PJB: An Index of Catholicism's Decline

WorldNet Daily ^ | 12/10/02 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[ninenot]

As the Watergate scandal of 1973-1974 diverted attention from the far greater tragedy unfolding in Southeast Asia, so, too, the scandal of predator-priests now afflicting the Catholic Church may be covering up a far greater calamity.

Thirty-seven years after the end of the only church council of the 20th century, the jury has come in with its verdict: Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism.

Liars may figure, but figures do not lie. Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis has pulled together a slim volume of statistics he has titled Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II.

His findings make prophets of Catholic traditionalists who warned that Vatican II would prove a blunder of historic dimensions, and those same findings expose as foolish and naive those who believed a council could reconcile Catholicism and modernity. When Pope John XXIII threw open the windows of the church, all the poisonous vapors of modernity entered, along with the Devil himself.

Here are Jones' grim statistics of Catholicism's decline:

• Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

• Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

• Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

• Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

• Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

• Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones' statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

• Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

• Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

• Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.

At the opening of Vatican II, reformers were all the rage. They were going to lead us out of our Catholic ghettos by altering the liturgy, rewriting the Bible and missals, abandoning the old traditions, making us more ecumenical, and engaging the world. And their legacy?

Four decades of devastation wrought upon the church, and the final disgrace of a hierarchy that lacked the moral courage of the Boy Scouts to keep the perverts out of the seminaries, and throw them out of the rectories and schools of Holy Mother Church.

Through the papacy of Pius XII, the church resisted the clamor to accommodate itself to the world and remained a moral beacon to mankind. Since Vatican II, the church has sought to meet the world halfway.

Jones' statistics tell us the price of appeasement.

[ELS]

Some time ago someone who went through RCIA 'classes' asked me for a good short source book on what Catholics believe (sad isn't it after RCIA) - not as long and scholarly as the Catechism.

A highly recommended Catechism (by those more qualified than me) is the Baltimore Catechism. It was written at the Baltimore Council in 1895 (give or take a few years). It contains a list of questions and answers that are quite straightforward and provides Scriptural citations to support the doctrine. (The numbers - No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 - refer to level of detail and depth in the answers.) They can just read the question and short answer or read the more detailed explanation.

The Baltimore Catechism No. 3, Father Connell's Confraternity Edition

• More than 500 questions covering the entire Catholic Faith (following The Apostles’ Creed)
• Clear and concise answers followed by developed explanations
• Use of Scripture and Tradition to defend Doctrine
• Summaries of important truths for each chapter
• Study helps and exercises for students
• 22 illustrations with explanations
• Special "lay-flat" cover for hassle-free studying.

[ELS]

the Liber Usualis, now out of print (1932 edition is fine.) Haunt the used-book shops. Worth about $200-$400 in decent shape, and has EVERYTHING.

Contact Loome Theological Booksellers!

[heyheyhey]

...so, too, the scandal of predator-priests now afflicting the Catholic Church may be covering up a far greater calamity...

Pat, in case you already forgot -- "the scandal of predator-priests" started a year ago, and the Council ended in December 1965. The Catholic statistics you cite took their deepest plunge in the period from 1966 to about 1978. If the bad statistics are in your opinion the "far greater calamity" then how is the recent "scandal of predator-priests" in the Catholic Church covering it up, huh?

And, how does that compare to the Watergate scandal cover up when things took place simultaneously, huh?

I understand your good intentions, but I wish you wouldn't use Bill O'Reilly technique of manipulation.

The statistics are very telling indeed, although what they show is that the Council was promptly hijacked in the US Church by the enemy to bring in confusion. The self-proclaimed interpretors of the "Council's spirit" multiplied like rabbits. Suddenly dropped Sunday Mass attendance alone should be telling enough to set off all red flashing lights and sirens to the shepeherds of the Church to indicate that something is really really wrong.

Again, in case you forgot, there are quite a few more Catholics in the world outside of the US. For millions of them Vatican II was another Ecumenical Council and not the end of the world.

[LadyDoc]

BTW, he's correct, your curious comments about Africa and the Phillipines aside

I've lived in two AFrican countries, and in the Philippines.

If you prefer, I could write that Jesus doesn't care if the person is a white rich TV commentator or a poor Osage or Chippewa woman. Or if the commentator was college educated snob or an Okie from Muscogee...

Jesus founded a church, not a cult based on medieval customs. I loved the Latin mass, but the way we approach God is based on our own culture. I have no problem with Latin masses in St. Paul Minnesota, nor masses with Apache chants in New Mexico, nor Guitar masses in Ipiales Colombia, nor with African dances with drums and dancing.

I do have a problem with people who think good Catholics who think Gregorian chant and Latin are boring means they can't be Catholic.

There has been problems after every council, partly diabolic, and partly due to the customs of men.

A lot of what Buchanan et al loved is not Catholicism but the Jansenistic rules of pre vatican II Catholicism in the USA.

[jjm2111]

"Not to be too pushy, but if you don't believe what the Church teaches, go back to school--or you will go to hell. Sorry about that."

Perhaps I'll see you there.

[Stingray51]

Respectfully, the provision of the new catechism that I cited is muddled and unclear. Looking just at the text, and not the footnotes or surrounding passages, it says that all persons of good will who strive to do God's will will be saved. That is clearly what it says.

Now, it is mitigated by the footnotes and by the surrounding text. But my point is that it robs all sense of urgency from the great command to convert the whole world. If you assume, as the modern mind is apt to do, that most people are basically good chaps trying to do the right thing, this provision can be read, and is by many, to suggest that they can be left to their invincible ignorance with no great danger. (Of course, that would be a grossly wrong conclusion to draw.)

This provision is a key weapon of the ecumenical movement which seeks to do the impossible by balancing the scandalous, to the world, infallibly defined doctrine that there is no salvation outside the Church with the Rodney King-like question "can we all just get along?".

[jjm2111]

Please everyone say a prayer for Browningbar's wife after her surgery, he's a good man.

Will do.

[Stingray51]

Here is the excerpt of Section 1260 of the New Catechism:

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Compare that the thoughts of the Baltimore Catechism on the subject. The new formulation doesn't exactly fill one with a sense a great urgency to go out there and risk life and limb to convert the nonbelievers, does it?

[Loyalist]

A lot of what Buchanan et al loved is not Catholicism but the Jansenistic rules of pre vatican II Catholicism in the USA.

It appears in hindsight that the American Church's response to the cultural revolution of the 1960's should have been to become more intolerant of the secular world and 'Jansenistic' in its morality, not less.

[ninenot]

but the way we approach God is based on our own culture

I would suggest that the way we approach worship (and thus, God) is based on the Judaeo-Christian tradition.

Your calling PJB a Jansenist is ludicrous, and not a contribution to the discussion. Among other things, you have no way of substanting that canard from the editorial printed above...

Your service in other countries is to be admired. What does that have to do with the editorial? PJB's POINT WAS: that American numbers are down. Perhaps they are up, down, sideways, or non-existent in other places. Necessarily, PJB addressed the USA because the numbers IN THE SURVEY were from the USA.

Sheesh!!

[ninenot]

I think the basic orientation here was to acknowledge that one cannot 'force' someone else to be a Catholic--in the same sense that one cannot 'legislate morality.'

Based on JPII's interest in 'ut unam sint' and his unflagging efforts to bring non-Uniates to Rome--as well as the initiatives with the Lutherans, etc., it would be hard to make the case that HE has lost the drive to convert the world.

At the same time, he has not been loosey-goosey--both with the Luterans and with the Jews he has held the line on certain items which cannot be negotiated.

As to our responsibility--I never viewed VII's document as a denigration of the call to convert.

[Stingray51]

I simply cannot agree. Yes, JPII has worked hard for Christian unity. You could look at this as a strategy for conversion. But it is completely top-down. He prays with the leaders of other religions and engages in dialogue with them. That can only send a message to adherents of these religions that they do not need to convert. The Vatican under him has gone to great pains not to be seen attempting to convert Orthodox in the former Soviet Union (see the Balamand agreement) (so much for Fatima, by the way). As for the Jews, yes he has not gone far enough to satisfy certain Jewish leaders, but he gives every impression of endorsing the view that there is no need for Jews to convert.

How many souls have been lost during decades of dialogue?

[Desdemona]

Most of the liturgy-committee- ministers are simply stupid in EVERY sense of the word. THey are ignorant of history, art, moment, time, space, ceremony, elegance, truth, goodness, and beauty. They resist because Chant and Latin require THOUGHT--something they don't have the tools or time to deal with.

I'll call them ignorant, apathetic and uninterested, but not stupid. Not the ones I know. They have the time and the tools, but don't see the need. Of course, we are talking about people who refuse to go to the Christmas Vigil at Midnight because it's too hard to get up the next morning (the biggest mouth in that bunch didn't even wrap presents when her kids were little. she doesn't own an ironing board, either, and brags about it. This from a woman who passed all 6 of parts of the CPA exam on the first shot).

This stuff makes me so catty.

[ninenot]

We could argue endlessly, because the bottom line has to do precisely with your question: 'how many souls are lost...?'and neither of us is able to answer.

JPII thinks his method will work, or he wouldn't use it. Some of that "from the top" stuff worked quite well for Ronald Reagan (and JPII and RR were close--and share an acting background, too.)

Another way to ask the question: "how many souls were GAINED by JPII's initiative?"--another which neither of us can answer.

Why is it, BTW, that a priest from North Dakota, of all places, can claim with MORAL CERTAINTY that the worldwide Consecration never occurred, contra all the statements from the Vatican? Does this priest know more than ANYONE else?

[Stingray51]

Are you talking about Fr. Gruner? I don't know much about that whole consecration of Russia controversy. I thought all the bishops in the whole world were supposed to do it together, but didn't. But it's not something I've spent any time investigating or thinking about. (The one thing I can say is that it doesn't look like Russia has made much headway towards conversion. So far.)

As for your other points, I basically agree.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

You inspired me to thought (I know - amzingly it does happen sometimes, LOL). It occurs to me that maybe the establishment and maintenance of monasticism is the tap root of the problem.

Think of it like this - Christianity spread pretty rapidly through the Roman Empire, but because of the persecution, there was not a general inclination to have large monastic communities. The red martyrs through this phase tended to be ordinary people - artisans, soldiers, servants, some civil servants - they were all part and parcel of their communities, and spread the word of Christ through inspirational acts and demeanor in daily life. They were inspiring, and they were normal. Once the persecution ended, monastics became the ideal - living outside the community, yet soaking up time and treasure, yet no one ever understood the aim.

If monasticism is the goal of a society, then then society destructs upon the reaching of that perfection, because that world is communist and without physical or emotional passion. Sterile.

So ultimately, Christianity may have been put in the hands of people who didn't understand their own direction, and who weren't responsible for the great mass of conversions which occurred over time.

You see a lot of it with Augustine, who struggled mightily with apparent bisexual tendencies (Confessions makes it pretty clear to me).

Once monasticism became something to admire in clerical culture and withdrawal from society became idealized, a clergy not firmly rooted in the world would lose its ties to the very society it served.

I noted that there was a minimum age for ordination in the 4th century - which was 30, in commemoration of Christ's age when he began a ministry. Considering that it would also ensure emotional and intellectual maturity, it was a good thing.

I'm going to have to review "The Desert Fathers" as well as "The Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian" to come up with some better answers. I know that I started skimming the first 7 Ecumenical Councils last night after a lengthy hiatus. It is illuminating.

[ex-snook]

Thanks for your; "A highly recommended Catechism (by those more qualified than me) is the Baltimore Catechism. It was written at the Baltimore Council in 1895 (give or take a few years). It contains a list of questions and answers that are quite straightforward and provides Scriptural citations to support the doctrine. (The numbers - No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 - refer to level of detail and depth in the answers.) "

1895 and still the best! Obviously beliefs have not changed so the fact that it is not in wide use today must stem more from either sly attempts to revise (e.g. 'English translators slanting the readings') or the money greed of publishers to print (e.g. what some here have noted with regard to music revisions, annually). Thanks again,

[kidd]

My source was written in 1998 by Paul Turner, pastor of St. John Regis Parish in Kansas City, MO. He holds a doctorate in sacramental theology from Saint Anselmo University in Rome.

The online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia is a transcription of the 1913 edition. The last pope mentioned in that encyclopedia is Pius X! Under a discussion of war, it gives examples of attrocities from the Civil War because WWI had not happened yet!

[Aliska]

You inspired me to thought (I know - amzingly it does happen sometimes, LOL). It occurs to me that maybe the establishment and maintenance of monasticism is the tap root of the problem.

I don't know if it is the entire problem and will never know. We can only have our opinion and watch and observe effects and try to divine the causes. Glad if I spurred you on to deeper thought; I can't bring myself to dig too much deeper and plow through those ancient writings, except superficially. I don't know how much sexual perversion existed in the societies that gave rise to Christianity and those who nurtured it. Which came first?

Imho, Protestants, rightly got rid of it. Other things they did weren't so good. I don't mean an all-out attack on monasticism; they performed charitable works and sheltered travellers, some never lost their human goodness. Certainly a soul could do a lot worse.

Think of it like this - Christianity spread pretty rapidly through the Roman Empire, but because of the persecution, there was not a general inclination to have large monastic communities. The red martyrs through this phase tended to be ordinary people - artisans, soldiers, servants, some civil servants - they were all part and parcel of their communities, and spread the word of Christ through inspirational acts and demeanor in daily life. They were inspiring, and they were normal. Once the persecution ended, monastics became the ideal - living outside the community, yet soaking up time and treasure, yet no one ever understood the aim.

Yes, that squares with my thinking. We are told to be in the world but not of the world. It referred to values rather than men doing what their human nature inspires them to do, compartmentalize everything in society. For those who truly desired and profited by that life, I have no quarrel. The quarrel I have is with those who haven't embraced it themselves elevating it to a status it does not deserve. I think even the pope was trying to subtly send this message without stepping on anyone's toes by calling for more married saints, people who lived in the world and rose above it with heroic virtue.

If monasticism is the goal of a society, then then society destructs upon the reaching of that perfection, because that world is communist and without physical or emotional passion. Sterile.

Yup. With some exceptions, joyless and unnecessarily harsh. Like training a dog. You beat all the natural exuberance out of them if they are so disposed. They are the happiest of creatures. People aren't dogs, of course. And I'm not saying we don't need discipline. Moderation and a certain amount of structure. But it turned some into sterile, despondent robots. Then to deal with the despondency, they rationalized, and their rationalizations caught on with the popular mind and some of the hierarchy. And the perversion was that they became cruel just like their masters. They abused children in their care, gave them little or no human love or comfort. It was a tragic mistake, but then it's easier to see things in retrospect.

So ultimately, Christianity may have been put in the hands of people who didn't understand their own direction, and who weren't responsible for the great mass of conversions which occurred over time.

I think it was hijacked by those who had a lust for status, power, and disdain for physical work, and no real innocent sources of pleasure in the world. Life was harsh and that is how people adapted to it, so it is unfair to condemn them all carte blanche for what humans do today. It remains so today imo.

You see a lot of it with Augustine, who struggled mightily with apparent bisexual tendencies (Confessions makes it pretty clear to me).

I have a copy of that somewhere but have not been drawn to read it. He is not very relevant to my life and struggles.

Once monasticism became something to admire in clerical culture and withdrawal from society became idealized, a clergy not firmly rooted in the world would lose its ties to the very society it served.

Quite so. It is a little better now in some quarters with late vocations. Unfortunately, there are so many masses needing ministry who can't wait for mature, late vocations.

I noted that there was a minimum age for ordination in the 4th century - which was 30, in commemoration of Christ's age when he began a ministry. Considering that it would also ensure emotional and intellectual maturity, it was a good thing.

I didn't know that. Yes, it was a better thing imo. It didn't address the privileged, status angle, but clergy in that age bracket would definitely have grappled with the world and know themselves better.

I'm going to have to review "The Desert Fathers" as well as "The Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian" to come up with some better answers. I know that I started skimming the first 7 Ecumenical Councils last night after a lengthy hiatus. It is illuminating

Let me know if you discover anything. I got turned off of them when a woman went out to seek one of them for advice and was refused.

It wasn't all bad. It wasn't all good. In this world, there are always two sides to every coin and both sides are stamped with different imprints. In the world, it must be so. Before it is over, there will probably be a return to primitive Christianity, not by choice, but by force, not that I expect to see that come to pass.

[k omalley]

Guilty as charged, Totus. Yes, I for one have been far too wordly with a pretty pitiful prayer life. What is so distressing though is that the rot in the Church seems so pervasive and it is so hard to discern exactly what the Church teaches anymore.