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

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

[narses]

The self-styled Deacon Sinkspur says:

Good luck at getting much interest. In case you trads hadn't noticed, there's a BOYCOTT of you guys going on.

Who organized this "boycott"? Why? What is heretical about this piece? How do you ever so pius members of the Catholic Caucus determine who is a "trad" to be boycotted?

For those I've pinged, if you judge me a "trad" to be boycotted, please let me know and I'll be happy to ping you no more. I am aghast at the "head in sand" denial of fact and the lack of charity inherent in this odd, childish game. I'll be fascinated to see if the self described Deacon Sinkspur answers my questions and even more, how he answers them.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You're a funny guy. Not too long ago, when people were making claims that the orthodox orders and dioceses are where the vocations were, you demanded evidence. Well, this article is full of such evidence and you pronounce it "boring."

It is more complicated than that. The archdiocese of Los Angeles, for example, ordains a large number of men every year, despite Cardinal Mahoney.

[Maximilian]

In case you trads hadn't noticed, there's a BOYCOTT of you guys going on.

It must be frustrating for you when you have to announce the boycott, and in ALL CAPS, since no one had noticed. All the intelligent people are still posting :- ) Is this the electronic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "Nah, nah, I can't hear you"?

[Maximilian]

It's well known that the ground work for the Council was laid by Pius XII. When it hit, there were tens of thousands of priests who were on board before the ink was dry thanks to heretical seminaries that would have made even Michael Rose cringe...

I suppose you are able to offer even the tiniest shred of data to support your accusations? Michael Rose has hard facts, interviews and arrest reports to go on. What evidence do you have to support your thesis?

[Maximilian]

It is remarkably similar to the debates on the left throughout the twentieth century.

Good comparison.

Time will tell...

Yes indeed.

[narses]

Given the nature of the inquisition faced by the seminarians there, that isn't good news. Orthodox and/or heterosexuals are weeded out quickly.

[narses]

Bad trad, bad. BAD, BAD, BAD! Hear me? BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!

[Maximilian]

Coming back to Japan, she was absolutely repelled at the goings on at the same liberal Japanese parish. Now I can hardly get her to go.

My children are the same way. After 3 years of the Latin Mass and traditional Catholic catechesis, the thought of attending a New Mass makes them ill. It's a shame that you have no traditional alternatives in Japan.

Bro. Alexis Bugnolo is a moderate traditionalist who is usually very well grounded in solid traditional sources and not some radical who believes his own opinion is infallible. He stated recently on the Latin Mass email list that it is permissible to stay home and pray if the Mass you would be able to attend is a source of spiritual danger. It is NOT a question of validity. You do not have to attend Mass just because it is valid, if it presents dangers to your soul.

To cite specific cases: a very sick or a sick & young family member that needs care is a sufficient reason for one parent staying home, so as not to leave the sickone alone; working so as not to starve, engaging in necessary travel of a great distance to visit the dying, attend a burial, marriage of importance, etc. these can justify missing mass, if the time to attend mass and/or find a mass prevented these things.

Also, the Church does not require you to risk life or limb or undertake notable inconvenience; thus traditional books of moral theology have always excused those who would have to travel more than 60 minutes each way to a mass by means of the modes of transportation available; or those who to travel would have to risk killing or injuring themselves or others upon dangerous roads or terrain and/ or in bad weather, or undertake notable financial costs or risks in travel, by driving uninsured vehichles, or flying. All these would be excused from attending Mass.

Likewise you are not bound, even if you have no such excuse, to attend Mass, if the only Mass being offered is offered by an Orthodox priest or any formal schismatic priest (defined as one who does not pray for the current pope or the current Bishop/Archbishop of the locale); or even any Catholic priest, (in name) who mixes heresies or gross immorality (indecency, impurity, superstition, witchcraft, etc.) into the mass.

Likewise you are not obbliged to attend mass if the place of mass is a source of scandal or spiritual or moral or physical danger: thus you do not have to attend mass if the only place you could otherwise be obliged to attend is decorated with pornography, heretical images, stores of ammunition that could explode, individuals who are suffering from highly contagious and communicable diseases such as the bubonic plague, sars, a priest who is known to harbor genocidal anitmosity against your ethnic group (as happend in Riwanda) etc..etc..

Likewise you are not obliged to attend Mass if those thing expressive of Catholic significance are removed for the purpose of denying Catholic Truths: so that you do not have to attend Mass if the priest forces the congregation to use a creed, prayer or rite which denies any catholic or divinely revealed truth, such as God being the Father, the existence of original sin, the redemption wrought by the Cross etcc..

[Maximilian]

Bad trad, bad. BAD, BAD, BAD! Hear me? BADDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!

Ha ha. I can honestly say that I hadn't noticed in the least. In fact, I hardly posted at all for a month or so, and then it seems that just recently there's been a new crop of interesting threads. And there's been a new bunch of intelligent people just arrived with good points (even if I don't always agree). I was thinking that the discussion level has been noticeably improved, but I didn't attribute it to the absence of anyone.

BTW, where are these great threads going on from which we are excluded? Maybe there on another server instead of FR, because I certainly haven't seen any here.

[Thorondir]

Does it bother you that those who boycott Catholic faith and morals are boycotting the Catholic faithful? Not me. It just puts us in good company.

The enemies of my Church are my enemies.

Dominus tecum

[Thorondir]

I am not a scizmatic. But to you modernist libs, the devastation of Catholic faith seem to be "progress", and one has to wonder what your ultimate goal is. Why do you call facts junk? Do you deny that your Amchurch bretheren abort, live in sin, refuse confession, contracept and divorce at the very same rate as the pagans around us?

[k omalley]

"The archdiocese of Los Angeles, for example, ordains a large number of men every year, despite Cardinal Mahoney."

Do you have the stats on that statement? My understanding was that the number of priets ordained in that diocese was pathetic.

[k omalley]

priets=priests :>0

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Amidst the general doom and gloom in American Catholicism, there are several points of hope.

1) Conversions are at an all time high, running at an annual rate of 170,000 annually or so. This is even more remarkable when one considers the low number of practicing Catholics. The number of converts began declining in 1961 and reached a low point in 1973.

2) Infant Baptisms per Catholic marriage are only very slightly under the levels reached in the peak of the Baby Boom, and are going up.

3) The number of children continuing on from Baptism to First Communion has trended upwards from around 80% to around 87% in the past 15 years. Similarly, the number of children continuing from Baptism to Confirmation has risen from around 55% to 66% over the same time period.

4) While the number of Seminarians has declined, the decline has not hurt the number of ordinations nearly as much as might be expected. Whereas before during the mid-1950's to 1970, only about 20-30% of men entering a seminary were ordained, today, the vast majority continue through. Whether or not this is a good thing regarding the desirability of the candidates cannot necessarily be shown, although it seems the young Priests of today are much to be preferred to the revolutionaries ordained during the earlier period. What is good is the drastic reduction of wasted expenditures on the vast majority of men who went to seminary for a few years and then dropped out.

5) The number of baptized Catholics marrying inside the Church, after dropping sharply from 1972 to 1982 from almost all to slightly over 40%, has now risen starting in 1991 back up to slightly over 50%.

So while there is certainly a widespread catastrophe in this country, things are looking up in many categories. In all cases, the positive trend appears to be starting in earnest around 1990. It would appear that as the Vatican II generation, so upset by the turbulence and chaos of the 1960's and the trends set in motion by the Council, is replaced by those who have no memory of the pre-Vatican II Church, that the practice of the faith is slowly reviving in this new generation.

[saradippity]

I thought that the Los Angeles ordinations were pretty pathetic and was surprised to hear them described as healthy.

I went to their website and found it difficult to find but did find the Cardinal's speech at the ordination in January of 2002. At that time they ordained 3 priests. The cardinal said then that there would be no more ordinations until June,2003 when they would be ordaining five.

I believe one or two of the anticipated ordinands dropped out but I am not positive.Even if all of them were ordained that would be a grand total of eight over 1 and a half years,pitiful from a diocese of 4,000,000.

I also know that they closed their diocesan seminary due to lack of candidates. This again demonstrates that the liberal dioceses are bleeding.I think Rockford ordained 8 or 10 this June.Even Phoenix with one tenth of the Catholic population of L.A. ordained 6 or 7 over a one year period.

[dsc]

"It is NOT a question of validity. You do not have to attend Mass just because it is valid, if it presents dangers to your soul."

Boy, if you weren't very, very careful with that one, it could easily become an excuse.

In my case, the abuses at the parish are not anywhere remotely in the neighborhood of damaging my faith. I'm too hard-headed for that. I worry about my daughter, though.

But I can't be doing my soul any good by sitting in a pew steaming because Fr. Che Fonda is giving another homily on the wonders of Buddhism.

I'll keep praying for a more reverent mass. Maybe the next Chaplain at Atsugi will be a fire-breathing trad (please, Lord).

[Land of the Irish]

So howdja like my thesis on why Arnold joined the Republicans?

Obvious and pathetic attempt to hijack a thread. I suggest you just stick to your boycott, before you make yourself look anymore childish.

[As you well know...]

Interesting piece. Thanks

[As you well know...]

It's well known that the ground work for the Council was laid by Pius XII.

It is as equally well-known the Prelates rejected the carefully prepared schema for the Council and adopted a "let's wing it" approach,(at best), and the results were we have an Ecumenical Council that both liberals and conservatives appeal to to justify their desires.

[As you well know...]

Who is a schismatic? Jones who started "Credo" and "Catholic Citizens of Illinois?"

Me?

Everyone who reads this thread?