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.
A defender of the regime of novelty.
Many many people were told to leave the Church. Anyone who refused to go along with the new program was told in no uncertain terms that they were not welcome.
No one has bolted up the door and refused entry.
Many, many Catholics found the doors of their churches bolted, prior to the arrival of the wrecking crew, so that some new modern monstrosity could take its place.
No one has said anyone is not allowed to buy books or teach their children.
Millions upon millions of Catholics have sent their children to Catholic schools, often at great personal sacrifice, believing that they were being taught the faith, only to find out that the faith of their children was destroyed through the teaching of insidious heresies using catechism materials that are outright denials of the Catholic faith.
If people have left the Church or failed to teach their children the faith - ITS THEIR OWN FAULT!
The Church is here to save souls, not condemn them. To say that the tens of millions of souls who have fallen away from the faith deserved to go to Hell is callousness of a high order. The shepherds had a divine obligation to protect their sheep. "The good shepherd give his life for his sheep." You cannot reconcile the statement above with a genuine Catholic concern for souls.
Not the Bishops, not the Parishes, not the Liberals, and not Vatican II. NO ONE DID IT BUT THEM!
Not true. Lay Catholics never asked or wanted any of this. They never asked for a new Mass. They never asked for a new morality. They never asked for new catechisms. They wanted to continue practicing the Catholic faith, but they were denied that opportunity by the bishops and the parishes and the liberals all acting in the name of Vatican II.
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.
Only the despised traditionalists are publishing any of the materials that used to be available. The major publishing houses have gone out of business. The mainstream Church publishes absolutely nothing of Catholic tradition. An ordinary Catholic attending a New Mass parish has no clue that anything ever existed prior to 1962. They deliberately suppress all knowledge of everything that happened before the revolution, just like Orwell described.
The crisis in the Church is a crisis of the faithful leaving the Church for supposed greener pastures in Protestantism and Atheism.
If you have true faith in the Catholic Church, then you know that souls will not voluntarily leave the true Church and the true Faith for greener pastures. If they are given the true Faith, if they are served by true shepherds, if the reality of grace is communicated to them, they will never leave for protestantism or atheism or any other -ism. A few will always fall away, but the mass defections we are currently witnessing can only be a sign that the faithful are being unlawfully denied their rightful heritage which is the fullnes of the Catholic Faith.