Author Kenneth Jones Provides Statistical Evidence of Post-Vatican II Decline in the Catholic Church

Catholic Citizens News Service ^ | 8/12/2003 | Karl Maurer

[Land of the Irish]

Kenneth Jones’ statistic research work first appeared in Latin Mass magazine in the Nineties. As a CPA working in the investments industry at that time, I was already immersed in charts, graphs and financial reports comparing projections and actual results. I knew the decline in the Church had been precipitous since the Sixties, but in page after page of simple bar charts awful truth sank in. A picture says a thousand words, good or bad. It occurred to me then that the quantitative approach to the charting the decline since Vatican II would make a good book someday, and that day has come.

Mr. Jones addressed the Catholic Citizens of Illinois monthly lunch forum on August 8th (held on the second Friday of every month at the Chicago Athletic Association) discussing his new book, The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, (Oriens Publishing, St. Louis, MO.) He could have easily subtitled this work with any number of clever by-lines, but showing a lawyer’s restraint, he delivers the numbers straight up with simple charts and tables covering the period 1920 to 2000, and with projections through 2020 in most cases, based on the trends since the Sixties. His sources of data are independent and credible. The approach to evaluating data (specifically in the area of survey bias in determining Mass attendance numbers) is scientific and accurate. The results are bleak and depressing.

Mr. Jones is a very personable speaker, which was an asset as he recounted the grim statistics in Catholic vocations, beliefs and education to a scandal wearied crowd of traditional Catholics. From 1920 to 2000, the Catholic population in America grew from around 18 million to over 60 million, a 360% increase. During this same time, the number of priest steady rose, to a peak in 1970 of 59,000. In that same year, there were 161,000 nuns and sisters. But in the years that followed, vocations to the priesthood, sisterhood, and holy orders collapsed. There are one tenth as many seminarians today as in the Sixties. The nuns as most of us remember them - teaching and loving - have been cut by more than half. Everywhere there is a lack of, or loss of faith in Catholic teachings.

What could have gone so terribly wrong to produce such declines?

Jones believes, as do many Catholics, that the Second Vatican Council and the implementation of various reforms immediately following that Council are directly responsible. “No reasonable person looking at the evidence could come to any other conclusion. The beginning of the declines in all categories commences after the Council, and it’s been all down hill since. Yes, I believe there is a positive correlation.” Yet in spite of the post-Council wreckage, church leaders continue to insist that the Second Council was a smashing success, and the reforms should continue, in spite of the results. The disconnect between the causes and effects of the decline was the motivation for writing the book, which Jones hopes will help Catholics distinguish between the myths and realities of Vatican II.

The statistics related to Catholic attitudes on core Catholic values have changed dramatically in the last forty years. They reveal that since Vatican II, there are tens of millions of self-proclaimed Catholics in this country who aren’t Catholic at all.

Though the results in several polls vary, Jones believes that Mass attendance in the US is currently at 25%. In the 1920’s it was a time of huge urban Cathedrals, and tightly woven very ethnic and very Catholic parishes. Not surprising, Mass attendance was high, as high as 80% in some areas, but always a major of the parish members. Attendance began to crash in the Sixties, falling by double digits annually in the early Seventies to one in four Catholics today.

There are no lines at the confessionals either, because no one is going. In one survey, Jones noted, one in three Catholics today claim to go to Confession once a month. “All you have to do is look around on Sunday to know that something’s not right. It’s called survey bias. We suspect many Catholics surveyed knew they had to make an annual confession to remain Catholic, and they gave information that was not true.”

A 1994 New York Times/CBS poll showed that 70% of Catholics between the ages of 18 and 44 have lost faith in the Eucharist, believing instead that it was a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus. The same survey revealed that 51% of Mass going Catholics believed that the Eucharist was symbolic! If the majority of modern Catholics had their way, noted Jones, we would have woman priests and married priests, and all prohibitions on birth control would be lifted, including abortion. Jones traces the increasing gulf between Catholic actions and beliefs to the Second Council.

Faced with dwindling religious order teachers, and poor catechism and education quality, the numbers of Catholic schools and students declined dramatically from 1960 to today. There is good news: private Catholic schools (non-diocesan) have been increasing as orthodox home-school families have banded together, hired teachers and converted buildings.

Jones concludes that the Second Vatican Council wasn’t so much a spark that lit a dry forest, but a force that broke a dam which held back oceans of dissent and heresy. The application of the reform of Vatican II says Jones, combined with the social and technological changes going on in the world, has been a complete disaster. It is difficult for Jones and many Catholics to reconcile the optimism of the pope, who lavishes praise on the many fruits of Vatican II that are spreading their branches in the New Pentecost. “If this is renewal,” said Jones wryly, “I don’t want to be around when the decline sets in.”

To avoid that decline, Jones suggested that Catholics resort to the most powerful and plentiful weapon in their grasp - prayer. Prayer for our families, our country, and most importantly for our priests and bishops, that they make the right decisions and provide faithful leadership. The second thing to do is evangelize, joining groups such as Credo, which Jones helped found in St. Louis in 1996, or like Catholic Citizens of Illinois (also founded in 1996.) “Through forums, newsletters, websites, phone calls, conferences, videos, tapes and TV the voice of authentic Catholicism is being heard.” Jones encouraged restoration oriented Catholics to keep the truth alive and in front of the Catholic laity and clergy, and not to be afraid to defend the Catholic faith, and the truth, when it is challenged.

It’s hard to argue with Jones’ numbers, but it is possible to look at them in different ways. We all know that there are many millions of inactive, self-described Catholics who ask nothing of their parish and give nothing. If we were to exclude non-Mass attending Catholics from the pool of people relying on vocations, catechism, and education to sustain their families, the numbers across the board look different. In the 1920’s two out of three Catholics went to Mass weekly, a number that was sustained though the early Sixties, then crashed to one out of four Catholics today.

Assuming we are concerned with a body of believers and a Church known as Catholics, I don’t believe it is reasonable to include Catholics-in-name-only, who show up at Church to be “hatched, matched, or dispatched” and never to be seen of again. The priest problem doesn’t look as bad when compared to the number of Catholics who come to Mass, in fact it shows improvement. From 1920 to 2000, the number of Mass attending parishioners per priest declined from 500 to 350. Conversely, during that period, the number of total Catholics per priest nearly doubled, from 843 to 1,429, demonstrating a “shortage” of priests. I would argue that a priest is primarily going to minister to the needs of Catholics who go to Mass, not the 75% who don’t show up for Mass. These projections get worse going forward, but by 2020, we can assume that there will be around one priest for every 500 mass going Catholics, or at the level experienced in the 1920’s.

The good news is that in spite of the collapse in vocations in the old-line religious orders like the Jesuits and Franciscans, there are new orders of priests that are booming with seminarians. The Legionaires of Christ, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, the Society of St. John Cantius, for example, are highly orthodox and thriving communities. Even the bleak landscape of diocesan vocations is dotted with hope in unexpected cities like Denver and Lincoln, Nebraska, where orthodox men are being attracted by orthodox bishops.

In spite of the decline in Catholic education at the elementary and high school level, vocations are being created in great numbers as the number of orthodox universities increases. The greatest number of vocations recruitment up to the 1960’s was done in Catholic Universities. The collapse in the number of seminarians is mostly due to the collapse of faithfulness to traditional Catholic values in places like Georgetown, DePaul, and other universities that today are entirely secularized. With the rise of private colleges like Thomas Aquinas in California, Franciscan in Steubenville, and now Ave Maria in Florida, there are increasing numbers of authentically Catholic universities, and the consequence, as before, will be increasing vocations coming from them.

The decline in the number of Catholic schools and students is not entirely driven by Vatican II, though the collapse of authentic Catholic curriculum and catechism in these schools can find little other cause.

Affordability of Catholic education has been adversely impacted by taxes on working families, which rose from 15% of gross income to 45% of gross income today, all taxes (federal, state, and local) included. Under these circumstances, most Catholic families can’t afford to send their children to a private or parochial school, and without any other choice, are forced into public education and the propaganda that comes with it, reinforcing the secular and skeptic beliefs that plague us today.

The numbers of sisters, many of them teachers, declined from 138,000 in 1945 to 75,000 today, forcing Catholic schools to hire lay teachers and pay them competitive salaries. Not only was this more expensive, but many Catholic parents reacted by sending their kids to the public schools if brothers or nuns weren’t teaching anymore at their parish school. During his talk, Jones correctly pointed out that the tragic demise of the sisterhood worldwide needed to be better appreciated by Catholics. In spite of heroic popular saints like the Therese the Little Flower, and Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the orders of sisters have been co-opted by feminists and dissenters to an astounding degree.

Fortunately, just like in the priesthood, the orders of sisters that are growing and thriving are those which have clung most tenaciously to tradition and orthodoxy. The great orders of tomorrow are being founded before our eyes by the courage and faith of women like Mother Assumpta Long, TV evangelist Mother Angelica, and Mother Teresa. Just as the priesthood of the future will be populated by men of orthodoxy and faith, the liberal sisters of the 80’s and 90’s will soon have run their course, and the restoration will be aided by orthodox nuns.

Kenneth Jones has provided a wealth of information on the decline in the Catholic Church. What remains to be seen is whether the bishops will act on it, or continue to perpetuate the myth that everything is fine, and the fruits of the Second Council are continuing to unfold, when in fact, the exact opposite is true.

[ultima ratio]

I did not truncate the quote. It's from the first edition. You are quoting the version that was changed to make it conform more with Tradition after a great hue and cry arose from theologians and bishops all over the world. The word "Sacrifice" was then shamelessly sprinkled throughout the General Instructions to make them appear less revolutionary.

[ultima ratio]

Let me make one other point. I don't deny the word "Sacrifice" appears here and there in the New Mass--mostly after the Consecration. Nor that there is some mention of saints generically, nor that some mention of our unworthiness is given a glancing reference. Most of your responses to my objections take the form of listing here and there phrases from eucharistic prayers which are supposed to prove me wrong--"There, see, the word 'offer' is used, therefore there IS an Offertory," and so forth. (As if this is what constituted an Offertory sacrificially!)

But what is missing is the profound repetition of these elements which would render them more than superficial in terms of a sacrifice. The naming of the great saints as intercessors, beginning with the Mother of God and St. John the Baptist and the great apostles, underscores our great neediness. And so too does the constant, almost uninterrupted, assertions of compunction and unworthiness throughout the Mass, and the continual reference to the need for Christ's intercession with the Father on our behalf. These repetitions are continual and shape the Mass clearly as a sacrifice.

With the New Mass only the memorial meal aspect had this sense of reenforcement. The focus is on Christ's virtual presence in the Word and in the assembly, rather than on the Real Presence and His propitiatory sacrifice.

[Land of the Irish]

And be careful with your language! "Is" does really mean something substantial.

You don't need to lecture me. I've stopped giving you serious attention long ago.

Not only did my calendar indicate the vigil "Is" a day of fast and abstinence, my priest announced it "Is" last Sunday. And my church bulletin stated it "Is".

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The priest used to genuflect immediately after the consecration of the bread or the wine, then elevate it, then genuflect again.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Answer to your points.

1) The entire offertory, other than the Chant and the Secret, was not part of the Roman Missal until circa 1100-1200. The prayer you quote "Sucsipe, sancte Pater" was originally found in the 9th century as a prayer said by the laity as they brought their offerings to the Altar. Ergo, none of it is "necessary" to have a true Mass.

In short, there is no true Offertory--though the word "offer" is used. --- This is so Clintonian a twisting of clear words that it requires no comment to "offer" something to God is not a "true Offertory"? Come on!

2) We've been over sacrifice before. The word is attached to the word Victim, etc. I've shown this already.

In keeping with this aspect, the new missal introduces the memorial words, "Do this in memory of me" into the Consecration.

The old Missal said essentially the same thing "As often as you shall do these things, you shall do them in memory of me." Perhaps you can explain what precisely is the difference in meaning between the long sentence and short sentence. Moreover, this is clearly included within the entire consecrational formula, along with the prayer "Simili modo" before the actual words of consecration as shown by the rubric "Tunc, detecto Calice, dicit" before the prayer "Simili modo" and the rubric "Genuflexus adorat" after "Haec quotiescumque". The rubrics of the 1570 Missal dictate that the priest does not genuflect or elevate the chalice until he has said those words.

3) "Mystery of faith" is a wholly unnecessary part of the words of consecration. The theologians clearly teach these words are not necessary for a valid consecration, nor are they included in most of the rites of the Catholic Church. Your commentary is therefore meaningless as far disputing the validity or worthiness of the Mass.

4) We've gone over sinfulness already too, along with the intercession of the saints. In both the 1570 and 1970 Missals, intercession is requested at the Confiteor. The 1570 Missal also asks for it once in the offertory, once in the Canon at the Communicantes (which is a possibility in the Missal of 1970), and once after the Our Father in the Libera Nos. I would not term four times as "constant imploring", which is much more charateristic of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

You don't seem to have much familiarity with the New Mass. When you do, it might be worthwhile discussing this further. Right now, you are wasting time repeating things that aren't so.

To them the New Mass is an enactment of a Paschal Mystery in which the faithful are converted and transformed.

I agree entirely with that sentence. The sacrifice of Christ is being carried out to convert and transform us from sin and to grace. That sounds like something I would like to have happen to me. "That bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be re-presented, and the memory of it remain even to the end of the world and its saving grace be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit." (Council of Trent, Decree on the Mass, Chapter 1)

Hilarious too, that the author of the "Ottaviani Intervention", upon which you hang your hat and derive your arguments, Fr. Geurard des Lauriers, ended his days as a schismatic quasi-sedevacantist pseudo-Bishop, "consecrated" by the madman, Archbishop Thuc. Not much of a theologian, was he, to die in such a disgraceful state, seperated from the One True Church.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

I did not truncate the quote. It's from the first edition. You are quoting the version that was changed to make it conform more with Tradition after a great hue and cry arose from theologians and bishops all over the world. The word "Sacrifice" was then shamelessly sprinkled throughout the General Instructions to make them appear less revolutionary.

The only GIRM that counts is what is officially promulgated. You can quote all the drafts that you want, but you should argue from the official version, not unofficial and unfinished versions.

As I said before, you are better than this. You are an intelligent man. Argue from the sources, not drafts.

[ultima ratio]

What I quoted was not a draft, it was the first edition which was officially promulgated. The re-write came after the outcry that followed its original publication, which was done to disguise its true nature.

[ultima ratio]

1. No one argues that the prayers of the Offertory all entered the old missal at the same time. Having said this, it is nevertheless true that the most important Offertory prayer, Suscipe sancte Pater, dates back beyond the twelfth and thirteenth centuries as you say, to somewhere around the time of Charles the Bald, around the ninth century. Michael Davies, moreover, makes this important point in his "Short History of the Roman Liturgy":

"The prayers which came into the Roman Mass after the time of Gregory the Great were among the first to be abolished by the Protestant Reformers. They included the prayers said at the foot of the altar, the Judica me, with its reference to the priest going to the altar of God, and the Confiteor with its request for the intercession of Our Lady and the saints were particularly unacceptable. The Offertory prayers, with their specifically sacrificial terminolgy, and the Placeat tibi which comes after the Communion, were totally incompatible with Protestant theology.

"The fact that these prayers were incompatible with the Protestant heresy is hardly surprising as one of the reasons which must have prompted the Church to accept them, guided by the Holy Ghost, is the exceptional clarity of their doctrinal content. This tendency for a rite to express ever more clearly what it contains is in perfect accord with the principle lex orandi, lex credendi."

Luther, in other words, tossed out the Offertory precisely because it embodied the sacrificial function of the Mass which was in clear violation of Protestant theology. Bugnini did likewise--for the exact same reason.

2. The phrase "do this in memory of me," was never part of the sacramental form as it is now, but came immediately after the words of Consecration. It was also future-oriented: "As often as you shall do these things, in memory of Me shall you do them." In the new missal the command is immediate and stresses the memorial aspect of what is actually happening right there and then. This makes a huge difference.

In the new missal, moreover, the nature of the sacrificial offering which comes after the Consecration is uncertain. There is no clear sense that the sacrificial Victim--Present actually on the altar--is being offered to the Father. Instead a prayer of remembrance is proclaimed, recalling Christ's Passion, Resurrection and the fact that he will come again. But it is a remembrance and expression of hope in the future only. The Real Presence on the altar is actually ignored, though the priest has just genuflected briefly. Nothing is made clear, the focus becomes instead Christ's virtual presence in the assembly.

3. No one argues the words "Mystery of faith" is essential to the Consecration. That was not my point. My point was that they pointed to the act of Transubstantiation as the real mystery of our faith. It is at the heart of the Catholic religion. It is why we genuflect and adore. It is why we know we have Christ with us in a real and physical way that transcends the understanding of other Christians. It is THIS that is now dismissed. Instead this phrase is applied to a MEMORIAL proclamation.

4. I have never read the work of Fr. Geurard des Lauriers. One of the unpleasant features of discussing anything with you is your assumption you know a lot about where others are coming from. You are pretty offensive when you make these klunk-headed assertions.

[ultima ratio]

You write, "to 'offer' something to God is not a 'true Offertory'? Come on!"

It takes more than an offering to God to make an Offertory, which is, in fact, an OBLATION OF A VICTIM. There must be both a victim and a proposal to sacrifice. This dimension is missing from the mere recitation of a Jewish meal blessing, followed by an offer of thanksgiving. There is no mention of sacrifice, which should be key to the meaning of any Catholic Mass. This is also the reason why the priesthood itself has been diminished. Not only do other lay ministers share his priestly duties, but the sacrificial elements of the Novus Ordo obscure his genuine priesthood. He becomes, instead, a "presider" over the assembly, not one who immolates.

[ultima ratio]

the sacrificial elements obscure his priesthood=the sacrificial elements, being themeselves obscure, obscure his priesthood.

[redhead]

bumping for later read...

[Hermann the Cherusker]

4. I have never read the work of Fr. Geurard des Lauriers. One of the unpleasant features of discussing anything with you is your assumption you know a lot about where others are coming from. You are pretty offensive when you make these klunk-headed assertions.

Fr. Geurard wrote the Ottaviani Intervention. I believe you've read that, have you not? He taught at Econe for years before becoming a Sedevacantist.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

What I quoted was not a draft, it was the first edition which was officially promulgated. The re-write came after the outcry that followed its original publication, which was done to disguise its true nature.

You are right. I'll grant that point, although it is the final version that stands, and the original version was not vetted by the Holy Office before promulgation, as Pope Paul asked, thus the revision (see Davies on this in Pope Paul's New Mass). However, the original Paragraph 7 should be understood in light of the original Paragraph 2, which mentions the sacrifice of Christ and the real presence. Snippets out of context is not a way to understanding.

[ultima ratio]

Of course I've read it. But it was a composite work. Lauriers wrote it only in the sense that he smoothed out the language and organized the notes. That is why I think your reference to him as influencing my thought is ridiculous. My objections to the New Mass come from my own gut as well as study. Once I caught on to the patterns the NO was establishing and understood the underlying theology, it hurt to participate. It is a very bad liturgy, very dangerous to the Catholic faith.

[ultima ratio]

"Snippets out of context is not a way to understanding"

Maybe that's why I find what you write about the Novus Ordo problematic. Snippets out of context. Similarly with what you say about the SSPX. Snippets out of context.