What the heck happened?

[Tis_Bearself]

And what seems to be little known among Catholics is that the drop off, which started somewhere around 1957-1958 wasn’t just among the Catholic Church and members. That same drop off in Mass attendance was paralleled through the mainline Protestant churches; attendance started dropping off in all of them at about the same pace as with Catholics. For those who blame Vatican 2, they have to answer how Vatican 2 managed to impact all the Protestants the same way. Hint: it wasn’t Vatican 2.

This is pretty obvious when I drive through areas that had a lot of Protestant churches and see the number of them that have been or are being closed, sold, shared with another Protestant denomination, and/or torn down to build some other building. If the Catholics are hurting for attendance, most of the Protestant churches are hurting worse.

 

[Maximilian75]

Father Robert Barron, on a far smaller scale, perhaps

 

[joeybaggz]

Good pick up. Need more well spoken, likeable personalities explaining and defending the faith of the RCC.

 

[QwertyGirl]

The average person became far more educated than the generations that preceded them. They no longer had to rely on religion to answer their questions about life.

 

[Maximilian75]

I certainly dispute you concerning education eliminating the need for religion, but let’s agree to disagree for the moment.
I don’t think education in the US went up significantly enough during this era for your theory to make sense, IMO…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Augustinian]

The average person became far more educated than the generations that preceded them. They no longer had to rely on religion to answer their questions about life.

I don’t think there is an inverse relationship between religion and education. America has been one of the most educated countries on earth and one of the most religious for a couple of centuries.

 

[otjm]

Well, actually, no, he was not wrong. by your reference, you seem to presume several things, among them: 1) that all those represented in your survey were in combat arms. Having been in the military, and having read a bit of history, there are more troops is support than there arte in combat arms; and those in the rear more often than not do not face imminent, almost immediate death. 20 the article seems to presume that all atheists remained so in the face of immediate, imminent death. Nothing in the article states any such thing.

Was my dad saying that all atheists have an immediate and permanent conversion? Absolutely not. What he was saying was from his personal experience, of being in postions that were overrun repeatedly by the Japanese; where numerous soldiers arouond him were either killed or wouneded. During those attacks, human nature gets down to a very existential confrontation with mortality. and his personal experience was at those times, even those who disdained religion were calling to God for safety. No - he was not wrong; that was his experience. My dad never completed high school. His faith was simple and direct, and his observations were direct.

Once as a child in grade school, I innocently asked him how close the Japanese were. His comment: “I scraped Jap liver off my helmut.”

Was it liver? Or maybe it was a spleen, or a pancreas; so maybe you can pick at his veracity on that too. He got the point across to me.

 

[otjm]

between 1940 and 1970, there was nearly a quadrupling of college students. Certainly a significant factor was the GI bill.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

During those attacks, human nature gets down to a very existential confrontation with mortality. and his personal experience was at those times, even those who disdained religion were calling to God for safety.

There is no contradiction between not believing in God and begging God to save you. One can fail to believe something that one thinks might be true.

 

[commenter]

I found this on a blog I frequent…

What the heck happened in those 10 years after this?

I have a strong suspicion that the blog you frequent does offer an answer as to what horrible thing “happened” in the decade after 1958.

It seems like every couple months there is a new thread on CAF, which indirectly or implicitly tries to convince Catholics that Vatican II was a disaster. This usually is an outgrowth of people visiting blogs whose main purpose is to solve the problem of insufficient alarm among Catholics, who tend to plan for the present and future too much.

Studying history is important, but not to the point of fixating on one thing, such as Vatican II. I have known liberals, including priests and religious, who applauded Vatican II as if it were the only source of guidance since the Bible was written. One pastor constantly preached about how we must fight the forces of oppression that raged in the 1950s, and were trying to repeal the Council.

I have met conservatives who regard the Council as the source of every evil in Western Society. Like the liberals, they are obsessed with it. Like the liberals, they tend to miss out on much historic trends prior to the Council, and after the Council. Fixation on glorifying or disproving the Council distracts people from beneficial actions they can take in the present. The 1960s was an important decade, but for people in 2018, this decade is far more important.

 

[TechieGuy]

This usually is an outgrowth of people visiting blogs whose main purpose is to solve the problem of insufficient alarm among Catholics,

A blog that might be trying to suggest there is some sort of immediate Crises, perhaps?

 

[commenter]

commenter:

This usually is an outgrowth of people visiting blogs whose main purpose is to solve the problem of insufficient alarm among Catholics,

A blog that might be trying to suggest there is some sort of immediate Crises, perhaps?

I don’t rule out crises. I see it around me. I disagree with fixation on V2 rather than acting on current situations. Some current problems go back to reformation, some to 1700s, some to modernism of around 1900, some to tidal wave of secularism in last few decades.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It seems like every couple months there is a new thread on CAF, which indirectly or implicitly tries to convince Catholics that Vatican II was a disaster.

Seems to me about a third of the threads every single day are focused on that.

 

[MonteRCMS]

1960’s … huge influence of marxism. a lot of people were turned against religion.

 

[Maximilian75]

Not at all was I trying to imply that. I think the NO is great.

However, learning from history allows us to better avoid its repetition.

 

[commenter]

Not at all was I trying to imply that. I think the NO is great.

However, learning from history allows us to better avoid its repetition.

Learning from all of history, as a whole. Paying no attention to the 1960s or Vatican II would be bad. But so is obsessing over this decade, to the exclusion of others.

I am not saying you are against V II. I am just suggesting that most of sources for other similar arguments I have seen traces back to those who are.

 

[Maximilian75]

Yes, but V2 is arguably the largest influence on the Church today. The more we can learn from its causes and effects, the better we can make the Church on Earth.

 

[commenter]

Yes, but V2 is arguably the largest influence on the Church today. The more we can learn from its causes and effects, the better we can make the Church on Earth.

I don’t particularly disagree with you.
You don’t have another agenda, but lots of others who say, “let’s take an objective look at V 2” do have an agenda.
They want to isolate it, minimize it, so it becomes "something like a Council, but really just a pastoral council, than an actual Council.

I would argue that dealing with highly organized secularism from the media/education/political arena is the real biggest influence the Church is forced to deal with. The Church and world have changed as much since V 2 as in the time between Trent and V 2.

 

[Maximilian75]

That’s valid.

 

[jack63]

Honestly, I look at the data about the priests per parish and I think Vatican II actually helped keep priests in the priesthood rather than hurt.

Welcome to 1950! A Surprising Statistic About the Number of Priests per parish - Community in Mission

It is a common notion that the number of priests has plummeted in this country. Many speak of the halcyon days when there were four and five priests per parish, and the seminaries were packed. And while some of these memories are accurate, they are drawn from a time in this country that was very...

blog.adw.org

So the actual number of priests per in parish in 1940 is similar as it is today.

I see the increase of priests in the 1950’s due is to the GI Bill. Many working class Irish, Italian, Polish and Hispanic men could go to college all of a sudden. With that education, they knew nothing more than to be a priest.

There was talk about letting priests get married in the 1960s around the time of Vatican II. Priest waited to get married based on the hope from Vatican II. Nothing materialized. Priests left. It is that simple.