[sitetest]

Dear Polycarp,


"I agree that sitetest and patent and siobhan are sorely missed..."


Thank you for saying that. But I'm still here. I told you I'd be cutting back on posting. But I haven't left by any means.

But sinkspur has a good point. There are about 65 million nominal Catholics in the United States. Perhaps 20 or 30 million are active, practicing Catholics.

There are perhaps a few hundred thousand, if that many, who are enmeshed in the recent schisms of the SSPX and other groups, including out-of-communion integrists and sedevacantists.

Even "traditionalists" still in communion with the Church (I hate calling folks who prefer the indult, or prefer indult parishes "traditionalists", because it wrongly suggests that they are separate from the rest of faithful Catholics - they are not) number only perhaps a hundred thousand or so.

In our own archdiocese, with three indult Masses offered each Sunday, in different parts of the archdiocese, at different times, maybe a thousand or so folks attend these Masses on a given Sunday.

The extremely overwhelming number of Catholics (something north of 95%) are what the schismatics, the sedevacantists, the heretics, and even many of the devout Catholic traditionalists refer to as "novus ordo Catholics" or worse, "neo-Catholics".

But you wouldn't think it from looking at FR. I haven't done the arithmetic, but I'm positive that the schismatics, sedevacantists, heretics, and devout Catholic traditionalists here make up a far greater number than 5% of those overall who profess some sort of Catholic belief and tie. If I had to guess, I'd say it was close to half.

And even of us ordinary Catholics, the furthest to the "left" would likely be sinkspur (I might not be far to the right of him), and he is to the right of the overwhelming number of Catholics in the real world.

I don't like categorizing Catholics "right" vs. "left", but indulging in that metaphor, I think that sinkspur is right to point out that the breadth of opinion here at FR is dramatically truncated.

The "far left" at FR is just a little to the left of our Holy Father, if that much. The Holy Father, himself, isn't far from the left-most place in the spectrum, as represented here at FR. And the right goes all the way past Catholic to lunatic fringe sedevacantist heretic. And they represent a fair number of the Catholic and near-Catholic posters here at FR!

No, sinkspur is right. FR is dramatically unrepresentative of Catholicism at large in the non-virtual world. Reading FR, one would think that the schismatic voice has weight and credibility in the non-virtual Catholic world. One would not realize that the schismatics are a poor, pathetic group of lost sheep, that our Holy Father has set out to find and recover, the one lost sheep that he leaves the other 99 to seek out. One would not realize that the overwhelming number of Catholics are unaware or only most vaguely aware of the schisms.

Myself, I knew a little about the lefebvreite schism prior to coming to FR. But I knew nothing of the SSPV (now reunited to the Catholic Church), or the SSP2.5 or the CMRI or that there were actually any sedevacantists, or the various "popes" of the different lunatic fringe groups, etc., etc., etc.

Yet, these voice just about dominate the "RC" Caucus at FR.

It is a shame.


sitetest

[Pyro7480]

See my Chesterton quote in post #125.

[Pyro7480]

I just finished reading your post. I think you have a point. However, just because one faction has an apparent domination of the Catholic forum, doesn't mean that they have the majority of followers amongst the Catholics on FR. They just happen to post the most (or shout the loudest, if you want to put it that way).

In terms of the Catholic population, I think your numbers are indicative of the cultural change that has taken place. Yes, 20 to 30 million are active, practicing Catholic, but do they actually believe all the Catholic Church teaches? I think that many do not. They attend the Mass regularly, but they have the "cafeteria Catholic" mindset. Most of these people are probably not conservatives politically, and therefore, would not be drawn to a forum like FR. There is the first filter of Catholic on FR.

Then you have the breakdown of how the Catholics on FR practice their faith. If you're a conservative politically, it is likely that you trend more conservative religiously too. Those who do take their faith serious are probably more prone to post on the Religion forum. Many of the other members of FR who may be Catholics are more interested in the News portion of FR, so that would serve as a second filter for the type of person who posts on the Religion forum.

[huskyboy]

I don't like categorizing Catholics "right" vs. "left", but indulging in that metaphor, I think that sinkspur is right to point out that the breadth of opinion here at FR is dramatically truncated.

There's no such thing as right and left in the Church: there is only one Catholic faith. Otherwise, how could we call it such?

[Domestic Church]

Hi Sitetest

"The "far left" at FR is just a little to the left of our Holy Father, if that much. The Holy Father, himself, isn't far from the left-most place in the spectrum, as represented here at FR. And the right goes all the way past Catholic to lunatic fringe sedevacantist heretic. And they represent a fair number of the Catholic and near-Catholic posters here at FR!"

I was having a similar conversation with a liberal parish friend who had no idea that the Pope was pretty much in the middle and there was another whole spectrum to the right of him. Most Catholics in my parish that I've talked with think the Pope is the far right of Church politics...and these are folks, practicing Catholics, active in parish life, who went to typical Catholic Colleges in the northeast.

[ultima ratio]

You leave out one dimension of your run-down. The people who post here are vitally INTERESTED in the Church and are on the sidelines watching a titanic struggle over the Church's own identity. Unlike most go-along Catholics who couldn't care less which way the future panned out, we care and are ready to argue the issue. If traditionalists are now ascendant, it's because modernism has failed--and failed abysmally--and it is no wonder its supporters are backing off. At least traditionalism offers a remedy--a rejection of unworkable novelties and a return to the faith handed-down to us from apostolic times.