True. All of the data used in the article is accurate, so your comment doesn't apply here, however.
In the period 1950-1965, the vast majority of men entering the seminary were not ordained. All were pre-Vatican II ephemeral vocations.
Proof? Data? Numbers? Doesn't it seem ironic that you are attacking the reliability of hard numbers while providing no data of your own?
The article does not investigate the really meaningful numbers - annual priestly ordainations and defections. Perhaps because the decline in these numbers is not nearly so marked as the decline in seminarians, and thus does not make good copy?
What evidence do you have for that assertion? Here in our diocese the Catholic newspaper gives us a weekly dose of "reality" with statistics about the plummeting number of priests and the future of "priestless parishes." They have stopped putting on the happy-face pretense (that was phase 1 which is now over), and they have moved into the next phase in which they create a "new model of the Church" that includes only a handful of priests for the diocese. The reality right here on the ground is exactly what is demonstrated by these numbers.
The numbers are not compared against other meaningful indicators as a ratio - Catholic male population age 20-25, percentage of Catholics counted attending Mass in annual October counts, etc.
That wasn't the purpose of his article. Write your own article if you think you could do better. His purpose was to analyze the existing numbers for demonstrable trends within the data sets. This he has done admirably.
Conclusion 1. The decline in seminarians was mostly a decline in the number of epehemeral vocations.
Only a conclusion if you are the type to jump to conclusions without any evidence. You haven't demonstrated one shred of evidence for this assertion.
The Catholic Church is now no longer wasting vast resources on the education of men for 1-3 years only for most of them to leave the seminary system.
I don't consider that "wasting" at all. In fact, this was probably one of the best and most encouraging trends of the time period which was leading to a much more educated, involved, and spiritually active laity. Too bad this trend was hijacked by the revolutionaries in favor of false "involvement" and "activity."
The decline in ordinations mirrors the decline in Mass attendance - it is not as sharp as the decline in seminarians. Failing to lay out the facts along these lines provides a distorted message.
It's true that every data set is declining together. It's true that you could do the same sort of data analysis on all the different "leading indicators." But you are trying to create an implication of cause and effect where there is no evidence that it exists. Perhaps the decline in Mass attendance mirrors the fall of ordinations, not the other way around. Clearly all these indicators mirror the same fundamental causes.
The Seminarian population is an outlier data set in the general malaise affecting the Church in America.
Evidence? At least you admit the "general malaise." To what extent are the numbers for seminarians any different than all the other indicators? And which indicator will have the biggest domino effect? With no seminarians there are no priests and no holy sacrifice of the Mass, no matter how many people want to attend one on Sunday.
The failure to take into account obvious factors and using the wrong data set shows an intention to promote an agenda rather than diagnose a problem.
There are no "factors" to take into account. He is not proving a correlation. He is analyzing the trends that exist within the existing set of data. To call the data set "wrong" is just a presumptuous opinion with no factual basis.
Conclusion 5. The author and his source are dishonest at best.
If "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," then character assassination is the first refuge of the neo-Catholic apologist. You have no arguments so you attack the author. Someone is being dishonest here, but it is not the author of the original piece.
Max, you know where to find the data - the annual Catholic Directory at your nearest decent library or seminary. Must I look up everything for you?
However, conveniently, the numbers are online for the period since 1969. Look at them yourself.
http://www.clerus.org/statistica/3.htm
http://www.clerus.org/statistica/4.htm
http://www.clerus.org/statistica/5.htm
What evidence do you have for that assertion? Here in our diocese the Catholic newspaper gives us a weekly dose of "reality" with statistics about the plummeting number of priests and the future of "priestless parishes."
The problem is the Catholic Church USA is going bankrupt in terms of attendance. Mass goers are dropping but parishes aren't, which leads to a staffing shortage. If parishes were reduced to a more realistic level given the numbers who actually avail themselves of what the Church offers, this wouldn't be a problem. America has about 7,000 parishes too many, since the number of practicing Catholics is off by about 1/3.
That wasn't the purpose of his article. Write your own article if you think you could do better.
No, we know the purpose - bash Pope, Bishops, and Vatican II for all evils. And I think I've written enough here in a much better and more thorough fashion to explain the numbers.
His purpose was to analyze the existing numbers for demonstrable trends within the data sets. This he has done admirably.
The sort of analysis is as falacious as projecting out the current Italian birthrate for 200 years are declaring 2300 will see a grand total of 600 Italians left in the world, or similar nonesense. Obviously, something will change along the way prior to that point.
Since the numbers he is using are not meaningful data sets, the conclusions are errant.
Only a conclusion if you are the type to jump to conclusions without any evidence. You haven't demonstrated one shred of evidence for this assertion.
Max, the data is widely available. Its probably in Jones book, waiting to be crunched out, aside from being available in the Annual Catholic Directory at any good library. Must I always do all your homework? If you want to discuss a subject as some sort of an expert, you could at least familiarize yourself with the raw data. Compare a 10 year set of seminary numbers with a 10 year set of ordinations over a 3 year lag, starting in say, 1955.
I don't consider that "wasting" at all. In fact, this was probably one of the best and most encouraging trends of the time period which was leading to a much more educated, involved, and spiritually active laity. Too bad this trend was hijacked by the revolutionaries in favor of false "involvement" and "activity."
Just look at where all these ex-seminarians are now. And look at how many of these supposed wondrous vocations defected in the end. Clearly not real vocations, were they?
1969, for example saw defections occurring at a rate nearly 60% of ordaintions. Today its about 25%. Look at the charts referenced above for your precious numbers, since you are too lazy to look it up yourself.
With no seminarians there are no priests and no holy sacrifice of the Mass, no matter how many people want to attend one on Sunday.
There isn't a problem of "no seminarians". There are fewer seminarians, but vastly more of them are persevering than the miraculous 50's and 60's vocations you are waxing nostalgic about.
Perhaps the decline in Mass attendance mirrors the fall of ordinations, not the other way around. Clearly all these indicators mirror the same fundamental causes.
There is only one fundemental cause. People voluntarily giving up their faith. No one has held a gun to anyone's head and said "leave the Church". No one has bolted up the door and refused entry. No one has said anyone is not allowed to buy books or teach their children. If people have left the Church or failed to teach their children the faith - ITS THEIR OWN FAULT! Not the Bishops, not the Parishes, not the Liberals, and not Vatican II. NO ONE DID IT BUT THEM! The same means that have always been available are still available. If people don't avail themselves of it, its not the fault of the Church, but their own fault.
The crisis in the Church is a crisis of the faithful leaving the Church for supposed greener pastures in Protestantism and Atheism.
There are no "factors" to take into account. He is not proving a correlation. He is analyzing the trends that exist within the existing set of data.
Stasticial massaging is what he is doing. Its worse than meaningless.
To call the data set "wrong" is just a presumptuous opinion with no factual basis.
Not so. If not all seminarians are ordained and the ratio ordained varies, obviously its useless to look at the number of seminarians to guage the future prospects of the Church.
A much more useful statistic is net annual gains of priests before natural deaths - ordaintions minus defections. 1969 saw 909 ordaintions and 541 defections for a net gain of 368. 1978 saw 635 ordainations and 254 defections for a net gain of 381. 1988 saw 491 ordinations and 186 defections for a net gain of 305. 1998 saw 417 ordinations and 119 defections for a net gain of 298.
That doesn't look like much of a crisis. Which is of course why your favorite Chicken-Little "Sky Is Falling" authors are not discussing it.
The reduction in force currently occuring in the numbers of priests is due to an excess priestly mortality over the net annual ordaintions currently occuring. Once this passes in perhaps a decade or so, we will see things level out and rebuilding occur. Until then, you can either squawk like an old biddy or keep your cool and your powder dry. The phenomena is no different than what might be expected from my smaller "Baby Bust" generation following the larger "Baby Boom" generation.
'48-'68 saw 25,000,000 newly baptized Catholics. '69-'89 saw 20,000,000. Obviously, we can expect fewer priests out of a smaller generation, especially one whose elders failed to rear in the Catholic faith in many persons. The obvious comparison is also to Marriages. Whereas about 100% of baptied Catholics married in the Church in the 1960's, only about 50% do today. Given that, and the decline in population, its rather remarkable that net annual ordainations have only gone from 370 to 300.
If "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel," then character assassination is the first refuge of the neo-Catholic apologist. You have no arguments so you attack the author. Someone is being dishonest here, but it is not the author of the original piece.
What is a "neo-Catholic"? Isn't that a form of schismatic integrist character assassination? Pot, kettle, black, and all that Max? How am I a "neo-Catholic" whatever the hell that is. (I guess its someone who does not kiss the ass of Ferrara, Woods, Williamson, Fellay, Horvat, Matt, etc.?)
And how is it "dishonest" to point out the obvious flaws in the analysis, and the clear agenda you forthrightly express in ignoring the meaningful statistics? You complain, but have no real rebuttal. I doubt you'll do any better against this post.