What is your opinion?

[McCall1981]

Hopefully they will be able to send us missionaries!.

I cant speak to other areas, but this is already happening where I live in California. The seminaries are doing fine numbers wise, but its mostly young men from Vietnam, the Phillipeans, Mexico or other places in Latin America.

The stereotype here is that each parish has an old white “aging hippie” priest, and young orthodox priest whos Asian or Latin American.

 

[JM3]

Still, is it the period you miss, or the young self you had then???

ICXC NIKA

I would say the period, though it may have been colored by my youth. There were a lot of things going on, but, generally, life seemed calmer than it is now. If that makes any sense.

 

[stephe1987]

I live in California, and the parish closest to me has a young priest whose family attended a nearby parish when he was growing up.

 

[zab]

I had no problem with the changes brought about after Vatican II. It was nice to hear the Mass in the vernacular. At the time it seemed that it was drawing more interest of the younger people with the new songs accompanied with the guitar. I never witnessed the craziness of clown Masses etc. that you see on YouTube. It wasn’t until the late 70’s that I began to notice something terrible happening when I saw Catholic nuns still in habits though modified shorter ones, on the Phil Donohue supporting abortion. Then we moved from the East Coast to the West Coast and I noticed a dramatic change in the lack of faithfulness toward the teachings of the Church reflected in continuing articles in the Archdiocecean paper. I won’t go into detail about all of that only to say that those years became a time of darkness and I wondered why the those in authority were not correcting things that were so obviously against Church teaching and allowing so much “spirituality” like creation spirituality, new age, and feminist spirituality to infiltrate and detract from the authentic spirituality of Catholic saints such as Teresa of Avilla and John of the Cross and Therese the Little Flower. Our parish has come a long way over the past three decades. They do not speak very nicely about our parish on the other side of the water. But I am hopeful that the archdiocese is now making some progress in steering us in the right direction.

 

[clem456]

I lived through the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, and somehow participated in every evil you can think of.
Who’s fault was it? Mine.

Irresponsibility is all the rage in every generation since the Garden of Eden. . Seems a little immature to blame the Church.

 

[johnmann]

A while back I heard a priest say that it was the most exciting time of his life. I can see how it would’ve been exciting, especially for theologians. I can also see how so much change could wreak havoc on the certainty that Catholics enjoyed their whole lives.

On net, the Church is better off having gone through that. A lot of the problems people associate with the Council are really parts of larger social changes that would’ve happened with or without the Council. Didn’t vocations peak in the 50’s? And it’s not like the Lutherans or Methodists are doing any better.

I only wish they hadn’t built churches at the time. The polka Masses may be dead but we still have to live with these hideous churches with their abstract stained glass and stainless steel resurrection Jesus.

 

[YADA]

The news is not all bad -

Currently there are 41 seminarians in training for the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon

In June of 2012 - ten men were ordained as Priests for the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon.

Mt Angel Seminary has 114 seminarians for 30 different dioceses and 40 priestly candidates in priestly formation for religious orders in addition to lay theology students.
Mt Angel is in the process of building new dorms and classrooms to accommodate increased seminarian enrollment. Total enrollment is around 200 students.

The West Coast Agustinians in San Diego are also seeing an increase in vocations according to an Augustinian priest that I know …

 

[zab]

I lived through the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, and somehow participated in every evil you can think of.
Who’s fault was it? Mine.

Irresponsibility is all the rage in every generation since the Garden of Eden. . Seems a little immature to blame the Church.

That is a seemingly humble thing to say but statements like that are not always accurate. For example, I overheard my daughter telling my other daughter, “I lied, I said that such and such was such and such but it was really this.” She did not lie. She was just mistaken about something. When someone tells a lie, they know what the truth is and they deliberately tell something that is false. The same is true for many people growing up during the time when many liturgical abuses were taking place. We had no idea of what liturgical abuse was. We had no internet to research documents. In fact, some of the documents did not yet even exist. So is it really your fault that you participated in Liturgical abuses? I would not even put them blame on all of the pastors because many of them were as clueless as we were not yet having a directive like “Redemptionis Sacramentum”. But when things were coming to light about the abuses and it was becoming obvious that certain people within the Church were leading the flock astray, that is when it was time, especially for those in authority, to set things straight. I try to refrain from blaming the Church, but I can understand why some would question why so many clergy and religious have allowed liturgical abuses to continue even after the directives came out.

 

[clem456]

That is a seemingly humble thing to say but statements like that are not always accurate. For example, I overheard my daughter telling my other daughter, “I lied, I said that such and such was such and such but it was really this.” She did not lie. She was just mistaken about something. When someone tells a lie, they know what the truth is and they deliberately tell something that is false. The same is true for many people growing up during the time when many liturgical abuses were taking place. We had no idea of what liturgical abuse was. We had no internet to research documents. In fact, some of the documents did not yet even exist. So is it really your fault that you participated in Liturgical abuses? I would not even put them blame on all of the pastors because many of them were as clueless as we were not yet having a directive like “Redemptionis Sacramentum”. But when things were coming to light about the abuses and it was becoming obvious that certain people within the Church were leading the flock astray, that is when it was time, especially for those in authority, to set things straight. I try to refrain from blaming the Church, but I can understand why some would question why so many clergy and religious have allowed liturgical abuses to continue even after the directives came out.

We’re talking about two different things. In the 70’s and 80’s I was not participating in liturgical anything, would not know an abuse from a hole in the ground, as as I rejected the Church, it was irrelevant to me. The evils I was talking about were societal, not liturgical abuse.
I was addressing the OP’s quote here:

“lived through the revolution in the US during the 60s and 70s, he felt that the Church should have been his rock as society was in a downward spiral, but he said it wasn’t. He saw turmoil then all over the place secular or otherwise.”

I don’t think it’s prudent to blame the Church for the downward spiral of society, liturgical abuses or not. We all had a free choice to follow the Church or not.

 

[CB_Catholic]

After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests–and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70, according to a study conducted by Dr. James R. Lothian of Fordham University.

The shortage of priests has created a problem previously unknown to modern Catholics: the priestless parish. Only 3 percent of the parishes in the US–a total of 549–were without a priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of all US parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

As one would expect, the priest dearth has been fueled by a collapse in the seminarian population. There were 16,300 seminarians in 1930 and 49,000 in 1965. By 2002 the number had plunged to 4,700: a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, countless seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.

And empty seminaries result in declining ordinations. While there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood in 1965, in 2002 there were 450, a decrease of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.

The tragedy of the convents has been perhaps even more startling. A host of 138,000 sisters ran the Catholic education and health systems in 1945; their numbers swelled to 180,000 by 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000–and of these, only 21,000 will be age 70 or under. One does not have to be Chicken Little to predict that within a generation there will be no nuns.

The same is true for the once-proud religious orders of men. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 389 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. It does not require special training in statistics to conclude that by 2050, if these trends continue, the Jesuits, the Franciscans, and the Christian Brothers, will be the virtually extinct in the US.

Other statistics on the life of the Catholic Church in America tell the same story. At the time of the Council there were 4.5 million students in US parochial schools; now there are 2 million. Before the Council there were less than 400 marriages annulled by Catholic diocesan tribunals in an average year; now there are 50,000. Before the Council 3 out of 4 Catholics attended Mass each week; now the figure is 1 in 4.

The statistics are sad, but they don’t tell the whole story, and Protestants fared even worse. The 60’s and 70’s were a time of great societal change, which I believe, was the impetus for much of what was quoted. I happened to be a high school and college student in the 60’s and early 70’s, and the changes in the Church did not affect me nearly as much as the general decline of morals in society. The sexual revolution, the increased use of drugs, the war in Viet Nam, the general unrest of the college campuses (I went to Kent State during this time period), the introduction of “the pill”, the legalization of abortion–all of this had a major impact, moreso, I believe that any changes in the Church. Generally, Christian values, of both Catholics and Protestants, took a nose dive.

Also, because people were so willing to abandon their faith, does not speak to me so much of confusion, because if that were so, it wouldn’t have happened so readily among all Christian denominations. I believe that much of this was due to lack of true conversion. If they were truly converted, it wouldn’t have been so easy to fall to the changing norms of society. You know, many are called, but few are chosen…

And contrary to what was stated in another post, most Catholics took the changes in stride after they got used to them. Some were greatly upset, yes, most were only mildly upset but quickly adapted. Others were all too happy about certain changes, such as relaxation of fasting and abstinence rules and Mass in the vernacular. We need to look at the whole picture of what was happening in the western world at that time, not just the Church, to evaluate that era.

As for me, I took it in stride, but what affected me more was the upheaval in society rather than the changes in the Church.

 

[Boulder257]

I always feel turmoil…not from the Church necessarily, but from those who are a part of it. I know the Church is stable and I know the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it. That simple fact alone always gives me comfort…to know that she cannot err. However, I do believe that humans will be, well, human and when given the chance can really muck things up. That to me is proof enough that the Church truly is established by Christ and will always prevail. If we haven’t screwed it up after 2,000 or so years, than it must be because of a supernatural and higher power!

 

[SonSearcher]

We’re talking about two different things. In the 70’s and 80’s I was not participating in liturgical anything, would not know an abuse from a hole in the ground, as as I rejected the Church, it was irrelevant to me. The evils I was talking about were societal, not liturgical abuse.
I was addressing the OP’s quote here:

I don’t think it’s prudent to blame the Church for the downward spiral of society, liturgical abuses or not. We all had a free choice to follow the Church or not.

I don’t think that is what the gentleman on the radio intended. He was saying that the Church should have been there while society was in a downward spiral. Not that it was the Church’s fault for the downward spiral. He was a faithful Catholic during the sixties who expected his Church to be there as a rock. He said it wasn’t.

I think the OP states that clearly enough, but I just want to clarify to make sure we don’t go blaming the guy for anything he didn’t mean.

 

[SMHW]

I don’t think that is what the gentleman on the radio intended. He was saying that the Church should have been there while society was in a downward spiral. Not that it was the Church’s fault for the downward spiral. He was a faithful Catholic during the sixties who expected his Church to be there as a rock. He said it wasn’t.

I did not hear the gentleman on the radio so I am not sure why he thinks the Church was NOT there as a rock.

There were certainly people in the Church, including clergy and religious, who enthusiastically joined in with all the secular changes that came along in the 1960s. I wonder if where he lived played a role. My Southern California diocese seemed to be more “conservative” than many others in the United States based on what we heard about from our relatives in other parts of the United States (even though California was more liberal on the secular front.)

Granted, I was a child, but I just did not see much upheaval in the Church in the 1960s. I did later in the 1970s. But I find this radio caller’s attitude to be a bit puzzling because I don’t know what he thinks “the Church” should have been like…

 

[Saints_Alive]

Wow. Those numbers are certainly sobering.

And those who want women clergy and married priests will use it as ammo in an attempt to achieve their goals.

 

[SonSearcher]

I did not hear the gentleman on the radio so I am not sure why he thinks the Church was NOT there as a rock.

There were certainly people in the Church, including clergy and religious, who enthusiastically joined in with all the secular changes that came along in the 1960s. I wonder if where he lived played a role. My Southern California diocese seemed to be more “conservative” than many others in the United States based on what we heard about from our relatives in other parts of the United States (even though California was more liberal on the secular front.)

Granted, I was a child, but I just did not see much upheaval in the Church in the 1960s. I did later in the 1970s. But I find this radio caller’s attitude to be a bit puzzling because I don’t know what he thinks “the Church” should have been like…

I hear ya. I think he saw the Church as unchanging, and then some things changed, and then he projected that to current time as seeing the same kinda stuff happening. He seemed to be trying to subtly pick a fight, without picking a fight. I wasn’t born until 1980 so I have no clue what it was like.

 

[SonSearcher]

And those who want women clergy and married priests will use it as ammo in an attempt to achieve their goals.

I mean preach it! This comes up all the time. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[otjm]

After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests–and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70, according to a study conducted by Dr. James R. Lothian of Fordham University.

The shortage of priests has created a problem previously unknown to modern Catholics: the priestless parish. Only 3 percent of the parishes in the US–a total of 549–were without a priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of all US parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

Other statistics on the life of the Catholic Church in America tell the same story. At the time of the Council there were 4.5 million students in US parochial schools; now there are 2 million. Before the Council there were less than 400 marriages annulled by Catholic diocesan tribunals in an average year; now there are 50,000. Before the Council 3 out of 4 Catholics attended Mass each week; now the figure is 1 in 4.

And has been noted by a notorious wag, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

I won’t in the least quibble with the numbers. But let’s talk about two of them - nuns/sisters, and religious (priests religious and brothers). Brother JR, a member herein and a Franciscan, has recently laid out some of the “why”. Prior to Vatican 2 and for some serious length of time before that, the life of professed religious had gone somewhat seriously off track if one was to consider the original charisms of the communities. Within both groups (men and women) orders had seriously untracked, and community life had wandered far from the mark. One of the goals of Vatican 2 for religious life was to get back to the original charisms of the founders. In that process, people who had (to excuse the term) “bought in” to what was then (pre- V2) found themselves faced with a sea change of what and who they were, and very many left. Religious life became chaotic, more so in some areas, less so in others. And not surprisingly, things were unstable for quite some time. We can bemoan the exodus from professed life, but the result is beginning to bear significant fruit in that groups (such as Franciscans) have found that the previous dichotomy between priests and brothers was a) not what Francis wanted, and b0 not for the good of the order. They are getting back to what the order was about, rather than what the Church had either lead them to believe, or had allowed.

There were numerous problems with diocesan priests, not the least of which was clericalism (much more rampant then than now, but as Pope Francis not that awfully long ago pointed out to his fellow bishops, still practiced altogether too much), and, interestingly, what seems to have been an attitude or supposition that celibacy was going to be relaxed (and that might not be exactly well said - but I know altogether too many priests who have been laicized and then married, and not a few who simply skipped a step in there). Again, a sea change in attitudes and approach that left many unanchored when previous models were changed.

Further, society in itself has gone through rapid and major changes; to mention a few: the ongoing sexual revolution that started in the early 60’s (and has its roots clear back in the late 1800’s); a vicious spread of secularism, materialism, the privatization of faith and the breakdown of the extended family and close communities, to the breakdown of the nuclear family, and now the breakdown of the concept of marriage. and whatever goes on in society impacts those in the pews.

However, world-wide, vocations are up; within communities of professed religious who are faithful to their founders’ vision and charism there is growth, the diaconate having been brought back is growing yearly, there appears to be somewhat of an uptick in vocations in the US. As to the projections, they are made on assumptions about the future, and that is all. The future may have fewer vocations; or it may have more. The Spirit blows where he will and is not subject to projections.

As to priestless parishes, demographics have also changed and tha harsh reality is that some parishes will need to be consolidated and churches closed. When 25% (give or take some points depending on who does the counting and what is actually asked) of Catholics attend Mass on a regular basis, a parish that has masses that are half full at best, or maybe not even that, need to consolidate.

 

[Cat]

There is no priestly shortage or nun shortage in Africa. The seminaries and convents are bursting at the seams. Maybe we should take a look at what they’re doing right.

African Christians are being persecuted, tortured, and martyred. Maybe that’s why there are more priests–they need more priests to help them through the suffering.

Whenever Christians experience suffering and persecution, the Church is purified, faith grows stronger, and more Christians turn totally away from the world and give themselves completely to Jesus Christ. So I’m not surprised that so many young men in Africa are answering the call to the priesthood.

It’s when we have it made in the shade that we become lax, lazy, and allow ourselves to dabble in sin, and sadly, often take the plunge into a totally sinful lifestyle. The lazier and laxer we become, the harder it is for us to hear God calling to us. So it’s no wonder that we have so few men in the U.S. who are able to hear God’s call, let alone are willing to say “Yes” to His call to the priesthood.

In the U.S., we sometimes think we’re being persecuted, but I don’t think we can really compare ourselves to what some of the African Christians are going through. As long as I can sit here in my warm family room stuffing myself with too many Peeps, drinking Pepsi, and typing pretty much whatever I please into a religious forum without fear of being arrested and executed, I can’t say that I’m suffering for Christ.

God help our African brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[otjm]

Other statistics on the life of the Catholic Church in America tell the same story. At the time of the Council there were 4.5 million students in US parochial schools; now there are 2 million. Before the Council there were less than 400 marriages annulled by Catholic diocesan tribunals in an average year; now there are 50,000. Before the Council 3 out of 4 Catholics attended Mass each week; now the figure is 1 in 4.

Answering this statistical set has the danger of untracking this thread, but I cannot let it simply fly by.

There were less than 400 marriages give a decree of nullity before the Council because there were extremely few grounds upon which to question the sacramentality of the marriage. It was not until well after the Council that the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated; and in it, because of a much greater understanding of psychology over the
66 years since the 1917 code was written and how that impacted intent.

Furthermore, there was a fast breakdown in society in general (which in turn affects those in the pew) as to the permanency of marriage once no-fault divorce entered the legal system.

And please, before you come back with comments about the abuses to the 1983 Code and sloppy work of the tribunals, that was an issue in the 1980’s and into the 1990’s; a whole lot of that has been cleaned up. It has been 30years since the new Code came out, and the problems of 15 or 20 years ago are just that - 15 or 20 years ago.

But let’s talk statistics, since you have broached the subject. The only study I have been able to find is by CARA. The tribunals do not report on the cases which are dropped, nor do they report (or at least they did not report in the past) the number of denials of a a decree of nullity in the first instance; and there is no reporting system for cases that never get filed because of an advocate indicating that there may not be a case, or that it is too weak, or the individual pulling out for personal reasons.

CARA did a survey: out of all divorced Catholics, the statistics indicate that 7% receive a decree of nullity; 8% who start the process (as in, speaking with a parish priest and/or advocate, through preparing the paperwork, through getting witnesses, through filing, and through a decision if it goes that far) do not receive a decree of nullity; and 85% of divorced Catholics never even start.

If 85% have never even started the process, what does that say?

Given the fact that there was a significant change in the law between the 1917 Code and the 1983 Code as to evidence and grounds for a decree of nullity, the implied assumption that before 1983 only an average of 400 of the marriages that ended in divorce were non-sacramental has no basis. All the 400 average shows is that within the confines of the 1917 code and the number of cases that applied for a decree, that was all that were granted. It does not show that all other divorces were of people who were sacramentally married.

 

[otjm]

There is no priestly shortage or nun shortage in Africa. The seminaries and convents are bursting at the seams. Maybe we should take a look at what they’re doing right.

Not to be a wet blanket - I have no doubt that we have good and holy men and women in Africa seeking God, and to serve Him.

But let’s not jump to the conclusion that all are there for the right reasons. There are many things that can impel one to seek community; there are many things that can impel a young man to seek the priesthood, and not all of them are admirable.

And no, I am not a cynic; I am a realist who has been around many, many years and I am a “people observer”. It is well known that poor countries can produce fantastic priests and religious; it is alos well known that going into the priesthood or religious life can bring great honor (and relative wealth to the truly poor) because of position. Hopefully those there for the wrong reasons will be weeded out. The whole issue is hardly a new phenomenon.