How the Zeitgeist Affected the Catholic Church in the U.S. after Vatican II

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, held from 1962 to 1965 at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, had as its objectives the renewal of the Catholic Church and to modernize its forms and institutions.1 Unfortunately, during and after the Council, the Zeitgeist – the German term for “spirit of the age” – was largely responsible for the decline in certain key aspects of the Catholic Church in the U.S. These aspects are the number of priests and religious, weekly church attendance by its members, and the state of Catholic marriage. The Zeitgeist also fostered the rise of dissident Catholic organizations and individuals who have often misrepresented the teachings of Vatican II in order to promote their own agendas.

Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis researched and compiled a number of statistics which he titled “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II,” published in 2003. Among his findings:2 While the number of priests in the U.S. more than doubled to 58,000 between 1930 and 1965, since then, that number has fallen to 45,000, and by 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left; the number of seminarians declined over 90 percent between 1965 and 2002; in 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns, but by 2002, that number had fallen to 75,000; a 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended Mass on Sundays, but a recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend; Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments rose from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

One area of decline that can, and should, be explored more in detail is Catholic marriage. In the Church, marriage (matrimony) is considered one of the seven sacraments. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses' community of persons, which embraces their entire life: ‘so they are no longer two, but one flesh.’ They ‘are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.’ This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony…” (no. 1644).

This brings us to the issue of annulments. The term is usually used in reference to the sacrament of matrimony. Marriages can be declared invalid for a variety of reasons: lack of canonical form if one party is Catholic and thus required to be married in the presence of a priest, deacon or bishop; the existence of an undispensed impediment; the presence of psychological factors that render one or both parties incapable of knowing what they were doing or of assuming the fundamental responsibilities of marriage.3 Church officials, in the form of a tribunal, are required to investigate all aspects of a marriage and divorce before declaring that marriage null and void. Once an annulment is granted, the parties involved are free to marry in the Church.

One reason for the large increase in the number of annulments in the past three decades has to do with procedural changes in canon law. The main, reason, however, appears to be the fact that the divorce rate, from 1960 to 1991, increased 133 percent.4 The percentage of marriages currently ending in divorce is debatable, but it nonetheless is significant.

There are, of course, a number of reasons why a marriage might end in divorce. An oft-overlooked (and politically incorrect) reason is the widespread use of contraception, even among Catholic married couples. In a published lecture titled Contraception: Why Not?, Dr. Janet E. Smith, Chair of Life Issues at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Mich., discusses why the divorce rate doubled between 1965, when 25 percent of marriages ended in divorce, and 1975, when 50 percent of marriages ended in divorce.5 Smith cites the research of social scientist Robert Michael, who concluded "that as the contraceptive pill became more and more available, divorce became more and more popular."6 In fact, Michael attributed "45 percent of this increase [in divorce] to increased use of contraceptives."

There are three reasons for this, according to Michael. First, his statistical data showed "that those who use contraceptives have fewer children and have them later in marriage…those who have the first baby in the first two years of marriage and another baby in the next couple years of marriage, have a much longer lasting marriage than those who don't." Secondly, Michael found that "since contraceptives have arrived on the scene, there is much more adultery than there was before."

Observes Smith: "People have been tempted, for the history of mankind. It's easy enough to think about wanting to have an affair, but wanting a child out of wedlock is another story. But if most every woman is contracepting, then most every woman is available in a certain sense and there is no real reason to say no. Adultery is absolutely devastating to marriages."

The third explanation, says Dr. Smith, is "that women are financially more independent. They do have fewer children. They do go into the work place. And, again, when they have difficulties in the marriage, it's much [easier] to say, ‘Take a walk,’ than it is to work it out because they need their husband for one fewer reason than they did before."

Between 1960 and 1991, abortions increased 800 percent.7 The general consensus is that, subsequent to the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions legalizing abortion-on-demand, there have been, and continues to be, well over 1,000,000 surgical abortions committed each year. The number of chemical abortions, caused by abortifacient birth control, is estimated to be 14,000,000 each year.8 Sadly, despite the Catholic Church’s clear teaching on abortion – that it is an intrinsically evil act – a 1996 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute has shown that Catholic women are more likely to procure abortions than Protestant women.9 In fact, Catholic women make up 31 percent of the population and account for 31 percent of the abortions.10 (An interesting side note: A major finding of the survey was that 57.5 percent of women aborting their children say they were using a contraceptive the month they became pregnant.)11

Also between 1960 and 1991, child abuse increased more than 500 percent.12 This, of course, has been a problem even in the Church, specifically in regard to sexual abuse by members of the clergy and religious, which has made national and world headlines in the last few years. A study commissioned in 2002 by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), done in response to hundreds of sex-abuse accusations that were made in nearly every U.S. Catholic diocese, found that from 1950 to 2002, there were 10,667 cases of abuse.13 Interestingly, the study found that 81 percent of sex crimes committed against children by Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys.14

Such is an illustration of how the Cultural/Sexual Revolution influenced – perhaps “infected” would be a better term – a number of Church officials who seemingly let sexual deviants into the priesthood. Indeed, one could even say that deviancy was promoted at certain seminaries. Catholic author Michael S. Rose, in his 2002 book Goodbye! Good Men, quotes Father John Trigilio about an incident at the seminary in the 1980’s: 15

“‘We had the state police come in and arrest one of my classmates because he allegedly went to some 15-year-old kid’s house during the afternoon and took pictures of him in his underwear. The rest of us never found out how he knew this poor kid, but we were having an evening class when the trooper arrived with a warrant for his arrest, cuffed him, and took him right then and there in front of everybody. The next day in the local newspaper ran a full story on a Catholic seminarian charged with corruption of the morals of a minor and other things.’ Trigilio pointed out that up to the moment of that seminarian’s arrest, the suspect was getting excellent evaluations because he was ‘tolerant, flexible, and liberal-minded,’ i.e., he went along with the faculty on everything.

Other notable aspects of cultural decay between 1960 and 1991: the teen suicide rate increased 214 percent; cohabitation increased 279 percent; the percentage of single-parent families increased 214 percent; the juvenile violent crime rate increased 295 percent; the illegitimate birthrate increased 457 percent; and the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) increased 245 percent.16 In fact, today there are more than two dozen varieties of STDs, from pelvic inflammatory disease (which renders more than 100,000 American women infertile each year) to AIDS (which presently infects 42 million people worldwide and has already killed another 23 million).17

This brings us to the subject – or person, rather – of Alfred C. Kinsey. Kinsey (1894 – 1956) was the director of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University.18 The degenerate zoologist, known in certain circles as the “father of the sexual revolution,” almost single-handedly redefined the sexual mores of everyday Americans.19 His books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female weakened the bonds of personal chastity and sexual restraint in the U.S.20 Kinsey was a man who attempted to use science to promote his disordered sexuality. An overview of an investigative report by WorldNetDaily.com, titled "Obsessed with Sex: How Kinsey's fraudulent science unleashed a catastrophic 'revolution' in America," states: 21 Kinsey, the ‘heroic scientist’ whose ‘research’ launched the sexual revolution and provides the ‘scientific’ basis for it to this very day, was a fraud. He relied on interviews with hundreds of prisoners and sexual psychopaths, while pretending he was surveying normal citizens. He threw out large amounts of data that didn't fit his predetermined conclusions. He encouraged his wife and fellow ‘scientists’ to engage in wild group sex, and filmed these sessions in his attic. Though Kinsey's widely publicized conclusions that Americans are amoral sexual animals were fraudulent, far worse was the indisputable fact that he encouraged criminal pedophiles to conduct horrifying, Dr. Mengele-like sexual experiments on hundreds of children. That's right, Kinsey relied on friendly child-molesters, whose identities he protected from the law, to sexually abuse literally hundreds of children, ranging from just a few months of age up to 15 years, to gather his ‘scientific data’ on child sexuality. Ultimately, the sixties culture did influence Catholics who were trying to find their way in the secular culture in regard to sexual morality, with sad consequences in the years to follow.22 To quote Catholic author and social critic E. Michael Jones:23 “The Catholic Left, otherwise known as dissent, is made up of the Catholics who sided with the Enlightenment during the Cultural Revolution of the `60s. Their issue is and was contraception.”

Indeed, in 1968, when Pope Paul VI promulgated the encyclical Humanae Vitae – which reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s constant teaching that contraception is intrinsically immoral - a number of American Catholics, clergy and laity, reacted with public dissent. There had been speculation that the Pope would “reverse” the Church’s teaching, primarily because an advisory commission he formed to study the issue advised him to do so. But such was not the case, much to the dismay of the Church’s secular critics and the Catholic dissenters. It is currently estimated that 80 to 90 percent of Catholic couples use some form of contraception, in violation of Church teaching.

In the 1970s, Call to Action was formed. Call to Action is a group of purported Catholics who dissent from the Church’s teachings on issues pertaining to contraception, homosexuality, the male-only priesthood and other matters. These dissenters on the left speak of an endless array of stunted imitation “churches” such as AmChurch, HouseChurch, GreenChurch, FemChurch, NewChurch, WomenChurch, FutureChurch, FreeChurch, WeChurch and MeChurch – anything and everything but the authentic Roman Catholic Church.24 As they implement concepts such as “small faith communities” and “constitutions” at every level, the dissenters hope that the Church will be reduced from a single immovable rock to a disorganized heap of pebbles, each of which is completely different from every other.25

In conclusion, it is all too apparent that the decline in key aspects of the Catholic Church in the U.S. were due, directly and indirectly, to the zeitgeist: specifically, the Cultural/Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, which had its roots in the Enlightenment. Essentially, the corrupt clergy and laity in the Church have been infected, to varying degrees, by the very worst elements of society. Of course, this is no way absolves their misbehavior and, in some cases, outright criminal activity. If anything, they should know better. Everything considered, however, it makes more sense to blame the crisis in the Church on the widespread cultural and moral decay instead of on Vatican II itself.

The pope's done a great job of reversing that trend, huh?

Well, used to be that the Church threatened everyone with eternal damnation was one not to fulfill the Sunday obligation. Nowadays most people aren't inclined to buy into that anymore. Love of God is expected to be enough to get folks into the pews, but apparently that's not as effective as the coersion of the promise of hell. But the pope has done one heckuva job of trying for those with ears to hear.

I must be misunderstanding what you mean by that phrase, because it is the Church that has consistently adapted to the world, from my perspective. Care to explain what you mean?

No. The Church has adapted the World. Not itself to the World. It's the Church's influence that has shaped language, the arts, the morality, the laws, from simple things like foods such as the pretzel, or phrases such as "Goodbye" or "God Bless you" to the art of Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Tintoretto, El Greco, to the music of Vivaldi, Palestrina and so on. Even the term "grace period" refers to a generous practice of the HOly Inquisition. Advertising techniques of today can be traced to the concept of altar pieces folding out. Had the Church held firm at Vatican II and followed the original schema, the 60's would not have been so turbulant.

Neither Paul VI nor JPII was ever interested in changing moral doctrine. Both from time to time made declarations supportive of traditional Catholic morality--Paul VI with Humanae Vitae, JPII with countless declarations against abortion and homosexuality.

But neither was fully supportive of the traditional faith itself. Both Paul VI and JPII knew exactly who their opponents were. Inevitably the men who were isolated supported the old theology and the established dogmas of faith, particularly Transubstantiation and Propitiatory Sacrifice.

Not daring to deny the doctrines of faith directly, however, both popes deliberately created facts on the ground which would inevitably undermine the old faith everywhere and which carried the virus of modernism into the bosom of the Church.

The one concocted a new vehicle for transmitting a protestantizing, watered-down faith--the New Mass. The other pushed an unprecedented ecumenism that bordered on indifferentism and syncretism. Both deliberately suppressed whatever dogmas were uniquely Catholic.

There's no mystery to any of this. Paul is on record as approving Blondel, the father of modernist philosophy. John Paul gave red hats to modernists like deLubac--who openly denied dogma--and Lehman and Kasper who were publicly heretical. Both pontiffs persecuted Lefebvre who clung to the ancient faith.

Many believe it was not possible that in such a short span of years such a systemic collapse of the old faith should have been unintended by the Holy See. I concur with this analysis. It certainly seems intended. That is to say, it seems to have been planned all along at the very top.

It's the Church's influence that has shaped...

The Michaelangelo's of the rennaisance were studying the art of Rome and Greece,and the ideas of Plato, not the Church. Baroque artists represented the exorbitant wealth and excess of the nation state and the monarchy, not the Church. "Where the church goes...." When did the church go communist or develop constitutional republics or wage wars in search of WMD's? I think alot has happened without and despite the Church. I"m not saying that the Church hasn't been a huge influence, but that phrase just doesn't seem right. The world is not following the Church today.

Our Lord has chosen The Church to be the source of grace for the world, through the Sacraments. Man cannot overcome his fallen nature without supernatural grace, first through baptism, then primarily through Holy Communion and Confession. Man cannot help but fall into sin apart from grace.

Besides giving grace to those assisting at mass, each valid and reverent Holy Sacrifice of the Mass also brings enormous graces into the world. This acts as actual grace upon people, calling them to conversion and repentance. It is also the force that holds the natural world in order, instead of chaos.

When the mass, and the other sacraments were attacked and changed their efficacy was reduced, and so was the supply of grace to the world. The practice of the faith weakened, less vocations and a diminishment of the priesthood, less masses, (and very few of them pleasing to the Lord in my estimate), less grace for the world.

Without supernatural grace, chaos will reign.

Now just for a moment imagine that you are Satan's strategist, and you want to help him pull as many souls down as you can, what would you advise him to attack? The source of supernatural grace, The Church, and primarily the mass and the priesthood. Without the priesthood no mass and sacraments, without sacraments no grace.

This is exactly what the enemy within the Church has done.

Let me see if I get this straight. You think the sexual revolution was more devastating than the fall of the Roman Empire or the French Revolution? Okay, let's grant your thesis. Then why, in God's name, did Vatican II choose this time of all times to loosen its grip on morality? Why did it decide seminarians, for instance, would no longer study in monastic settings but would be embedded with other college students on campus? Did the council fathers WANT seminarians to go cruising in gay bars on weekends along with college kids? Why did they open the floodgates to annulments by redefining marriage at the very time marriages were most vulnerable? Why did they did they foster the very breakdown in discipline which would result in a tidal wave of theological tomes encouraging the new morality? Do you think a Charles Curran or an Andrew Greeley would have been tolerated in the preconciliar Church? I don't think so. It was the Second Vatican Council that gave them the permissive climate in which to publish their tripe. Believe me, if the Council fathers had wanted the Church to fail in its every endeavor for the next forty years, they couldn't have done a better job of it.

The Michaelangelo's of the rennaisance were studying the art of Rome and Greece,and the ideas of Plato, not the Church.

Michealangelo took the pagan artwork of Ancient Greece (and Egypt) and Christianized it. They did not seek to take the Church and conform it to the tastes of the modern day. They took the aesthetic qualities that were true and uplifting in ancient art forms and fulfilled their potential with Christian imagery (and consequently improved on the quality)

Baroque artists represented the exorbitant wealth and excess of the nation state and the monarchy, not the Church.

Which Baroque artists are you talking about? Certainly not those of the Flemish, Dutch or Greek Traditions. Rembrandt for one was certainly providing magnificent works based on themes of Catholic origin. In fact, just take it back a few steps. Painting itself stems from religious mosaics. Stained glass is the remnant of that craft.

"Where the church goes...." When did the church go communist

Liberation theology. Had the Church held firm that nightmare would never have happened.

or develop constitutional republics or wage wars in search of WMD's?

"Freedom" "Liberty" Aligning the Church with the principles of the Revolution. You are looking at the post-Vatican II world. The Church dropped the Ball and the power vacuum has been filled (or attempted to be filled) by the U.S.A.

I think alot has happened without and despite the Church. I"m not saying that the Church hasn't been a huge influence, but that phrase just doesn't seem right. The world is not following the Church today.

That's because the Church has stopped leading. It greeted the World at Vatican II. "All power is given me in Heaven and on Earth." He said, "All power" and that power resides in the Keys of the See of Peter. If a Pope decides to use them for God's purpose and the governments of the World take a stand against him. Woe to the world.

***Actually, I think the fall of Christianity in Europe was caused directly by the two World Wars,***

It is my understanding that occultism was rampant in Germany / Austria in the years preceeding WWII - even in the churches.

The unmooring of the culture from its Christian morality gave space for the ugly demon of Nazism to raise it's amoral head and find a firm foothold in the soul of Germany.

Nazism filled the void left by dying European Christianity.

What an asinine and terribly unlearned statement. As if all of our greatest artists were of a monolithic, uninspired and secular mind.

Would you mind explaining how the philosophy of Plato has anything whatsoever do with with the works of Rembrandt?

I'm amazed at what you are saying. Don't you realize that the Christian Democratic Party was the dominant party across Europe for decades after World War II? In Italy, Austria, West Germany, France, the Netherlands--it was the dominant political force during the reconstruction period. It saved the West from Communism--and it was directly connected to the Catholic Church. I don't know where you guys get your history from, but you have a lot of catching up to do. The Church was NOT in decline--it was a force to be reconned with right up to the close of the Council. Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Ireland--each was not only considered Catholic, but strongly Catholic. Church attendance was high--somewhere around 80%.

I believe Christianity did experience a renewal in the POST war years (of which little trace can now be seen). This was due in no small part to men being hung out over the burning pit of hell (in what they had experienced in the War)

I can tell you for a fact that Christianity in Germany was in a shambles prior to WWII. This was largly because of post WWI existentialism and theological liberalism (Germany being the center of the storm). Austria also.

Why do you think Hitler was able to so easily transfer such intense devotion to himself? It was because people had lost sight of Christ.

***It saved the West from Communism***

But not Socialism - right?

***Church attendance was high--somewhere around 80%.***

Church attendance figures do not necessarily reflect the state of devotion in the heart of a people.

"The Michaelangelo's of the rennaisance were studying the art of Rome and Greece,and the ideas of Plato, not the Church. Baroque artists represented the exorbitant wealth and excess of the nation state and the monarchy, not the Church."

You are wrong if you think Renaissance and Baroque art and architecture were not primarily influenced by the Church. It was the papal treasury that drove the European awakening. Renaissance popes were wild about art and learning. And it was Plato and Aristotle who had formed the basis for Augustinian and Thomistic theologies and the writings of Abelard and Aquinas and later Suarez and Bellarmine. Read Aquinas. He was as apt to cite Aristotle as Scripture. And without scholastic philosophy, you would never have had the flowering of the great universities of Europe. In fact, the Church had lost Greek philosophy--and it was the Church's great Crusades that brought these writers back to the European continent from Islam--which gave impetus to the revival of philosophy and theology and the rise of the universities. You need to rethink what you've just posted.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.