Index of Leading Catholic Indicators

Una Voce America ^ | June 2003 | Una Voce America

[Maximilian]

UVA Interviews Ken Jones, Author of Index of Leading Catholic Indicators

Una Voce America director Fred Haehnel recently sat down with Ken Jones, vice president of Una Voce St. Charles, to discuss his new book, Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II. Mr. Jones is an attorney and legal publisher in St. Louis. His translation from the French of Cardinal Hoyos’ letter to Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X was published in the August-September 2002 issue of Inside the Vatican.

Why did you decide to put together your Index of Leading Catholic Indicators?
For two reasons primarily. First, there really isn’t any other single, easy-to-read source that collects the vital statistics of the Church. This book was born out of frustration. I had heard a lot of vague references to a “priest shortage,” but I discovered that when I wanted to examine the extent of the shortage or the trends over several decades, it was difficult to get my hands on a good reference. Moreover, statistics about other areas of Church life besides the priesthood - such as nuns, Catholic school students, baptisms and marriages - were even more difficult to find. I spent a lot of time tracking down these numbers, and decided to write the book because I thought other people would be interested in looking at them too.

My second reason for writing the book was to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the effects of the Second Vatican Council. We all have our own gut feelings about the Church since Vatican II. Some insist we’re experiencing a vibrant renewal, others say we’re suffering through an era of unprecedented disintegration. I’m a lawyer - I want evidence, not feelings or anecdotes, to support my verdict.

What is your verdict?
I can only agree with what Cardinal Ratzinger said: “We find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence. ... It is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.” Since Cardinal Ratzinger made these remarks in 1984, the crisis in the Church has accelerated. In every area that is statistically verifiable – for example, the number of priests, seminarians, priestless parishes, nuns, Mass attendance, converts and annulments – the “process of decadence” is undeniable.

Do you find any of the statistics particularly striking?
The crisis in the priesthood is obviously of supreme concern for all Catholics, since a lack of priests diminishes our access to the sacraments. One little statistic that encapsulates the crisis is this - there are more priests age 80 to 84 than there are age 30 to 34. Looking at it from a strictly secular point of view, there’s not much of a future for any organization that has more front-line workers in their 80's than in their 30's. The handwriting is on the wall. By 2020 there will be only about 15,000 priests below the age of 70.

The shortage of priests has created a problem unknown to modern Catholics – the priestless parish. Parishes without a resident priest were virtually unknown at the time of the Council; only 3 percent of them, 549, were without a priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.

As one would expect, the priest dearth has been fueled by a collapse in the seminarian population. There were 49,000 seminarians in 1965. By 2002 the number had plunged to 4,700 - a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, countless seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.

The devastation of religious orders of women since Vatican II can only be described as shocking. In 1965 there were almost 180,000 nuns in the United States. Today there are 75,000, with an average age of 69. By 2020 we have projected that there will be 21,000 below age 70. It is not being an alarmist to say that within our lifetime, there will be virtually no nuns in the United States - a stunning turn of events since 1965.

Do the statistics show anything about the ordinary life of Catholics?
Again, in all areas there has been a dramatic decline. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms, in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms - converts - in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1968 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.

Attendance at Mass has also plummeted. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

What about Catholic education?
This is one area that particularly surprised me, because I was not aware of how dramatically enrollment has declined at Catholic schools since the Council. For example, between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786, and the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000. At the grade school level, there were 10,503 parochial schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.

Some people say, “We know the numbers have declined since the Council, but the downward trend started before the Council.” How do you respond?
I respond by saying it’s simply not true. An especially helpful feature to my book is that my statistical analysis starts in the 1920s and 1930s, so trends can be discovered. For example, look at the number of total seminarians. There were about 9,000 in 1920, 17,000 in 1940, 25,000 in 1950, almost 40,000 in 1960, and 49,000 in 1965 - a consistent trend upward. In 1970 there were 28,000 seminarians - a decline of over 41 percent in just five years. In 2002 there were 4,700. This pattern is reflected in every area - a steady increase until the Council, and a dramatic decline afterwards.

Here’s another objection. Some people might say that you’re making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument - just because something happened after the Council doesn’t mean it was caused by the Council. Do you have an answer to that?
My response is this. For several decades before the Council, the Church in America was in the midst of an unprecedented period of growth. Immediately after the Council, which was called to renew the Church - to make the numbers even better, really - we were hit with a tremendous decline in every area. The correlation is just too striking to deny.

In the end, though, my purpose in writing the Index of Leading Catholic Indicators is not to make any argument at all - it’s simply to present the facts to people so they can come to their own conclusions.

[Maximilian]

Here is the article again, having deleted the last line which had provided a link to a website selling the book. The moderators pulled the first posting for being a "solicitation," but this interview is the top "Headline News" story on Seattle Catholic this morning.

[Maximilian]

Let's try this again. Excellent article provides the statistical documentation regarding the true situation in the Church. In a short interview, he refutes the "post hoc" canard as well as the other justifications for the collapse since Vatican II.

[Loyalist]

PING.

To underscore the point more clearly: the United States probably has suffered least drastically under the post-conciliar decline in the West.

[Notwithstanding]

Or is this?

[Notwithstanding]

[OpusatFR]

"Here’s another objection. Some people might say that you’re making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument - just because something happened after the Council doesn’t mean it was caused by the Council..."

I'm not that smart by any means, but the fruit of a thing is what we judge. That my kids had lots of problems finding Catholic wives, not CINO's but acutal practicing Catholic wives tells a lot. And I'm sorry, but it is absolutely vital to our family that the girls they marry are ~Catholic~.

[ex-snook]

Thanks for the repost.

"just because something happened after the Council doesn’t mean it was caused by the Council. "

I think he might have dismissed this too readily. Was Vat II itself the 'spirit' of some zeitgeist? (Zeitgeist is German for "the spirit of the age,").

I have noticed the absence of younger people in Church membership groups (Knights of Columbus, at retreats, Holy Name and Altar Societies are done gone with the wind). Political party choices becomming 'independent'. However, soccer fields, movies and dance recitals are booming. It's parent choice - but what drives the choice? Is it really for the children or for the parents?

Find what has destroyed 'commitment' and I think the answer will be closer to explaining the statistics.

[ninenot]

Was Vat II itself the 'spirit' of some zeitgeist?

Interesting question.

[Aquinasfan]

And I'm sorry, but it is absolutely vital to our family that the girls they marry are ~Catholic~.

Can they wait ten years for my daughters? ;-)

At age 8, my oldest knows that she's supposed to look for a Catholic husband so that they can raise Catholic children.

[Gerish]

Have not read the book yet, but will look into it.

My take on this - the year the Church starting falling apart? 1968

Reason: HUMANAE VITAE!

[OpusatFR]

LOL! Too young, alas, but I do have some very nice eight and nine year old nephews that are coming along nicely!

[sitetest]

Dear Aquinasfan,

"Can they wait ten years for my daughters? ;-)"

LOL. I may have a solution for you. They are nearly 9 and 6, respectively. The older wants a smaller family. Under 10: the younger doesn't understand why the older is so limited in his imagination.


sitetest

[ultima ratio]

Some of those who use the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument try to have it both ways. They claim Vatican II is the most important event in modern Church history while at the same time they deny it had any influence at all on all the bad statistics. It won't fly.

[Maximilian]

They claim Vatican II is the most important event in modern Church history while at the same time they deny it had any influence at all on all the bad statistics.

As a recent article here said, "Will we maybe discover another cataclymic event that happened in the Church between 1962 and 1966?"

[dsc]

"Using pretentious arcane words to buttress your argument"

Isn't it funny that the word for that is "sesquipedalianism?"

[OpusatFR]

LOL! I had to check that one out. That's a William Buckley $10 one.

[attagirl]

I have noticed the absence of younger people in Church membership groups (Knights of Columbus, at retreats, Holy Name and Altar Societies are done gone with the wind

Sad, but true. In our parish, the Rosary Society is the hospitality committee. It does NOT pray the Rosary! I refused to join.

[Robert Drobot]

Yours is a great opportunity.

Begin distributing handouts on the Rosary - copy them from the web. Do it weekly. Watch for incremental changes. The Rosary and a Latin/English Sunday Missal ( in the anticipation of a return to oldest of Roman Catholic traditions ) are two wonderful gifts the hospitality committee can buy, and distribute freely to interested parishioners of your parish.

Create the interest.

Shake off the stagnation of a passive-social parish in favor of an active faith-based parish. You have been blessed with a task. Go with it!

[Diva]

I can only agree with what Cardinal Ratzinger said: “We find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence. ... It is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.”

First, thanks for posting this article. I "Poped" in 1978 and spent several decades trying to find the Catholic Church I had seen in all those movies from the 40s and 50s. I didn't know much about Vatican II but since I became a Catholic I have heard many explainations as to why the Church in America is in the condition it is in...not healthy to say the least. But, recently, I'd say in the past three years I've heard one from a very traditional (still inside the Church) friend and I find it interesting to say the least. He claims that Vatican II was the "fall-back" position. In other words there was a lot of up-heaval within the Church heirarchy that most of the faithful were completely unaware existed. This coincides with another argument I've read concerning what happened at the Council. This one suggests that two of the three Cardinals who set the agenda and controlled the flow of discussion were radical in their desire for change. They were also quite intelligent in the manner and use of words in the Counciliar documents leaving lots of "wiggle room" so to speak. What do ya think?