What is the "Crisis"?

[TMC]

I’m not sure there is a “Crisis,” but the big problem facing the Church is figuring out how the Church fits into the modern world. I know just reading that statement will annoy some, but it seems to me that people on all sides see this as the root of whatever ‘problem’ they have identified.

The Church has gone through several major upheavals, from a minority home-based religion, to a state religion, to being effectively the state itself at times and places, and being the only true trans-national organization, and so on. The last two big changes, IMO, were the Reformation; and the changes in human lives and lifestyles that came about as the machine age advanced into the information age. The Church did good at some of these transitions and bad at others. The last two have not gone too well, but then its hard to judge from where we stand.

I agree in large part that VII helped to save the Church, or at least got us moving. The Church has a long way to go, however. The Church is still sorting out the pragmatic effects of the modern wolrd and still trying to work through basics like how should the Church use modern communications (why are the Mormons on my radio every morning, but not the Church? Should it be?), how to deal with democracy (yes we are still trying to figure this out), dealing with transnational organizations and movements, and so on. At the same time the Church has to deal with more spiritual, philosophical, and theological questions about the role and purpose of technology, the value and role of modern academic study of history, scripture, and so on.

The Church changes only slowly. Some lay Catholics, including many of those that post here, view any tiny change as some kind of repudiation of the past or an assault on the Faith. Many in the Church hierarchy are reluctant to look at anything that may reverse the now 100 year long trend toward centralizing Church authority. Pope Benedict seems open to examining much of this, although he is a careful steward and mindful of the need for stability and continuity. I am hopeful that the Church will use this opportunity to relook at itself and reexamine the roots of the faith. I think there is an opportunity now to bring some of the separated back in, and to revitalize the faithful as we move into the future. But it is not going to be easy or quick.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ok, now I’ll throw my “opinion” out there.

Personally, and I doubt that I’m alone, I believe that Vatican II SAVED the Church (particularly in the West) from total collapse.

Why? Because the age of technology and information was coming upon us. Television, in particular gained a strong foothold in our society during the 50’s.

People started asking questions, and wanting answers. It is even more prevalent today with computers and internet.

Perhaps Church leaders could see, that teaching the faithful to do this and do that, simply because “Sister Dorothella said so” wasn’t going to hold much longer. Something had to change. Church leaders could see thousands gravitating to Protestant denominations. Today, so-called non-denominationals are popping up like pimples on a teenager.

Yes, Mass in Latin, and so many other Church traditions are/were beautiful. But then again, so was the Titanic. And we all know what happened there. Consider for a moment, that the Second Vatican Council “saw the iceberg” BEFORE it was too late.

to be continued…

I am reminded of an analogy when I did troubleshooting on printers and PC’s. One of the first things we would ask customers is, “When was it working last? And, “What did you change?”

The Church was doing pretty well, as John XXIIIrd noted on the eve of Vatican II. The idea that Vatican II somehow “saved” the Church, or that we would be even worse off without it, seems almost laughable in the face of the crisis we have gone through the past forty years. It is difficult to note any change after Vatican II that has measurably enhanced the life of the Church in any area or aspect. And there are plenty to note that have been detrimental. Iota Unum would be a good book to read which illustrates many of the changes and their effects.

 

[Brother_John]

The idea that Vatican II somehow “saved” the Church, or that we would be even worse off without it, seems almost laughable in the face of the crisis we have gone through the past forty years.

But that is the point I am trying to make. How can we KNOW that we are worse off with V2?

Do we not believe in the infalliability of the Pope? Do we not trust that our Cardinals and Bishops saw or knew things that the congregations didn’t?

Why would they willfully take actions to undermine the Church? Clearly the Second Vatican Council was formed to ACT on things that were going awry within the Church.

As an example, I can’t imagine how forcing the faithful to adhere to Mass in Latin over the last 40 years would INCREASE the numbers of the faithful. But on this forum, on a daily basis, I read threads and posts that literally claim that a return to Mass in Latin would bring people in the US to the CC by the droves.

I can only trust in the Pope, and believe that those in the Second Vatican Council were/are far smarter and more learned than I ever could be.

 

[DustinsDad]

…Take for example his Mass Attendance Stats. He says:

“A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.”

Not sure. Perhaps he does cite the more recent Gallup Poll in the book (the bullet points were from review of the book). Or perhaps he thought the Notre Dame study was more accurate for some reason that is explained in the book and perhaps there was no Notre Dame study in 1958. Or perhaps the new Gallup Poll is flawed and was not using the same methodology as their previuo stody. Who knows. Thing is you are not attacking the methodology of the Notre Dame study even though most folks that read it know darn well that it matches their personal experience. Heck, I’d say it’s pretty darn generous.

…Because they show Mass attendance at 46% not 25% which is still a decline but not as big a decline as he would like.

I think Gallup says it’s more like 40%, which still spells crisis my friend - even if that number is close to being accurate. It’s pretty close to half of what it was before the Council.

…Let’s look at Seminarian Stats. He says:

“Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent.”

And hundreds did go on to major seminary - so how does this make the data completely false? I’d say it’s completely accurate. The fact that most high school seminaries closed down itself points to the crisis for crying out loud. And you accuse this guy of playing fast and loose with the data? Good grief.

…So, let’s look at major seminary stats:

1965 - 8,325
2004 - 3,308

Whew! I thought we were in a crisis - but those numbers clearly show the New Springtime in full swing! Hoo ha!

…Also, since the US is only 5.8% of the world’s catholic population perhaps it would be good to look at the worldwide stats.

Total number of priests:

1970 - 419,728
1975 - 404,783
1990 - 403,173
2004 - 405,450

Yep, worldwide it’s still in decline. Factor in that the actual number of Catholics has risen by the millions in this same time frame, the actual decrease in priests is EVEN GREATER than the actual numbers given above, for they spell HUGE crisis when looked at as a percentage of the whole.

…Certainly, vocations are an issue. Crisis??? Yeah, there was one…25 years ago. We have many good strong young bishops and seminaries in those dioceses are growing. Things are much improved and getting better day by day.

In certain diocese - it’s still a huge issue. Closing parishes, priestless parishes and empty seminaries are rampant (Belleville, Illinois diocese where I live for example). However, right across the river the ArchDiocese of St. Louis is doing very well. Kenrick is full right now and looking for more bedding and housing for the growing number of seminarians. Yes - in some places, things are starting to change for the better - now perhaps we should ask ourselves why.

And thank you ArchBishop Burke!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[eelpis]

That there is a crisis in the Church cannot be doubted, the pope said so himself in his latest encyclical - I think he said it’s a crisis of Christian hope.

To just say it will pass is cynical, there are souls at stake.

 

[Sure]

Yep, worldwide it’s still in decline. Factor in that the actual number of Catholics has risen by the millions in this same time frame, the actual decrease in priests is EVEN GREATER than the actual numbers given above, for they spell HUGE crisis when looked at as a percentage of the whole.

Worldwide there are more Catholics being ordained than in the recent past. Even as a percentage which accounts for the increase in the number of Catholics worldwide.

Take a look at the number of new priests ordained compared to the number of Catholics:

1980 - 1 ordination for every 203,031 catholics
1985 - 1 ordination for every 176,691 catholics
2000 - 1 ordination for every 153,361 catholics

That is a very positive trend for vocations. Diocesan ordinations are up 77% since 1980 while the Catholic population has only risen 42%. Of course, it’s nowhere near to where it should be, but the point is that there is a vast improvement from 25 years ago. The crisis peaked in the early 1980’s and it’s been getting better ever since. It doesn’t mean we’re all better, it just means improvements have been significant.

 

[DustinsDad]

Worldwide there are more Catholics being ordained than in the recent past. Even as a percentage which accounts for the increase in the number of Catholics worldwide.

Take a look at the number of new priests ordained compared to the number of Catholics:

1980 - 1 ordination for every 203,031 catholics
1985 - 1 ordination for every 176,691 catholics
2000 - 1 ordination for every 153,361 catholics

That is a very positive trend for vocations. Diocesan ordinations are up 77% since 1980 while the Catholic population has only risen 42%. Of course, it’s nowhere near to where it should be, but the point is that there is a vast improvement from 25 years ago. The crisis peaked in the early 1980’s and it’s been getting better ever since. It doesn’t mean we’re all better, it just means improvements have been significant.

Okay - I’ll take that good news for a change. It’s a step in the right direction .

 

[Like]

Why do you assume that I don’t think there is a crisis? I initiated a thread to determine what OTHERS see as the forms of crisis.

While many on this forum see Vatican II as the root cause, others I speak to feel that Vatican II SAVED the Church (especially in the US) from crumbling before our eyes.

Who are these others? Fallen away Catholics?

I simply asked for your opinions, I didn’t start the thread with a statement of my own opinion. Thanks.

I don’t agree, see your next post below.

Ok, now I’ll throw my “opinion” out there.

Personally, and I doubt that I’m alone, I believe that Vatican II SAVED the Church (particularly in the West) from total collapse.

I see this to be EXACTLY the OPPOSITE!

Why? Because the age of technology and information was coming upon us. Television, in particular gained a strong foothold in our society during the 50’s.

People started asking questions, and wanting answers. It is even more prevalent today with computers and internet.

Perhaps Church leaders could see, that teaching the faithful to do this and do that, simply because “Sister Dorothella said so” wasn’t going to hold much longer. Something had to change. Church leaders could see thousands gravitating to Protestant denominations. Today, so-called non-denominationals are popping up like pimples on a teenager.

These examples of your’s are what was/is the causes of “The Spirits of Vatican II”!

Yes, Mass in Latin, and so many other Church traditions are/were beautiful. But then again, so was the Titanic. And we all know what happened there. Consider for a moment, that the Second Vatican Council “saw the iceberg” BEFORE it was too late.

to be continued…

…continued…

reference the post by “DustinsDad”.

One could read these statistics, and deduct that Vatican II resulted in reduced vocations.

On the other hand, someone else could read these same statistics and deduct that without Vatican II, we would only have 25,000 priests instead of the 45,000 we have now.

We could have 470 Seminarians, instead of 4,700, and so on.

The truth is, that none of us know for sure, we can only deduct based on our personal beliefs.

Yes, there is a crisis in our Church, especially where vocations are concerned. But determining the real problem is the challenge.

If you were to seriously educate yourself, you would see what the problems are!

People I know leave or avoid the Church, and head for other churches because they are made to feel worthy and/or welcome…because they get their questions answered. (at least in a manner that they feel they understand)

Yes, they are leaving the Catholic Church because they are being lied to! I am 68 yo & a 4th. Degree Knight of Columbus and know what I and many other K of C went through! Also, I and serveral other of these Knights left the Church, **but NOT for another FAITH, we just quit going to Church. I have never stopped believing anything HMC teaches. In my case I quit going to Church in 1972 and only returned about 4 years ago. This not a brag , but a REGRET!
I was wrong for leaving because I was not as strong as most Traditionlist. The abuses were/are so great, it is a struggle every time I go to Mass! **

Where do I get my info? **Talking to friends and neighbors, and even family members who have left the Church. These are the things they point out to me.

NOBODY has ever told me that they avoid or left the Church because we lack reverence or don’t say Mass in Latin anymore.**

In my case, it is not because of Latin but the REVERENCE is not there as it was prior to VII. The abuses are great, clapping for choir for how great they are in the middle of Mass & it was for a protestant song. The elevation of the Host and Presious Blood in extreme slow motion from left to right and then right to left! OH YES! Many priest in the OF of Mass love to show their acting skills! Go to confession and are stopped in the middle to tell you, “you are too hard on yourself”. “Surely you not as sinful as Peter was”. And this having been 30+ years since last confession!

ok, pile on !!

I’m not complaining about VII per say, the way it was suppose to be implemented, but the way “the Spirit of VII” was forced on us. And unlike some here on this forum, I love all of the pre & post Vatican II Popes! Especially JP II, it was his death that brought me back into the Church. Sure he did some things I wish he hadn’t, but who am I to judge him or anyone!

 

[PoliSciProf]

Ok, now I’ll throw my “opinion” out there.

Personally, and I doubt that I’m alone, I believe that Vatican II SAVED the Church (particularly in the West) from total collapse.

Why? Because the age of technology and information was coming upon us. Television, in particular gained a strong foothold in our society during the 50’s.

People started asking questions, and wanting answers. It is even more prevalent today with computers and internet.

Perhaps Church leaders could see, that teaching the faithful to do this and do that, simply because “Sister Dorothella said so” wasn’t going to hold much longer. Something had to change.

I agree for the most part. I think the post Vatican II liturgies were NOT thought through and that there was room for the Latin liturgy but the intention of John XXIII was good. A refreshing of the Church was long overdue and it achieved much good. I stress in advance that I am **NOT **questioning the teaching of the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals. But church politics, its failure to respond to the laity in its areas of competence (Canon Law obligates the laity to speak to the Church [again, I am **NOT refering to faith or morals] seems to imply an obligation to listen which I submit has rarely happened at the parish or diocese levels), its failure to support Catholic education in all its forms (I can give you many many stories of how good orthodox Catholic educators were driven out of their jobs and I am not simply talking about low pay), its failure to be pro-active enough regarding vocations, and its failure to strongly respond secular and post-modern social, philosophical and theological challenges to its received teachings do in fact constitute a crisis. The Church will survive and will become stronger for all of its stumblings and problems but it will take time, courage and the help of the Spirit.

 

[stmaria]

Eucharistic presence
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n2_v122/ai_16233123/pg_8

On April 21-23, 1994, a New York Times/CBS News poll queried a national sample of Americans by telephone. About thirty-five questions were asked specifically to those responding that their religious preference was Catholic.
The results for all self-identified Catholics were:
Body and blood: 34% Symbolic reminders: 63%.
Among Catholics aged 65 and older:
Body and blood: 51%. Symbolic reminders: 45%.
Among Catholics betwen ages 18 and 29: Body and blood: 29%. Symbolic reminders: 70%.
Among Catholics who reported going to Mass every week or almost every week (50% of the Catholics polled):
Body and blood: 44%. Symbolic reminders: 51%.

 

[stmaria]

adherents.com/Na/Na_133.html#714
“Finally, subsequent to Vatican II there was a substantial decline in the proportion of Catholics attending mass during any given week. During the 1950s more than 70 percent of American Catholics claimed weekly attendance at mass. This continued into the early 1960s–71 percent told the Gallup Poll in 1964 that they had been to church within the past seven days. But the next year, 1965] attendance at mass began a decline that continued until 1978, when it stabilized at slightly more than 50 percent (D’Antonio et al. 1989). "
Declines in religious participation were striking, from 74% of Catholics attending mass weekly in 1958 to 51% in 1982. " [Elsewhere Roman Cath. % of total pop. 1950s 22%. This times 74% yields 16.28% of total pop. is RCs who attend weekly.]
There has been an especially sharp decline in the numbers of Roman Catholics who go to church weekly: 52% in 1978, as compared to 74% in 1958 (Public Opinion, 1979). " Pg. 447
Declines in religious participation were striking, from 74% of Catholics attending mass weekly in 1958 to 51% in 1982.
The findings come from a survey of parishes by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, affiliated with Georgetown University. The survey said lay ministers outnumber priests in every region of the nation. The center’s report said the average U.S. Catholic parish consists of 850 households and 2,000 individuals, among whom about 40 percent attend weekly Mass. "

 

[stmaria]

archdiocesesantafe.org/ABSheehan/ABSMessages/95.5.Eucharist.html
Recently, a Gallup poll was taken on Catholic attitudes toward Holy Communion. The poll showed serious confusion among Catholics about one of the most basic beliefs of the Church.
· Only 30 percent of those surveyed believe they are actually receiving the Body and Blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
· 29 percent think they are receiving bread and wine which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and, in so doing, are expressing their attachment to His person and words.
· 10 percent understand their action to be receiving bread and wine in which Jesus is present.
· 23 percent hold that they are receiving what has become the Body and Blood of Christ because of their personal belief.
Any well-informed Catholic will recognize that only the first option, chosen by the 30 percent, is true Catholic teaching. The other options represent various forms of Protestant belief.

 

[stmaria]

SYNOD OF BISHOPS
XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY October 2005
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html
Because of the vital connection between the celebration of the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Orders, attention needs to be given to the increase, from 1978 to 2003, in the number of Catholics in relation to the number of priests, that is, **one priest **for every **1,797 Catholics in 1978 **to one priest for every 2,677 Catholics in 2003. The situation is quite diverse from continent to continent. For example, in Europe, there is one priest for every 1,386 Catholics; in Africa, one for every 4,723 Catholics; in America, one for every 4,453; in Asia, one for every 2,407; and in Oceania, one for every 1,746.7 In the same period, the permanent deaconate also witnessed a strong development with the overall number of deacons multiplying over 15 times or having a relative increase of 466.7%. It should be pointed out that America (especially North America) has 65% of the permanent deacons worldwide, with Europe having 32%. The noteworthy role of the world’s lay missionaries (172,331) and catechists (2,847,673) also deserves mention.8
6. In some cases, the percentage of those who participate at Sunday Mass is as low as 5%. Generally speaking, the faithful who neglect to attend Mass on Sundays do not consider participating at Mass important in their life. Basically, they lack an understanding of the true nature of the Mass as Sacrifice and Eucharistic Banquet which gathers the faithful around the Lord’s altar.
.
Certainly, thought needs to be given to the great disproportion between the many who receive Holy Communion and the few who go to confession. The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion, without even thinking that they might be in the state of mortal sin.
,.54 … responses coming from various countries note some deficiencies and shadows in the celebration of the Eucharist on the part of both the clergy and the faithful, which seem to have their origin in a weakened sense of the sacred in the Sacrament. Safeguarding the Sacrament’s sacred character basically depends on being aware that the Eucharist is a mystery and gift, whose remembrance requires signs and words corresponding to its nature as a sacrament.
Certain actions which challenge a sense of the sacred, often mentioned in the Lineamenta responses, can be of assistance in treating the subject, for example, **a neglect by the ceebrant and the ministers to use proper liturgical vestments and the participants’ lack of befitting dress for Mass; the use of profane music in Church; the tacit consent to eliminate certain liturgical gestures thought to be too traditional, such as genuflexion before the Blessed Sacrament; an inadequate catechesis for Communion in the hand and its improper distribution; a lack of reverence before, during and after the celebration of Holy Mass, not only by the laity but also the celebrant; the scant architectural and artistic quality of sacred buildings and sacred vessels; and instances of syncretism in integrating elements from other religions in the inculturation of liturgical forms.
40. Some Lineamenta responses, however, mention that, at times, a certain way of acting indicates that transubstantiation and the Real Presence are understood in a symbolic sense only. Many responses noted that some celebrants at the liturgy seem more like showmen, who must draw people’s attention to themselves, instead of servants of Christ, called to conduct the faithful to union with him
.64 …True and proper liturgical signs and gestures, aimed at expressing faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, have been used in Church tradition, for example, the attentive purification of sacred vessels after communion, the steps to be taken when the Eucharistic species might accidentally fall to the floor, genuflections before the tabernacle, the use of the communion plate, the regular replacement of consecrated hosts reserved in the tabernacle, the keeping of the tabernacle key in a secure place and the celebrant’s composure and concentration in keeping with the transcendent and divine character of the Sacrament. Omitting or neglecting any of these sacred gestures, which are significantly important externally, would clearly not contribute to preserving **a sound faith in Christ’s Real Presence in the Sacrament. The responses therefore suggest that the gestures and signs expressing faith in the Real Presence be included in a proper mystagogy and liturgical catechesis.
Likewise, **the positioning of the tabernacle in an easily seen place **is another way of attesting to faith in Christ’s Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. In this regard, the responses to the Lineamenta request that significant thought be given to the proper location of the tabernacle in Churches, with due attention to canonical norms.
65 **It is worth considering whether the removal of the tabernacle **from the centre of the sanctuary to an obscure, undignified corner or to a separate chapel, or whether to have placed the celebrant’s chair in the centre of the sanctuary or in front of the tabernacle—as was done in many renovations of older churches and in new constructions—has contributed in some way to a decrease in faith in the Real Presence.
61. Various responses to the Lineamenta recommend that singing at Mass and Eucharistic Adoration be done in a dignified manner. The faithful need to know the standard Gregorian chants, which have been composed to meet the needs of people of all times and places, in virtue of their simplicity, refinement and agility in form and rhythm. As a result, the songs and hymns presently in use need to be reconsidered
.

 

[cam100]

I am reminded of an analogy when I did troubleshooting on printers and PC’s. One of the first things we would ask customers is, “When was it working last? And, “What did you change?”

On the other hand, this type of discussion always brings back to my mind one of the first things that was drummed into our heads in research methodology in grad school: Correlation does not prove causation!

 

[Sure]

st. maria,

Everyone knows there are things to be improved. The point is that there is some good evidence that things ARE improving. Does anyone out there think we have experienced a decline since 1980??? We have better bishops now. We have better textbooks. We have terrific resources (thanks to the internet). We have faithful catholic magazines, newspapers and book publishers that were virtually nonexistant 25 years ago. We have better seminaries. We have better priests. We have many more traditional Latin Masses and ordinary form Masses according to the rubrics.

I know it’s fun to have a traditionalist “circle the wagons” mentality but reality suggests that some optimism is in order.

 

[Brother_John]

Can we justly assume that falling Mass attendance is due to Vatican II?

What about the repeal of “Blue Laws” in many states, which forced some to work on Sundays, and made Sundays available for numerous other activities.

Not saying that it’s RIGHT to miss Mass for these reasons, just acknowledging that those reasons exist.

The confession/communion relationship has been brought up in other threads. At one point in time, the Church was so tough on the confession/communinon “worthiness” issue, that participating communicants fell off to the point that the Church had to push the “Once a year at Easter” thing. Not sure you can blame that on Vatican II.

I see the crisis as more of a secular issue…forces outside the church (TV, media, two-income homes so we can buy cool toys) drawing our attention away from fervent practice of our faith, than anything caused or created by Vatican II.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

But that is the point I am trying to make. How can we KNOW that we are worse off with V2?

Do we not believe in the infalliability of the Pope? Do we not trust that our Cardinals and Bishops saw or knew things that the congregations didn’t?

Why would they willfully take actions to undermine the Church? Clearly the Second Vatican Council was formed to ACT on things that were going awry within the Church.

As an example, I can’t imagine how forcing the faithful to adhere to Mass in Latin over the last 40 years would INCREASE the numbers of the faithful. But on this forum, on a daily basis, I read threads and posts that literally claim that a return to Mass in Latin would bring people in the US to the CC by the droves.

I can only trust in the Pope, and believe that those in the Second Vatican Council were/are far smarter and more learned than I ever could be.

We know that we have been worse off in the aftermath of Vatican II because it is obvious and the statistics in every conceivable category bear this out.

The infallibility of the Pope or a Council applies only to matters of Faith and Morals, not to prudential decisions such as whether or not to reform the liturgy and what form that reformation takes. The Pope and Bishops do not receive a greater influx of wisdom or prudence when they are ordained to their office.

However, I do not think they or anyone else willfully took actions to undermine the Church. Just that writing documents in a different, non-scholastic manner (and at times ambiguous) was not a smart thing to do in the midst of the 1960’s (or any other time).

Well, since the percentages of the faithful “being forced” to attend the Traditional Latin Mass” were significantly greater than attend the Novus Ordo, it is not hard to imagine how we would have been better off not completely reworking the liturgy in a committee and then forcing it on the entire Catholic world at once.

As Fr. George Rutler so aptly says in his book “A Crisis of Saints” (Ignatius Press):

A Liturgical Parable

The Hard Truth

…We seem to slip out of that golden sense of ultimate truth in two ways. The first is by losing any real awareness of the holy. The second is by denying that it has been lost. Without lapsing into cricitism that would be out of place, suffice it to say that the worship of holiness is weak in our culture, and the beauty of holiness has been smudged in transmission through the revised liturgy. For without impugning its objective authenticity in any degree, its bouleversement [Complete overthrow; a reversal; a turning upside down] of the traditional Roman rite marks the first time in history that the Church has been an agent, however unintentionally, in the deprivation of culture, from the uprooting of classical language and sensibility to wanton depreciation of the arts.

…It is immensely saddening to see so many elements of the Church, in her capacity as Mother of Western Culture, compliant in the promotion of ugliness. There may be no deterrent more formidable to countless potential converts than the low estate of the Church’s liturgical life, for the liturgy is the Church’s prime means of evangelism. Gone as into a primeval mist are the days not long ago when apologists regularly had to warn against being distracted by, or superficially attracted to, the beauty of the Church’s rites. And the plodding and static nature of the revised rites could not have been more ill-timed for a media culture so attuned to color and form and action.

(Pp. 107-108)

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

On the other hand, this type of discussion always brings back to my mind one of the first things that was drummed into our heads in research methodology in grad school: Correlation does not prove causation!

But it can indicate it and it can’t be ruled out just by citing that.

 

[markadm]

Given that part of the “Crisis” is seen to be the sharp decline in priestly and religious vocations and that tomorrow is the traditional Ember Wednesday* of Lent – a time when typically the newly ordained were prayed for, as well as for future vocations to the priesthood and religious life – maybe we could all pray the Lord of the harvest to send laborers into His harvest.

• • as well as Friday and Saturday also being “ember days”

 

[scylla]

Everyone knows there is a Crisis, but it really is not because of Vatican II but what people did in the name of Vatican II.

Look at the 70’s, the 80’s did Vatican II tell us to throw away Catholicism and just go for a experience of religion that made us feel good? Did Vatican II ask us to throw away tradition and replace it with whatever is catchy? I know some exaggerate the crisis and some deny it but whatever the exact statistics we know the faith suffered in the experimentation that was done in the spirit of Vatican II.

What happened was a destruction of the faith in a way that millions lost their faith in the Church. Does that mean that all is bad? No there are many faithful people who have held on the the faith and have done things like,
start apostolates like Catholic Answers, The Coming Home Network, etc,
start EWTN,
start Catholic radio stations,
and instead of seek ways to try and insult the priesthood of Jesus by attacking it, they have gone out of their way to share their faith with others and to raise their families Catholic.
Even through this Crisis we see more and more vocations starting and those orders of sisters and nuns that have held to the faith are growing.
We have had a purging a destruction but the Catholic Church will survive and will come out stronger.

That doesn’t mean that we just sit back and wait for God but that we participate in being faithful and spreading the faith.

God Bless
Scylla