Hard look at current state of the Church

DustinsDad · #1 Apr 13, '05, 9:50 pm

I just finished reading Pat Buchanan's latest article, Pius XII and John Paul II, and I'd like to get some opinions from folks here on it.

It's rather shocking, but perhaps we need to be shocked. After all, Christ said the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against His church - didn't say the church would always be in our own back yard.

I'll post the entire article below.

Peace,

DustinsDad

DustinsDad · #2 Apr 13, '05, 9:54 pm

Pius XII and John Paul II
by Pat Buchanan

Now that the mourning for John Paul II has ended and he has been laid to rest in St. Peter's, it is time to consider the state of the church he led for 27 years. For, despite his extraordinary life, his holiness and his critical role in bringing an end to communist rule in Eastern Europe, the condition of the church is grave.

Two years ago, Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis pulled together a slim book he titled "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II." As that church council ended 40 years ago this year, what good fruit did it bear? Since 1965:

The number of Catholic priests has fallen from 58,000 to 45,000. By 2020, there will be 31,000 and half will be over 70.
In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained. In 2002, the number was 450. Some 3,000 parishes are today without priests.
Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians fell from 49,999 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the seminaries open in 1965 have since closed their doors.
The number of Catholic nuns, 180,000 in 1965, has fallen by 60 percent. Their average age is now 68. The number of teaching nuns has fallen 94 percent since the close of Vatican II.
The number of young men studying to be Jesuits has fallen by 90 percent and of those studying to be Christian Brothers by 99 percent. The religious orders seem to be dying out in America.
Almost half the Catholic high schools open in 1965 have closed. There were 4.5 million students in Catholic schools in the mid-1960s. Today, there is about half that number.
Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers in 2002 accepted church teaching on contraception, 53 percent believed a Catholic woman could get an abortion and remain a good Catholic, 65 percent said Catholics have a right to divorce and remarry, and in a New York Times poll, 70 percent of Catholics ages 18 to 54 said they believed the Holy Eucharist was but a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus.
Where three in four Catholics attended mass on Sunday in 1958, today one in four do.

All this happened during the papacies of Paul VI and John Paul II. Now let us look back to the 35 years previous to the end of Vatican II, from 1930-1965, where the dominant pope was Pius XII, the "Catholic Moment" in America.

In that period, the number of Catholics and priests in America doubled. The most visible prelate was not Cardinal Law, but Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, whose TV ratings bested those of Milton Berle, who cracked, "He has better writers than I do." Parochial schools and Catholic high schools could not be built fast enough to accommodate the baby boomers of Catholic parents. Masses were full on Sundays, and there were long lines outside the confessionals on Saturday.

-continued below-

DustinsDad · #3 Apr 13, '05, 9:55 pm

-continued from above-

The papacy of Pius XII was a time of explosive growth in the church, while that of John Paul II coincided with Catholic scandal and decline. Was the Holy Father responsible for the latter? No, but it is regrettably true that the decline that began at the close of Vatican II continued unabated through the papacy of John Paul II. Conceding his sanctity and charisma, he was unable to stop it.

But what was the cause of it? Defenders of Vatican II say that blaming the council "reforms" they cherish for the decline in vocations and devotion is a classic case of the logical fallacy, "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." After this, therefore, because of this.

Simply because a precipitous Catholic decline began with Vatican II does not mean Vatican II was the cause, they contend. Perhaps not. But there is no question but that - measuring what the council produced against what Catholics were promised - it was, in Jimmy Carter's phrase, "a limited success." Neither Paul VI nor John Paul II was able to arrest the spread of heresy, defections and disbelief that followed the Second Vatican Council.

While the church has maintained her numerical strength in America, this is due only to immigration. As one Chicago priest said, each week he buries a Lithuanian or Polish Catholic - and baptizes two Hispanic babies.

What happened to Catholicism is what happened to America. Both passed through a moral, social and cultural revolution that has altered the most basic beliefs of men and women. There has been a "transvaluation of all values." What was considered scandalous or immoral not long ago - promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality - is now considered progressive. It says everything about our age that, were a judicial nominee in America to echo the views of John Paul II on human life, the Democratic Senate would unanimously filibuster his nomination to death and denounce him as an extremist.

With much of the church having succumbed to the heresy of modernism, it needs an Athanasius. As good a man as the pope was, as great as were his achievements, as noble as was his witness for life, the Catholic Church still awaits that bishop.

-end-

m134e5 · #4 Apr 13, '05, 10:51 pm

That's a good article. I don't think things will change though.

chicago · #5 Apr 13, '05, 11:56 pm

Apparently Pat didn't watch the same broadcast of the pope's funeral that the rest of us did. Or recognize the strong outpouring of faith in the wake of his passing.

While there is a certain legitimacy to the concerns which he points out, I think that he is basically just a whiner who has long gone around singing this one tune, wishing for a nostalgic past and not liking that anything has changed since the Council. Even though the statistics may be telling and raise worthwhile issues, there's no easy way to just go back to some old way of doing things and magically put the genie back in the bottle. So I would tell Pat to quit complaining and serving as little more than yet another detracting voice in the media. Get on board the bandwagon that is leading to genuine renewal and progress such as we have seen John Paul set forth and walk. Frankly, I get sick of such negative doomsdayers. I see no joy which begets anything positive in them. Just the spread of depressing frustration spiraling into self pity.

olegraymere · #6 Apr 14, '05, 4:54 am

Buchanan's concerns are valid, but the problems he cites cannot be laid at the foot of the pope. There has been cultural upheaval in the West, and the Catholic Church has been deeply affected, as have other institutions. Meanwhile, the Church has grown worldwide. We can only imagine how much worse it might have been here had we not had such a strong and faithful Holy Father.

Lots of people look back to the pre-Vatican II church with nostalgia, but the very fact that so many people lost their faith, or drifted away, or adhered to beliefs contrary to those of the Church... we have to wonder how deep was their faith to begin with? And who then is responsible for such superficial catechesis?

The crisis in leadership is not at the top, but rather our beloved middle managers, the bishops and priests. Their numbers are down, but are growing in those dioceses that promote orthodoxy, and are being renewed by "John Paul's soldiers." We will be reaping the rewards of John Paul's papacy for generations to come.

It's also worth noting the profound contributions of lay people. Participation of the laity has grown, as have many lay movements and apostolates. These have not been limited to so-called progressives either. They have flourished among very faithful, orthodox Catholics, often due in part to the lack of effective leadership from the clergy.

Much as I love Pat Buchanan, I think things are a lot brighter than he does.

condan · #7 Apr 14, '05, 5:22 am

Mr. Buchanan is 100% right-on!. Vatican II has spread confusion and dissent among pew Catholics. Our teaching, what little there is, is watered down. Painfully few teach about faith and morals as they relate to today's world, i.e., artificial contraception, abortion, adultery, materialism, in any meaningful way. The misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II has rendered Catholicism, in its present weakened, watered-down form, meaningless. That's why only one in four Catholics regularly attends Mass.

Mr. Buchanan is right that we need an Athanasius. We need a good smack in the face as well. We pray every night that the new pope will continue the work of John Paul II but will also pull no punches in explaining what being authentically Catholic means.

awalt · #8 Apr 14, '05, 7:35 am

I am not sure what to think - as my father-in-law says, "Figures lie and liars figure"

Sure these facts are true, but what is the set of other facts that present a truer picture? I have seen some data that lay particpation in the Church has grown significantly. My impression is that the Church relies on lay people more now.

Here's one set of facts from my local paper. They presented a whole set of facts on the size and growth of the Church, citing about a dozen very reputable sources (I can list if you want). But it seems to me the Catholic population is growing:

Continent % Catholic 1975 % Catholic 2005

Africa 12.6% 15.3%
Asia 2.4% 3.0%
Europe 39.1% 39.2%
Latin Amer 88.4% 88.8%
North Amer 24.8% 22.9%
Oceania 23.6% 27.1%

so all continents except North America show growth in percentage of totalpopulation of Catholics.

US Catholic population has grown:

1965 - 46.6MM
1975 - 48.7MM
1985 - 52.3MM
1995 - 60.2MM
2005 - 67.3MM

So Jesus' Church is doing ok? Not saying there aren't challenges but I don't think the story is as bleak as the secullar press would lead you to believe.

CatQuilt · #9 Apr 14, '05, 8:07 am

Yes, if you could please cite the sources, that would be great!

Michael C · #10 Apr 14, '05, 9:00 am

If I were still a member of my former parish I would have thought this to just be negative thinking. I moved and now belong to a parish that pushes a progressive agenda. I think we do need a Pope that will deal swiftly and effectively with dissent. I am so sick of hearing Vatican II didn't go far enough. We need to hear about the evils of abortion from the pulpit. JP II was great but we do need someone now that will deal with the silent scism in America.

**Ani Ibi** · #11 Apr 14, '05, 9:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael C

we do need someone now that will deal with the silent scism in America.

I do not believe there is a silent schism in America. I believe there are people who are nominally Catholic but do not understand, respect, and cede to the authority of the Church, but instead to their own private opinions. This may be schismatic in name but the schism occured centuries ago during the Reformation. There is no new schism.

romano · #12 Apr 14, '05, 10:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by condan

Mr. Buchanan is 100% right-on!. Vatican II has spread confusion and dissent among pew Catholics. Our teaching, what little there is, is watered down. Painfully few teach about faith and morals as they relate to today's world, i.e., artificial contraception, abortion, adultery, materialism, in any meaningful way. The misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II has rendered Catholicism, in its present weakened, watered-down form, meaningless. That's why only one in four Catholics regularly attends Mass.

Mr. Buchanan is right that we need an Athanasius. We need a good smack in the face as well. We pray every night that the new pope will continue the work of John Paul II but will also pull no punches in explaining what being authentically Catholic means.

GREAT POST!!!

YES!!!

I was beginning to think that everyone around here preferred keeping their heads stuck in the sand. Go to the top of the class!

Maranatha · #13 Apr 14, '05, 10:58 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by awalt

I am not sure what to think - as my father-in-law says, "Figures lie and liars figure"

Sure these facts are true, but what is the set of other facts that present a truer picture? I have seen some data that lay particpation in the Church has grown significantly. My impression is that the Church relies on lay people more now.

Here's one set of facts from my local paper. They presented a whole set of facts on the size and growth of the Church, citing about a dozen very reputable sources (I can list if you want). But it seems to me the Catholic population is growing:

Continent % Catholic 1975 % Catholic 2005

Africa 12.6% 15.3%
Asia 2.4% 3.0%
Europe 39.1% 39.2%
Latin Amer 88.4% 88.8%
North Amer 24.8% 22.9%
Oceania 23.6% 27.1%

so all continents except North America show growth in percentage of totalpopulation of Catholics.

US Catholic population has grown:

1965 - 46.6MM
1975 - 48.7MM
1985 - 52.3MM
1995 - 60.2MM
2005 - 67.3MM

So Jesus' Church is doing ok? Not saying there aren't challenges but I don't think the story is as bleak as the secullar press would lead you to believe.

I agree that there are problems in the Church but also that some make it seem worse than it really is. Buchanan's numbers used for Pre Vatican II are padded with baby boom numbers. The numbers after Vatican II are depleted by baby bust numbers.

If we want to understand the real challenges to the Church we need good statistics.

Petrus Romanus · #14 Apr 14, '05, 11:49 am

Paul VI let the genie out of the bottle. He and he alone.

The question was, did John Paul II try to fix the problems afflicting the Church after this happened.

The answer is a mixed records. Excellent in his personal evangelism and witness, quite good in raising the stature of the Church worldwide, but very limited in his own governance of the Church and internal discipline / administration.

John Paul II was not a "centralizer" by any means. The Curia was a mess for much of his pontificate, as he was a delegator by nature, preferring to do pastoral work to administration. Likewise, he was not a discipliner, contrary to the media image of his iron fist.

John Paul II's lack of control is still evident in my own country, Canada.

The Bishops here proposed a heretical lectionary, which changed phrases like "Son of Man" to "human being": ect. However the Congregation of Divine Worship approved it in 1992.

A year later, the Congregation of the Faith stated it was heretical and had to replaced with an orthodox lectionary by 1997 at the latest.

Here we had two offices of the Curia, not knowing what the other was doing and in total disarray, contradicting eachother.

Well, it is 2005 and we are still using the same heretical lectionary nationwide that we were supposed to trash back in 1997, and there is no end in sight.

This is a classic parable of the poor administration of the Vatican under our late beloved Papa.

pprimeau1976 · #15 Apr 14, '05, 11:55 am

I think that Pat Buchannan is being too hard on Vatican II. Vatican II just so happened to occur during a time when the U.S.A. (and the rest of the western world) was going through a serious decline in morals as they emraced relativism. I think that the problem is with the culture as a whole.

If there is any criticism I would have of Vatican II, it would be this: poor timing. It was done way too late, but with the way the 20th Century was with WWI and WWII, it's no wonder it happened when it happened.