before we get Mother Angelica into trouble, let’s clarify some points here.

She did not found an order. The Poor Clares were founded by St. Clare and St. Francis. Mother had permission from the General of the Franciscans to found a new monastery. That’s not a new order, just a new house.

Mother did not bring the old habit to her monastery by her own authority. It had to be approved by the General and by the local bishop. Poor Clares have a very different structure from other monastic communities. They are not allowed to do make changes in their constitutions without the approval of the local bishop. This is in the Rule of St. Francis. We must give the Superior General of the Friars and the local bishop some credit too.

The Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word were founded by Mother Angelica, but it was done under the authority of the Capuchin Franciscans of the Province of St. Augustine, not under Mother’s authority and they had to have the approval of the local bishop. The friars are not an order. They are a public association. They have not been granted the status of a religious congregation or an order yet. This takes years to happen and it can only be done by the local bishop. You have to first prove that you can sustain yourself, that you have vocations and that you are providing something that is not already available in the local diocese. Therefore, Mother is not acting alone or swimming upstream. She has worked with the Franciscan family and the local bishop. Today, the friars are still an association, but they have never been under Mother’s jurisdiction. That is not allowed in the Rule of St. Francis. The male branches of the order may not be under the jurisdiction of women. The female branches are under the jurisdiction of males. That cannot be changed, because women cannot be Ordinaries. Only bishops, priests, deacons and brothers can be the ordinary superior of men and women.

When Mother made her statement about Cardinal Mahoney, she was asked to apologize by the Franciscans. She very humbly submitted and offered her apology with an explanation of what she meant. This is very important. All of us sometimes make statements that sound as if we’re on the attack or we’re being defiant, when in fact we are just speaking very spontaneously. The key is to be able to back-peddle and explain what we wanted to say and apologize if we offended. Mother gave a beautiful example of this kind of humility and realism.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Malkin71]

Before we get Mother Angelica into trouble, let’s clarify some points here.

She did not found an order. The Poor Clares were founded by St. Clare and St. Francis. Mother had permission from the General of the Franciscans to found a new monastery. That’s not a new order, just a new house.

Mother did not bring the old habit to her monastery by her own authority. It had to be approved by the General and by the local bishop. Poor Clares have a very different structure from other monastic communities. They are not allowed to do make changes in their constitutions without the approval of the local bishop. This is in the Rule of St. Francis. We must give the Superior General of the Friars and the local bishop some credit too.

The Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word were founded by Mother Angelica, but it was done under the authority of the Capuchin Franciscans of the Province of St. Augustine, not under Mother’s authority and they had to have the approval of the local bishop. The friars are not an order. They are a public association. They have not been granted the status of a religious congregation or an order yet. This takes years to happen and it can only be done by the local bishop. You have to first prove that you can sustain yourself, that you have vocations and that you are providing something that is not already available in the local diocese. Therefore, Mother is not acting alone or swimming upstream. She has worked with the Franciscan family and the local bishop. Today, the friars are still an association, but they have never been under Mother’s jurisdiction. That is not allowed in the Rule of St. Francis. The male branches of the order may not be under the jurisdiction of women. The female branches are under the jurisdiction of males. That cannot be changed, because women cannot be Ordinaries. Only bishops, priests, deacons and brothers can be the ordinary superior of men and women.

When Mother made her statement about Cardinal Mahoney, she was asked to apologize by the Franciscans. She very humbly submitted and offered her apology with an explanation of what she meant. This is very important. All of us sometimes make statements that sound as if we’re on the attack or we’re being defiant, when in fact we are just speaking very spontaneously. The key is to be able to back-peddle and explain what we wanted to say and apologize if we offended. Mother gave a beautiful example of this kind of humility and realism.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You are right Br. JR. for the correction about the Orders at EWTN.

The point I was trying to make is She brought back the Traditional Habit into the day.
When I went to school in the 70’s and 80’s the Habit that the nuns wore was the one Mother wore prior to the Traditional one. Also some with a half vail and most wore no habit at all. The ones that taught me were the Felisicians sp.

Also she helped founded a Monastary in Alabama. The funds came in because of her. A Priest friend of the family said Mass on t.v. live there. He mention that the biggest funding came from three people. The stipulation was that that the donors would remain a secret and that Mother herself knew when they were at Mass there. He also mentioned that the Tabernacle and all Religious articles there were beautiful to see in person. He mention that he knew where they got them from. Because he recieves the same catalog himself and that the price is avaliable upon request.

I may tend to disagree with you on her humble apology. I remember when this happened. It did cause a stir. The apology was worse that the first. Raymond Arroyo book talks about this. Mahoney was wrong. Mother was right.

It is good to see a EF. Mass, a Eastern Rite Devine Liturgy, and a Reverent OF Mass Celebrated on E.W.T.N. Mother Angelica helped to bring this about. She had many road blocks along the way.

The moment I remember best from the First EF Mass on EWTN after the Muto Proprio was during Holy Communion when they showed Mother Angelica and a few seconds later the Bishop who refused a EF Mass.

 

[JReducation]

You are right Br. JR. for the correction about the Orders at EWTN.

The point I was trying to make is She brought back the Traditional Habit into the day.
When I went to school in the 70’s and 80’s the Habit that the nuns wore was the one Mother wore prior to the Traditional one. Also some with a half vail and most wore no habit at all. The ones that taught me were the Felisicians sp.

Also she helped founded a Monastary in Alabama. The funds came in because of her. A Priest friend of the family said Mass on t.v. live there. He mention that the biggest funding came from three people. The stipulation was that that the donors would remain a secret and that Mother herself knew when they were at Mass there. He also mentioned that the Tabernacle and all Religious articles there were beautiful to see in person. He mention that he knew where they got them from. Because he recieves the same catalog himself and that the price is avaliable upon request.

I may tend to disagree with you on her humble apology. I remember when this happened. It did cause a stir. The apology was worse that the first. Raymond Arroyo book talks about this. Mahoney was wrong. Mother was right.

It is good to see a EF. Mass, a Eastern Rite Devine Liturgy, and a Reverent OF Mass Celebrated on E.W.T.N. Mother Angelica helped to bring this about. She had many road blocks along the way.

The moment I remember best from the First EF Mass on EWTN after the Muto Proprio was during Holy Communion when they showed Mother Angelica and a few seconds later the Bishop who refused a EF Mass.

Thanks for your post. I just wanted to clarify some things so as not to give the impression that Mother is some lone ranger out there acting without permission, even if she’s doing good things. That would be horrible. The rule of St. Francis is very clear. You may never do, even good things, without the permission of the General and the bishop. Francis would rather that you do nothing at all. In fact, he commands that you do nothing at all, if you cannot get the proper permisssions. Therefore, a good Franciscan never acts alone, but always with the blessing of a good General and a good bishop at the local level. Mother has always acted according to the Franciscan Rule.

We want to avoid giving people the impressing that they can become vigilantes for orthodoxy. This is not the case at all. We see this in Mother Angelica, Mother Teresa, Fr. Benedict and other religious communities. None of them are acting without the consent of the Church. This is not to say that the Church has to agree. She may not agree, but she must give her consent before you proceed. Sometimes, consents are given reluctantly or with reservations and restrictions. You accept that too. This happened to Mother Teresa. The consents were given with many reservations and many restrictions. As time passed, the reservations faded and teh restrictions were lifted. The one thing that she did was to obey and cooperate. We need more of that kind of team work.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JRPO]

Mother Angelica was not a team player! She dug her heels in against Cardnial Mahoney and the liberals, progressives, modernists and feminists! She led the way for those who minds were being polluted by modernists Bishops and Priests.

She stood up for Tradition!!! While others did not!

Malkin
You and I are on the same team. I’m talking about the modernists and fluffy lovey dovey
people who say don’t worry The church will survive everything will be OK.

The only reason every thing will be OK is bescause of people like Blessed Mary Mackillop who will soon be canonised a saint. A wonderful beautiful Lady who had compassion for the poor but also managed at one stage to be excommunicated from the church.
Now thats a team player
Welcome to the Team Malkin.
I think some here on this forum are still yet to make the grade.

 

[JReducation]

BR. JR., you said, “I believe that there will never be a resting place until Christ comes again”. There is so much truth wrapped in that statement. It depicts the human condition and the constant struggle between good and evil very beautifully, and very simply. My question to you, BR. JR., is this: Can we find refuge from this strife by attending mass, or can evil even penetrate this holy sanctuary?

I believe that we can find many consolations in the Eucharist, the Liturgy of the Hours and in silent prayer. I don’t know if I would say that we can find refuge from this strife, because we are human beings and when we go to mass, we take our human baggage and preoccupations with us. It’s hard to avoid doing this. However, if I were to say one thing, which I think I can say infallibly, since it is based on the infallible faith of the Church, it is this. The graces available to us through the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and through liturgical prayer, esepcially the Liturgy of the Hours cannot be outdone by any sin, heresy, or confusion. God’s omnipotence is beyond the reach of sin. Said differently, sin has no power over grace.

There was an old saying that sin destroyed the grace in the soul. Today that expression is no longer used in theology, because it lends itself to misinterpretation. It can be understood that sin can destroy the life of God in the soul, which is not the case. Sin cannot do that. Sin is an act of the creature. Grace is the life of the Creator. We have to look at this as it was meant to be understood. Sin derails the soul from the life that God offers to it. That is very consisten with the word “diabolos”, he who divides. This is what sin does. It causes a rift between the creaed soul and the creator of the soul. But it has not power over the life of the creator, per se.

That being said, grave sin can derail and blind so that the person cannot make use of the life that God offers. It is not unitl we are absolved from grave sin that we are able to use the life that God has to offer. Sin is more of dark wall between the soul and God. The wall can only be brought down by contritioin and forgiveness. This is an interesting point in Mystical Theology, which is my field. Observe the two requirements to bring down the wall that we call sin: contrition, which is the free act of man and forgivenes, which is the free act of God. We overcome the power of sin, which is divisive, by uniting our free will to the free will of God. This is why many saints have subscribed to the teaching that “The God who made you without your help, cannot save you without your help.” Salvation is achieved in communion.

Therefore, if salvation is achieved in communion, we must ask what kind of communion. Since the Church exists in time and space, as well as being a spiritual reality, communion must be in real time and spiriitual. We cannot say that we are spirituallly united to the Church, but that we are choosing to suspend our physical communion with the Church, until she comes to her senses. We must be united to ther spiritually, in faith and physically, in action and in cooperation with her. To be in conflict with the Church is an imperfect communion. There may be communion of faith, but there is lacking the temporal communion, which is the day to day cooperation with the Church.

The mass is that reality in which we say what we practice. We say that we are united to the Mystical Body in faith and in fact. When I go to mass, I must be part of the Church. As I said above, the sinfulness and confusion of her leaders is not a good reason to break the communion with the Church. In fact, the sinfulness or the confusion of her leaders does nothing to the reality that we can be one Church in faith and in fact.

We can have different opinions about disciplines. We can have different opinions about how beliefs were taught before and now. We can even believe that the Church has changed her teachings. But in the end, the truth is that the Church remains the Church. We either belong to her in faith and in deeds or we are in imperfect communion with her. If we choose to be in imperfect communion with the Church, it is not the mass that is failing to protect us from the struggles of daily lfie, but our choices. The mass and liturgical prayer can always protect us, as long as we choose to be in full communion with the Church. The Eucharist is about both, communion in sacrament (faith) and commuion in fact (deeds). We cannot stop at a certain pope, certain council or certain teaching and say that we won’t budge from that point. To do so breaks the commuion. As long as Peter is at the head and as long as he is teaching, the tradition is preserved, even if the traditions with lower case “t” are up in the air. The tradition that must be preserved is the sacraments and the apostolic succession. Everything else revolves around that. Dogmas and doctrines are to be found in the Church, because truth subsists within the Church. But it is only Peter who can define them. Therefore, we must remain in full communion with him.

When we go to mass, we are protected from the sinful attacks of life by the grace that comes from communion with Christ in the physical body and blood and communion with Christ through his Church. This does not mean that there will be no further attacks. It just means that we are given the graces to resist them. Whether we use these graces or not is up to us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[unafraid]

It seems to me that the growth of the body of the Church has come over time by irritants which take mass and form within the whole but never break the skin…unlike someone like Luther whose rupture indeed caused a schism. Many saints, and indeed Mother Angelica, have manifested strong movements that remained contained within the authority of the Church, and thus, have made the faith grow in a structured, ordered way. God has worked through this feisty woman. When she departs this mortal plane, what she has contributed to the body of the Church will perhaps be deemed worthy of veneration. This woman has lived in times of great upheaval, scandalization and confusion (paticularly in the American Church), and if she responded too forcefully against certain perceived flaws within the Hierachy then perhaps we might remember that Peter drew his sword in defense of our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane before Jesus restrained him.

 

[GratefulFred]

First, thank you Brother JR for telling us about authority and obedience and how it worked with Mother Angelica and the general interplay of various Orders and the local Bishop. I, and I think many, do not understand the Catholic Chain of Command so to speak.

Styles of Leadership. We should keep in mind the difference between style and substance. Brother JR already said the substance is the same regardless of style. I agree.

Followship. As followers, it is our job to pay attention regardless of the style and our immediate need, and try to take in the message. Some in the audience, if not us, may very well find the speaker’s style and substance hitting their personal needs bullseye. The rest of us may need to be reminded of the message for some future event that only God knows that day is coming our way. I try not to pre-judge and tune out a speaker just because I don’t like his or her style. I trust the Holy Spirit is getting the message to whoever needs it that day.

I try to not be quick in my criticism of a speaker. 1) I owe a certain amount of respect and deference to a speaker who has a certain amount of training and experience. IF the table was turned and I was speaking, I would expect respect, so I should give it. 2) I may not be ready that day to hear the message that on another day would be OK for me. 3) The speaker may be challenging my own conscience and I may resent being called on one of my weaknesses; it is so easy to slip into defense mode and search for fault in the speaker rather than in myself. 4) I also try to keep in mind that I do not know it all and, to grow, I need more than just a familar restatement of what I know. 5) It could be that the speaker is just having a bad day and is not being as clear and convincing as he would be on a better day. 6) Maybe the chemistry between me and the speaker is just not there.

So I try to be careful and not bad mouth a speaker, especially one representing God. But if I felt he or she WAS out-of line on a consistent basis, I would seek counsel from a knowledgable and trusted source to see if my perception was out of focus. I don’t like calling someone wrong only to find out I was and he wasn’t. If I proceed further, I try to stick to the facts and state that I may not understand. I do what I can to avoid stating that other guy is wrong and I am right.

My point is that our priests and religious are well trained and work hard. They are not be perfect, but neither am I. They do represent God and they deserve my respect. But after thoughtful reflection, if they seem out of line, then I do need to take appropriate action to resolve my conflict. Simply gossiping about them is not appropriate.

As a follower, I have to know the difference between being a thoughtless or mean tattletaler, a sinner who needs to hear the message I rather not, and a responsible member of God’s Church holding my leader accountable. If it is just a matter of style or chemistry that bothers me, I go to another parish, I do not harbor resentment and I do NOT leave the Church.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR when you speak of going back to find our way,and balance what exactly do you mean?

Redrose,

Your question is very valid. I certainly do not mean that we go back and do everything the way that it was done before Vatican II or the day before yesterday, for that matter. There were some things that we did right. There were others that we did wrong. Finally, there were many things on which we improved over the centuries. We have to go back in order to go forward. This is part of any renewal process. I can’t go into a lot of detail in the amount of space that we have here. But I can point to some things that we need to go back to in order to understand where to go from there.

Let’s begin with the shortage of priests in parishes. There is a definite shortage. But there are several factors that have nothing to do with modernism, but they are simply contemporary realities.

The Catholic population has dispersed. In the past, people lived in smaller communities, usually urban or rural. In a small area you had thousands of Catholic families who belonged to one parish. There was no need to have more than one, because it was within walking distance. Therefore, you had several priests at the parish. With the expansion of the suburbs, this is not longer the case. More people live in dispersed areas, than in apartment buildings. You have Catholics dispersed over hundreds of miles. In other words, we have more parishes than we did back when most Catholics were poor immigrants living in cities. It gives the impression that there are lot less priests.

Many parishes were run by religious orders. In the USA, Bishop John Carroll asked religious to ordain more men and to send them to the USA to serve as parish priests. Many religious orders and congregations responded as an act of charity. They never expected to be stuck in these parishes for more than 150 years. The result was tragic. By 1960 most priests who belonged to religious orders were no longer religious. They were members of their orders, but they did not live the religious life. The laity forbade it. People wanted priests, not brothers. They wanted their priests to be involved in every aspect of parish life. They did not want their parishes run by a religious superior who lived in another state or another country. Americanism had come to town. The idea of a superior running a parish from the other side of the Atlantic was almost offensive to most Americans. It was part of our psyche. We had become independent of Europe.

As a result, when Vatican II told religious orders to go back to their founders and to their original charism, these men did not want to return to their religious houses, to submit to the authority of a superior, to give up the freedom that they had in a parish. They did not want to go back to not having material possessions. Many objected to being governed by brothers. Most religious orders and congregations are not communities of priests. They have priests, but they were founded as fraternities. These were the men who headed out the door from 1965 to 1985. Some tried to go back to their religious life, but found it too difficult. They were older, set in their ways and could not adapt. They were encouraged by their superior to ask for dispensations and leave.

The by-product of this reality is that religious communities called emergency general chapters. In these chapters two major decisions were made by most religious communities.

1. They would no longer take on new parishes. They would remain in the ones they had or they would close them down and leave. The idea was to return to live in a religious house and to return to their founders’ vision: mission, teaching, street ministry, communications, universities, retreats, youth ministry, contemplative prayer, manual labor, and so forth.
2. The other major decision made by the non-clerical communities was that they would never again ordain such a large number of men as they had done in the past. The priesthood was not essential to the life of the religious community. They had not been founded to be orders of priests. Priests and bishops were allowed in the orders, but only as an exception to the rule, not as the norm. As a result of their desire to help in the American missions, they had ordained too many men. They lost their charism as religious brothers. They became orders of priests, contrary to their founder’s wishes. They decreased the number of men being ordained.

I only have room for one more topic. I know there are many others. The changes in the liturgy are an important topic for many people. It is true that many people have abused the changes that were introduced after Vatican II. Many people are concerned about the abuses. But we have to go back to history. It was never true that Pius V decreed that the Tridentine Mass was to be the only form allowed in the Church. In fact, in the same encyclical he allows those who have another form that is over 100 years old, to continue to use it. The Franciscans had certain customs that dated back to St. Francis. The Carmelites had their own customs. The Dominicans had their own rite. The Carthusians had their customs. All of these were allowed. In addition, Pius V never imposed the Tridentine form on the Eastern Churches.

If his decree were infallible doctrine, then it would have to apply to the entire Church. You can’t make exceptions to doctrine. The Immaculate Conception is what it is for everyone.

We have to go back and recover the devotion, beauty and reverence that Pius V wanted to see in the liturgy and try to incorporate it into the liturgy today. But we have to do this without the accusations that there has been a breach with tradition. Pius V never intended to write doctrine.

I’ve run out of space.

Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF

 

[tpw]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be - you overstate the sources and actual claims for decline in U.S. Catholicism. A recent e-mail from a source at the North American Forum for the Catechumenate suggested an average of 800,000 people a year are entering RC through the RCIA programs nationwide.

You also uncritically demonize the role of secularity which has both positive and negative impacts. The positives include democracy, personal freedom, religious tolerance and human rights.

The negatives are a tendency to de-value the role of religious traditions which in some respects gave birth to secularism (dignity of the person must have roots some where and the "…where…is the Judeo-Christian tradition). And there can be a danger in de-valuing sexuality and it’s power. But within church circles that devaluation may have come as a pendular swing from the other extreme when prior to Vatican II there was a sheer obsession with sexuality. Coming back to the center would be the wise tack to take.

The thoughtful stance of Benedict who both confirms the values of secularity but argues that the Judeo-Christian tradition provides the moral values to stop the moral erosion of secularity are to be taken as wise steps in coordinating a healthy rather than antagonistic view towards secularity.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Before we get Mother Angelica into trouble, let’s clarify some points here…

When Mother made her statement about Cardinal Mahoney, she was asked to apologize by the Franciscans. She very humbly submitted and offered her apology with an explanation of what she meant. This is very important. All of us sometimes make statements that sound as if we’re on the attack or we’re being defiant, when in fact we are just speaking very spontaneously. The key is to be able to back-peddle and explain what we wanted to say and apologize if we offended. Mother gave a beautiful example of this kind of humility and realism.

Mother was never asked to apologize by the Franciscans. Mahoney “demanded” one and her Bishop, Bishop Foley, under pressure from Mahoney, told her to give one. As is recalled below, the “apology” was far from “back-peddling”. She indeed explained what she meant. Again pointing out how Mahoney’s pamphlet on the Eucharist was terrible and why. She was right to do this. She shouldn’t have been ordered to apologize in the first place as every criticism she made of his pamphlet was true.

networkgonewrong.com/chapter.htm

It all began in November 1997 with Mother’s unforgettable televised denunciation of the infamous Cardinal Mahony, that celebrity prelate who is the very embodiment of post-conciliar Modernism and decay in the Church. Mother rightly denounced Mahony’s “pastoral letter” on the Holy Eucharist as a Modernist obfuscation of the true doctrine of the Mass. Under pressure from Mahony’s friends in the Vatican apparatus, Mother made an on-the-air apology; but the “apology” was even more defiant than the original commentary.

 For nearly an hour Mother “served up a point-by-point critique of the pastoral letter,”3 demonstrating that Mahony had slighted and thus undermined the doctrine of transubstantiation. An infuriated Mahony filed a canonical complaint in Rome. Arroyo quotes one elderly curial Cardinal as admitting that “Mother Angelica has the guts to tell him [Mahony] what we do not.” 4

 Mahony’s canonical complaint ultimately went nowhere, but he had already begun to agitate the Vatican apparatus to take action against Mother. Arroyo quotes Mahony’s director of media relations as stating “The Cardinal wants the Holy See to do something about Mother Angelica’s whole attitude that she is not responsible to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops or to any of the individual bishops.”5

 Then Mother Angelica tangled with another liberal prelate, Bishop David Foley, the ordinary of her diocese in Alabama. Foley had no real authority over Mother’s apostolate, the Poor Clares of the Perpetual Adoration. Nevertheless, he insisted that in the new Shrine to the Blessed Sacrament Mother was building in Hanceville, Alabama, no Masses were to be said in the traditional “ad orientem”6 manner—that is, facing the altar and God in an eastward direction, rather than facing the people.7 When Mother refused to knuckle under to this illegal demand, in October 1999 Foley issued a preposterous decree stating that Mass facing the altar—an unbroken tradition of the Church from her earliest days—was an “illicit innovation or sacrilege” and that anyone “guilty” of this “sacrilege” would be subject to “suspension or removal of faculties.”All Masses in his diocese, Foley declared, would “henceforth be celebrated at a freestanding altar and… the priest would face the people.”8

 In a courageous act of resistance to this abuse of power, Mother Angelica boycotted the dedication of the new Shrine in December 1999, presided over by none other than Foley himself, who celebrated Mass facing the people. Arroyo reports that a clearly humiliated Foley called Mother to the podium to say a few words, but “in silent protest” she remained with her nuns in the cloistered area behind the altar, refusing to serve as Foley’s prop. 9

 Clearly determined to get revenge, Foley went to the Vatican as the representative of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops to demand action against Mother Angelica (no doubt with Mahony’s blessing). Foley, with the advice of Cardinal Medina, head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, promulgated “norms” that banned any televised Mass facing East (i.e. the altar) in his diocese and requiring Mass facing the people. EWTN complied with these “norms,” even though they were as preposterous and illegal as Foley’s earlier decree, for Foley had no authority to ban the Church’s immemorial practice, on television or otherwise.

 

[stevusmagnus]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, as the case may be - you overstate the sources and actual claims for decline in U.S. Catholicism. A recent e-mail from a source at the North American Forum for the Catechumenate suggested an average of 800,000 people a year are entering RC through the RCIA programs nationwide.

800k? That’s it? And how many Catholics are leaving or no longer practicing?

You also uncritically demonize the role of secularity which has both positive and negative impacts. The positives include democracy, personal freedom, religious tolerance and human rights.

Democracy is a positive impact of secularity? Rather secularity is a not so positive impact of democracy.

Personal freedom is not necessarily positive. Freedom of choice ring a bell?

Religious tolerance? You mean religious liberty, which has lead to indifferentism and now the beginnings of atheism and apostasy.

Human rights? Like gay marriage, abortion, and birth control?

The negatives are a tendency to de-value the role of religious traditions which in some respects gave birth to secularism (dignity of the person must have roots some where and the "…where…is the Judeo-Christian tradition). And there can be a danger in de-valuing sexuality and it’s power. But within church circles that devaluation may have come as a pendular swing from the other extreme when prior to Vatican II there was a sheer obsession with sexuality. Coming back to the center would be the wise tack to take.

“Obsession with sexuality”? Seriously? This is the claim liberals use to attack the Church today. The Church comments on modern problems. If modern man didn’t have such a problem with sexuality, the Church wouldn’t have to constantly try to set him straight.

The thoughtful stance of Benedict who both confirms the values of secularity but argues that the Judeo-Christian tradition provides the moral values to stop the moral erosion of secularity are to be taken as wise steps in coordinating a healthy rather than antagonistic view towards secularity.

What are the Catholic “values of secularity”? Looks like it has been a smashing success in Europe so far! So much so that JPII referred to Europe as having fallen into a “silent apostasy”.

 

[tpw]

podles.org/dialogue/us-catholicism-decline-and-fall-272.htm

U.S. Catholicism: Decline and Fall

December 26th, 2009

The decline of the Catholic Church in the United States and in Europe is apparent to anyone who looks at the statistics. The American statistics would be comparable to the far worse European ones if it were not for the influx of Hispanic, Vietnamese, and Filipino Catholics. Catholics of European descent are a vanishing race.

The 2009 Catholic directory reported:

—There were 191,265 church-recognized marriages in the year ending Jan. 1, 2009, more than 5,000 fewer than the year before.

— Confirmations numbered more than 622,000, down about 8,500 from the previous year.

— First Communions numbered nearly 822,000, a drop of about 1,300.

— Infant baptisms totaled more than 887,000, down by almost 16,000.

— Adult baptisms and receptions into full communion totaled more than 124,000, a decline of more than 12,000 from the previous year.

This decline in sacramental practice occurred when the number of Catholics was, according to the Church directory, increasing.

The decline in some places (such as Quebec) began before Vatican II, but the years after Vatican II have seen an accelerating decline. Some blame the Council itself, saying that the Church was doing fine and should not have changed. Others say that the failure to make enough changes is the cause of the decline.

The proponents of more changes want the Catholic Church to follow the example of the Episcopal Church in accepting married priests, women priests, homosexual marriages, contraception, abortion, lay governance etc. But the Episcopal Church is in even steeper decline. Why should the Catholic Church not follow the same path if it adopts the same policies?

Those who want the Church to return to 1950 point to the relative stability or success of conservative Protestant churches. But the worship of these churches is often either charismatic or media-saturated, about as far from the 1950 Tridentine mass as one can get.

From my limited point of view, I think that the sudden and autocratic changes in Catholic life which were imposed autocratically by the Vatican on the advice of a handful of theological experts, was one source of the decline. Catholics had developed habits: the Latin mass, Marian devotions, fish on Fridays, the Baltimore Catechism. Suddenly, overnight everything was gone. It is always harder to start a new good habit, and many people just drifted away. Whatever the value of the reforms, the way they were imposed was bound to cause damage.

In an attempt to overcome the hostile, fortress mentality that characterized Catholicism, Vatican II opened new doors to ecumenism and to a less hostile attitude to other religious and philosophies. But this was rapidly interpreted to mean indifferentism: one religion is as good as another, the differences mean little or nothing.

The legalism that characterized 1950 Catholicism has been succeeded by antinomianism especially in sexual matters: anything that is socially acceptable goes. The Catholic Theological Society has defended about any sexual perversion that one can imagine, and lay Catholics have assimilated the message.

Larry R. Petersen, Gregory V. Donnerwerth in “Secularization and the Influence of Religion on Beliefs about Premarital Sex” (Social Forces, Vol. 75, 1997) analyze changes in attitudes to pre-marital sex among Catholics and Protestants and conclude:

The findings indicate that among conservative Protestants who attended church often there was no decline in support for traditional beliefs about premarital sex between 1972 and 1993. On the other hand, support for such beliefs declined significantly among mainline Protestants and Catholics at all levels of church attendance and among conservatives who were infrequent attenders.

Secularity, or worldliness as it used to be called, is not the inevitable winner in the contest with Christianity. The Catholic Church adopted policies that allowed secularism to erode Catholic belief and practice. Some of the policies were changes that upset established routines. In addition, while continuing to maintain traditional doctrine, the hierarchy allowed corrosive ideas to circulate, and sometimes even discouraged the laity who tried to defend traditional teachings – such conservatives were seen as disruptive. Episcopal toleration extended to the advocacy and practice of pedophilia (Paul Shanley).

Apart from the bishops, the Catholic establishment in the United States (chanceries, colleges, universities, religious orders) would like to see Catholic sexual morality become a dead letter: an interesting intellectual curiosity, like the strictures against usury, that might contain a gleam of wisdom but would not usually affect the way Catholics behaved in either their public or private lives.

Bishops are careerists and balance their need to impress the Vatican with their orthodoxy against the reality that most of the members of the Catholic Church in the United States, including the members who supposedly transmit traditional teaching, do not accept that teaching. These are the people who pay the bills and give the Catholic Church the illusion that it has an influence in the public sphere.

Such a compromise with worldliness does not even maintain Catholic numbers. If the Catholic Church is so meaningless, why bother with it? Why get up on Sunday morning to hear third-rate music and intellectual pablum? If you take the Gospel seriously, you are more to end up in a conservative Protestant church which, for all its limitations, has not surrendered, on some key issues that affect daily life, to the world.

 

[edwest2]

All Catholics should know that none of the changes in the Church were suggested, much less authorized by Vatican II:

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1145

A coordinated attack against the Church began in the late 1960s. In 1967, undewr the banner of academic “freedom,” some Catholic universities decided to cut their ties with Church hierarchy:

catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm

But the “freedom” parade was not over yet. The biggest assault was against Humanae Vitae which was issued in 1968. Pope Paul VI warned Catholics about what would happen if they used The Pill and other forms of artificial contraception. The Pill, although approved for use by the FDA in 1960, did not enter widespread use until 1967. The Pope saw what was coming, including increased promiscuity. The answer? Drown out the Pope.

Some Catholic theologians took out a full page ad in the New York Times denouncing Humanae Vitae. Some priests were convinced to sign a letter against it. Then they sent in the Hippies who moved in with their girlfriends and had sex with them. Marriage was a useless piece of paper to them and the Church was also useles. Have sex. Smoke dope.

That is what brought the Church, and many Catholics, to where we are today. Throw in Abortion and No-Fault Divorce and suddenly, you’ve got some reasons to avoid going to Church ever again.

Catholic Americans went from functional, observant Catholics to Catholics who decided to experiment with “alternative lifestyles.” Hey, your husband’s a pain? Divorce him. Unwanted pregnancy? Get rid of it. Dope? Sure, why not?

Oh yeah. We went from a Catholic culture that shunned divorce, pornography and lewd behavior to one that is surrrounded by Adult Bookstores, Topless Bars and Strip Clubs. Turn on the TV and what do you get? Viagra ads? Chris Rock going on and on and on about explicit sex? Two and a Half Men? The list goes on. Once there were movies about love and romance, which turned into two people having sex and declaring each other a couple, to two people having "just sex,’ about as meaningful as going to the bathroom.

I was there before and after Vatican II, and I had no reason to be any less Catholic after. I think writers of such articles need to know what was happening in Catholic seminaries in the 1970s. Prospective priests were taught Humane Vitae but they were also told the Church would change its stance on artificial contraception one day. The result? When these men became priests, they told parishioners that birth control was a personal conscience issue. That is changing now.

Not eating meat on Friday a big deal? Give me a break. I still see signs in the windows of restaurants offering a Friday Fish Fry.

Wake up my fellow Catholics, perverts and sex maniacs have changed things - not us.

God bless,
Ed

 

[ProVobis]

But the “freedom” parade was not over yet. The biggest assault was against Humanae Vitae which was issued in 1968. Pope Paul VI warned Catholics about what would happen if they used The Pill and other forms of artificial contraception. The Pill, although approved for use by the FDA in 1960, did not enter widespread use until 1967. The Pope saw what was coming, including increased promiscuity. The answer? Drown out the Pope.

I’m not going to say the Pope deserved some of the blame but I remember more of the “use your conscience” clause coming out of the earlier Progressio Populorum and that the Pope’s moral theologists saw nothing wrong with ABC. But then everyone got his information differently.

Not eating meat on Friday a big deal? Give me a break.

Not a big deal except it seemed to have started a different Catholic mindset of no more rules and no more Latin. Twenty years later, however, it was discovered that they had misinterpreted just about everything that came out of the Vatican.

 

[tpw]

Those using blanket statements and making blanket claims that “secularity” has destroyed the church would be best served by stepping back and asking what exactly they mean by secularity. If by secularity one means freedom, democracy, pluralism then think carefully. While clearly any of these can be abused in themselves there is nothing intrinsically wrong with them.

Isn’t it far better to encourage people to search out religious meaning and significance giving them approval to discover what is meaningful rather than encouraging blind obedience? True, it’s uncomfortable in Catholic families when a child (or parent for that matter) opts for another form of religious belief, but if we’re confident about what we belief and trust in God’s mercy people have a way of coming back when they discover emptiness, etc. in other pastures.

For those who decry the sexual revolution as clear evidence of sexuality gone astray - is it true? Sure there are abuses - no doubt - pop culture is filled with garbage. But once again the hard work of education, encouraging critical thinking by young people and adults for that matter about what they see and hear is essential if they are to be truly free to make responsible choices.

For all the whining and hyperbole about America becoming “socialist” - absurd in fact - democracy is a far better option than other forms of government. Can it be abused - sure - but that’s not the fault of democracy. It may have more to do with with false philosophical premises which govern politics in the U.S. or problematic forms of educational philosophy. And here I don’t simply refer to abortion or gay marriage. There are a host of other issues - like laissez faire capitalism, the death penalty, pornography, etc. where democracy has not been well-served. What’s necessary is the long, hard work of discussion, education and legislation. If what we claim to be true is in fact true - engaging in this work will pay off in its own way at its own time.

Pluralism - another contribution of secular society. Bad? Hmm…unless we go back to forms of Catholic facism as were some of the European countries…pluralism is much preferred. Why be fearful of people searching. If their search is in earnest then there is nothing to fear.

Finally, the purpose of Vatican II was to engage secularism. It’s taken an awful long time to come to terms with it - and it hasn’t been all bad. The sex abuse crisis for example would not have been revealed had it not been for the discoveries in secular fields like psychology of the effects of abuse on children. That it’s been a hard road no doubt - but despite the loss of face - it has produced healing and for that we should be grateful.

Better - more adult in fact - to grapple with things than pretend all is woe and seek hiding places…

 

[edwest2]

Your statements regarding Vatican II are not accurate.

Here is the opening address by Pope John XXIII:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/v2open.htm

God bless,
Ed

 

[laszlo]

Wake up my fellow Catholics, perverts and sex maniacs have changed things - not us.
Ed

I second it. In Europe the process of aggressive secularization, free sex, no fault divorce started in the forties, abortion in the fifties.

The only fault for what the Church can be blamed that in the Medieval eves they did not burned the usurers, because they were not subjects of the Church. However burning them would not be Christ’s way.

 

[JReducation]

I would advise people to choose their words carefully. Secularism is not good. Secularity is very good. The Church defends and promotes seclarity. It’s secularism that is problematic, because it’s inconsistent with the Gospel.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF