U.S. Priests and seminarians survey: more vocations in orthodox dioceses

AD 2000 ^ | August 1998

[Antoninus]

The orthodox Diocese are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically conservative.

Have you been to Philadelphia lately???

[Savonarola]

Without affecting the validity of the conclusion, the list of dioceses is now stale. Since 1998 there have been some episcopal changes --- see, especially, Arlington. Rose concedes that some of the comments in his book are now outdated.

[ninenot]

In other words, it's not a meaningful discovery.

You've added complexity where it's not necessary.

The question is the orientation of the Diocese, not of the political/cultural surroundings.

While your suggestion would tend to make the study's findings 'bulletproof,' it would not necessarily change them.

Otherwise, your suggestion is that areas which are heavily 'liberal' in a cultural and political sense would not produce priests.

If that were so, Boston, Milwaukee, and Detroit would have run out of priests about 30 years ago.

[ninenot]

I have known Bishop B. for over 20 years, and not only is he NOT "iron-fisted," he is a genuinely warm, humorous, and engaging guy.

But he does not suffer fools too well, and definitely does not suffer the heterodox well at all.

[ninenot]

FWIW, the Church of St. Agnes in St. Paul produces vocations at a remarkable clip in an otherwise barren area.

[american colleen]

I love Bishop B. He is one of the most enjoyable people to watch on EWTN programs because he is (or seems to be) honest and open. I'm glad he doesn't suffer fools gladly, that's probably why most of us love him. But it doesn't seem to be getting him a red hat... how come?

[VermiciousKnid]

What a shocker! My diocese (Rockville Centre) is on the progressive list.

They are constantly squawking about not having enough seminarians. I wonder why.

Regards,

[Maximilian]

Cardinal Law was personally orthodox but not strong enough to withstand the direct disobedience and scathing contempt of most of the priests and theologians in his archdiocese.

For quite a few years I too believed that Cardinal Law was "conservative," but what finally convinced me to give up on him was when he led the push to get approval for the "inclusive language" lectionary. He led the committe that wrote it. Then when Rome refused to approve it, he led all the US cardinals over to Rome in a group to try to force approval. Rome turned him down flat. The lectionary had to be re-written (Deo gratias).

My later conclusions about Cardinal Law came from seeing the state of the diocese when I lived in Boston for 2 years. I thought the faith was extremely weak, even much weaker than other areas on the East Coast where I have lived. He provided no spiritual leadership. Meanwhile he was closing parishes like crazy. He especially wanted to eliminate ethnic parishes and consolidate them into bland "American" parishes. I have to agree with the poster who said that he was a "deceptive politician."

[american colleen]

Thanks Max, for your $.02.

I found this:
December 13, 1996:

In a move unique in the history of the Catholic Church of the United States, the seven active Cardinals went to Rome to ask Vatican officials to conclude the process for confirming the proposed new English-language lectionary based on the NAB; this action was taken at the request of the NCCB Administrative Committee. Cardinal Law stated that "We were unanimous in our recognition of the need for horizontal inclusive language where it does not do violence to the sacred text or to the faith of the Church." Agreement was reached that a working group, including several bishops from the United States and representatives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments, would make a final review early in 1997 and that this "concentrated work" would be concluded as soon as possible. The U.S. Cardinals who participated in the meeting are Bernard F. Law (Boston), John J. O'Connor (New York), James a Hickey (Washington), Roger M. Mahoney (Los Angeles), Anthony J. Bevilacqua (Philadelphia), William H. Keeler (Baltimore), and Adam J. Maida (Detroit).

Which seems to bear out what you say. Look at the names... Bevilacqua and Maida - aren't they considered fairly orthodox as well? Reminds me of something that I heard Fr. Groeschel say about the crisis... it spans all "degrees" of Catholics from the orthodox to the progressives. I guess once you start "caving" on maybe a small thing (what is ever small to us orthodox Catholics ;-) ) it just gets easier and easier to give in to bigger and bigger things. And us orthodox Catholics groan but the progressives give all those nice dinners and perks.

I couldn't figure out Cardinal Law at all... he was sort of inscrutable. But I do remember that after the scandals broke I went to the St. Patrick's Day Mass at the Cathedral so that I could look into his eyes... and what I saw was a sad and sorry man. I think he tried to make everyone happy and succeeded in making no one happy.

The inclusive language is a chick thing. There is a list of demands that were made by feminists to the bishops back in the late 80s. It is quite a long list of "demands." I read them a short time ago (last month) and I was amazed that virtually each demand has been accomodated - and long ago. So steathily that it has been hard to notice, really. Maybe I'll type it up and post it later this week when I have time.

Regarding the parish closings by Cardinal Law. I plead ignorance. Until maybe 3 years ago, I paid little attention to all but the biggest religion stories. And of course as I live here in Boston and attend parishes only on the east coast, I have no idea how things might be different elsewhere. Seems like there are more heretical religious groups around here - that I do notice!

[Thorondir]

This means more trads and less modernists.

THANK GOD!

[Maximilian]

There is a list of demands that were made by feminists to the bishops back in the late 80s. It is quite a long list of "demands." I read them a short time ago (last month) and I was amazed that virtually each demand has been accomodated - and long ago. So steathily that it has been hard to notice, really. Maybe I'll type it up and post it later this week when I have time.

That would be very interesting to see.

[TotusTuus]

They are constantly squawking about not having enough seminarians.

Ever thought about becoming a Priest? ;-)

[VermiciousKnid]

Sorry...I'm the wrong flavor AND I'm married.

I have a son, though (he's 5), who likes to march around the house carrying a small crucifix like an altar boy. Perhaps he will have a calling.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for an opening on the Liturgy Committee. That ought to shake things up a bit. ;)

Regards,

[LadyDoc]

you are right. Cardinal Law was orthodox and "holy" .

But he was weak.

He also allowed heretics and homosexuals to infiltrate the church bureaucracy, either thru weakness or naivity.

Back in the early 1990's, when some PC people in the Mass. Medical society were publishing papers, infiltrating the ethics courses in medical schools, and pushing legalizing euthanasia, three of us wrote a letter pointing out the problem in detail to Law.

Now, I'm a nobody. But the other two were well known Professors, one who has published books in medical ethics, the other who has published books on Geriatric care (elderly care). I was the token Catholic, who had only one published ethics paper as my qualification.

The letter was "lost" by the bureaucracy, and finally months later, we got a bland answer saying that there would be an article in the local Catholic paper about the problem. And indeed there was: A bland article that addressed none of the issues, and probably was not read by anyone.

Where was Law?

THe follow up is that two years later these big shots tried to get the medical society to approve of a pro euthanasia law in the legislature, and it was the good old Protestant physicians who blocked it...

Ironically, the same thing happened by PC Maida in Detroit: he allows "we are church" heretics to meet there. And when Kavorkian killed a bunch of crippled depressed (but not dying) ladies, he was weak in condemning him. And a big shot "ethicist" encouraged the Medical society to remain neutral on the issue. again it was the pro life Protestant physicians who finally pressured the condemnation of Kavorkian and the laws in the legislature to try to ok killing the elderly.

Many of the present day euthanasia cases will be found again in areas where bishops are weak aka liberal...I think it has to do with a spiritual void. Thank the Lord, often the void is countered by other good Christians in grass roots organizations. But unlike the Bishops, they have more trouble getting newspaper attention, and so weak bishops make it more difficult for pro life Catholics...

[ninenot]

Usually the red hat goes with a LARGE Diocese and a metropolitan's responsibility.

B. really doesn't want one of those, although he's rumored to be 'on deck' for St. Louis.

[dangus]

The "flaw" you point out does mean that one needs to look closer at the data than a simple statistic, but on closer examination, the data holds up...

I will concede that the more orthodox dioceses TEND to be from smaller or "blue-state" areas, BUT they do include diocese in the Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington areas; and the trend does hold up (quite strongly) for these diocese.

(I also saw some politically liberal cities, such as Atlanta, but I'm unfamiliar with those dioceses; If Atlanta diocese is all of Georgia, it could be very conservative in total.)

Likewise, the heterodox areas included some which were at least politically conservative (Tuscon, Pheonix, San Diego), lergely rural (Maine) or small-city rust-belt (Grand Rapids).

[TradicalRC]

Ah yes, that would be the indult Mass that there is very little demand for, right?

[american colleen]

I'm not surprised "B." doesn't want a red hat. I don't think a bishop like O'Malley does either.

As a regular Joe Catholic, I couldn't care less if the bishop of my diocese has a red hat or not. Makes no difference in my life at all - I just want the bishop to be holy - "a shining light on a mountain" so to speak. And put some muscle behind those words! Which is why I love "B." - however, practically speaking, I hope to God B and O'M get red hats because we'll need them sooner or later for the conclave. Same with Dolan, Chaput, Rigali and a few other orthodox bishops.

[dangus]

Now I'll come at you from the opposite side:

I wouldn't presume heterodoxy because they argued for the adoption of "inclusive" language. While nonsense such as "Our Parent who is in Heaven" gives it a bad name, there are places where the use of a masculine, added to the text, can be theologically misleading. We're not talking changing "Fall of Man" to "Fall of Person." Sorry, I wish I remembered it better, but I remember getting my dander up, and then reading through it saying, "no, I have to agree with this."

And I've blasted the NAB (70s edition) as being apostate AND I sing the original whenever they change "men" to "all" in our songs. So, I'm no lefty on this issue.