Posted on 07/28/2025 10:54:18 AM PDT by ebb tide
From the summary of a major new paper just published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), in Cambridge, Massachusetts, authored by some of the greatest names in Economic research, including the famous Dr. Barro, of Harvard University, Dr. Dewitte, of the University of Oxford, and Dr. Iannaccone, of Chapman University:
Looking Backward: Long-Term Religious Service Attendance in 66 Countries
Robert J. Barro, Edgard Dewitte & Laurence Iannaccone
Issue Date July 2025
The attendance rate at religious services is an important variable for the sociology and economics of religion, but long-term and global data are scarce. Retrospective questions from the International Social Survey Program (ISSP) allow the construction of rates of religious-service attendance back as far as the 1920s in 66 countries, half from the “Global South.” A number of checks support the reliability of the retrospective information. One exercise demonstrates the consistency between retrospective and contemporaneous survey data when the two overlap. Another procedure shows that the retrospective values are similar when generated from individual ISSP surveys for 1991, 1998, 2008, and 2018; that is, there is no clear dependence of memory on the number of years of recall. The new data document a century-long “Great Religious Divergence” between North and South. We use the data to carry out event studies for effects on religious-service attendance of two major events. Vatican II, in 1962-1965, triggered a decline in worldwide Catholic attendance relative to that in other denominations. In contrast, the endings of Communism in the early 1990s did not systematically affect religious-service attendance. Finally, in a large sample, religious-service attendance responds positively to wars and depressions. [source]
From the text of the working paper itself, available in PDF for download at the linked website, comes this:
Using an event-study design, we find that rates of religious-service attendance in predominantly Catholic countries started to decrease relative to those of all other countries and to those of other Christian countries precisely in the aftermath of Vatican II. This result holds for adult and child religious-service attendance and also holds when using the share of a country’s catholic adherents as a continuous measure of a country’s exposure. Overall, the Catholic relative attendance rate fell by four percentage points per decade between 1965 and 2015. This pattern is consistent with religion modeled as a club good (Iannaccone [1992]) and with the view that Vatican II shattered the perception of an immovable, truthholding Church (Greeley [2004], MacCulloch [2010]). More generally, these results might explain why many religious authorities are reluctant to modernize their doctrine or reduce barriers to religious participation.
The mathematical model is unassailable, and the study of the consequences of Vatican II for attendance occupy a good part of the 73-page-long paper. It is worth every paragraph, and hopefully the new American pope will be presented with the paper and its conclusions.
Ping
Want to see my shocked face?
In other news, water is wet ... fire burns ... skunks stink ... sharks bite ... and communists lie.
Weaken the brand, weaken the faith, weaken the faithful.
I remember having to learn all the Mass prayers in Latin so I could be an altar boy. By the time I started my Jesuit high school where we started every day with Mass it had become a guitar hootenany.
I mean, who would have guessed?
At least the Pope is now Catholic again.
That’s libs, for ya, whatever the context in which they arise: they fixate on their goals and what they imagine are the strategies to bring the goals about. Be damned if their good intentions wreck the city, state, country, or church that they rule
The only thing that can save the Church is reversal of Vat II and acceptance of TLM.
“Vatican II, in 1962-1965, triggered a decline in worldwide Catholic attendance relative to that in other denominations.” I’m old enough to remember my Mom asking my Dad: “Why did they change it?”.
Were they bad people, or stupid people?
If "they" wanted to diminish or destroy the Church's moral authority and cultural influence, what would "they" have done differently?
Leave it to “Rotate” to intentionally leave out vital information and rotate the truth regarding the ever more secular Western world since the 1960s. BTW, the Southern Hemisphere numbers remain stable and the fall of communism didn’t sustain church growth.
So ebby, I am sure you have heard of Greeley. Rotate absolutely has and it is likely Rotate probably never painted in Greeley in a positive manner; but here he is, the basis for your ridiculous quote. Here are a few tidbits:
Andrew M. Greeley is widely regarded as holding liberal-leaning positions on many social and Church-related issues. He was an outspoken critic of Church hierarchy on matters such as birth control, divorce, and the ordination of women, and supported reforms that traditionalists opposed...Oh, he loves birth control. What about the gays, ebby? Dollars to donuts?
Politically, Greeley was described as having “a steadfast, liberal-leaning perspective” and self-identified with New Deal liberalism, grounded in an acute sense of family and neighborhood. On economic issues, his views could sometimes be characterized as libertarian, showing a mix of positions across the ideological spectrum. Analysts often said that his political and theological stances resist easy categorization; he was progressive on issues of social justice, gender equality, and church reform.
Andrew M. Greeley was never formally punished by the Catholic Church despite being a controversial and outspoken priest who often criticized the Church hierarchy. Although some considered him an embarrassment to the Church and he was frequently criticized for his views and writings. Both Greeley and you like to criticize the Church - ImagineThat!
Oh, as for those pesky gays, ebby: Andrew M. Greeley’s thoughts on homosexuality, especially in the context of the Catholic priesthood, were nuanced and marked by opposition to hysteria and condemnation. He argued against the widespread fear and moral panic within the Church about homosexual priests. Greeley suggested that the intensity of the Church’s condemnation of gay priests was not supported by the facts and considered the Vatican’s ban on homosexuals from seminaries and the priesthood to be unpersuasive and hysterical. He believed that homosexual priests should be left alone as long as they avoided the stereotypical “gay scene” and “gay lifestyle.”
Greeley recognized that there have been gay priests, bishops, popes, and saints and emphasized that many priests with a homosexual orientation are generous, sensitive, and excellent in their ministry. Moreover, Greeley strongly criticized the Church hierarchy for its condemnation of gay priests and saw no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, challenging common accusations prevalent in some parts of the Church. ImagineThat!
In summary, Andrew M. Greeley advocated for tolerance, understanding, and a celibate lifestyle for homosexual priests, and he was critical of the Church’s harsh stance and “hysteria” on this issue.
Just like you, ebby? Critics Unite! You are two peas in a pod! He certainly sounds like a man you might promote? It seems so. You do so by posting this posting.
Is Rotate embarrassed by their lack of candor about Greeley? Are you embarrassed by posting something you don’t know (i.e., ignorance), ebby? I doubt it. Two Peas in protest. ImagineThat!
Foister,
You continue to express your perverted defense of sodomites and sodomy.
As we all can see, nothing has changed.
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.