In response to those blaming a fall in vocations on Vatican II, I tried looking for a U.S. vocations/incidence graph, but couldn't find one. I did find a Netherlands one though. Look at the bottom of this Link (I'll try and post the graph itself as a “response”, but my HTML isn't that great) at the graph representing *total ordinations*. Note that they list the mean seminary time as 6 years, so *vocations* to the priesthood would predate any point shown by 6 years.

For example, someone having a vocation to ENTER the seminary in 1965 when Vatican II was convened wouldn't show up on this graph until 1971. Similarly, a 1968 vocation (when Vatican II completed) would show up in 1974, and a 1970 vocation (when the Novus Ordo was intiated)would show up as 1976.

Looking at the graph of "all ordinations", it shows that the number of ordinations reached its zenith around 1940 at ~550/year, and had declined to its low plateau by 1971 at ~30 or so. This means that in 1965 when Vat II had convened, the church ALREADY SEEN a 95% drop in vocations from its high point around 1934! NO significant drop occurred AFTER Vatican II, practically speaking, there wasn’t much lower it could go.

Continued below,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 19, 2003

Answers

Also, to put this in a larger context, the rise in vocations (remembering that a vocation to enter the seminary would be six years earlier than the point on this graph) really started around the end of WWI, and continued through to the time of WWII when it began to fall. Using your mind’s eye to make an averaged line of the data, during the 20 years between 1934 and 1954 there was about a 23% drop in seminary entrance, and then a RAPID decline of about 85% of the remainder in the decade from 1954-1964. Again, by the time Vat II came around, it was too late, the seminaries had been emptied. The Pre-Novus Ordo church was responsible, if anyone in the Church was.

The Tridentine mass couldn’t have stopped the fall, there was NO other Catholic mass BUT the Tridentine during the fall. It was NOT heterodoxy in the Church that caused the fall, unless you mean heterodoxy decades BEFORE Vat II.

Unless someone can come up with data showing that the Netherlands data is markedly skewed from the rest of the Church, there is absolutely no connection between VatII and the decrease in priests.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 19, 2003.

---

I hope this works, it's the graph for the above discussion, taken from the link.

---

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 19, 2003.

---

Hi, Frank. Thanks for doing all that work. I am quite prepared to go in any direction the evidence leads (indeed, I'd be quite happy if the Netherlands example turns out to have been representative); I do have reservations, though, about seeing the Netherlands as representative. Three main things occur to me, as far a ways that someone could argue that the Netherlands might not be representative. One is that the Bishops in the Netherlands must have been different in some way, given that they were so personally vociferous against the Nazis that much larger Nazi reprisals occurred in response. (As we know, Pius XII denounced the Nazi philosophy but mostly worked behind the scenes to do everything he could to stop them, and was quite effective in saving some 860,000 Jewish people.) At any rate, someone could argue that the decline you speak of began fairly close to the Nazi occupation (I don't know precisely when the Nazis took over the Netherlands, but you refer to the decline beginning after 1934 perhaps, which is fairly close), and they could argue that there is a correlation. Second there also must have been something odd about those Netherlands Bishops in the 1960's, since they produced that pretty watered-down Catechism, which I think had to get withdrawn later, if I remember rightly. Third, today, the Netherlands is also famous for being on the cutting endge of social liberalism, regarding drug legalization and euthanasia.

The Netherlands might well turn out to be perfectly representative of the larger trend in terms of vocations, but I would want to see much more wide-ranging stats. BTW, it's good that you can even put graphs on the thread, but I should mention that given my eye problem I can't read them. God bless you. In Christ, Chris

-- Chris B -- January 19, 2003.

---

Chris,

That's a real bummer about not being able to read graphs. I'd like to be able to look at more inclusive data, but as of yet, don't have any or know where to get it. If you come across some, please let me know. For myself, since this was not an isolated phenomenon, at this point I'm betting the data will be pretty similar for whatever can be rounded up. Of course, I may be wrong, LOL.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 20, 2003.

---

Frank, have you been able to find any other stats besides the Netherlands?

In Christ, Chris

-- Chris B -- January 22, 2003.

---

Chris,

No, it's kind of funny, you'd think *someone* would have that out there, I'm probably not searching with the right keywords, but what I'd like is a list, preferably with a graph from the 20's at least to now.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), January 23, 2003.

-- The Thread Restorer (Thread@Restoration.com), December 01, 2003

Answers

bump

-- a (a@a.a), May 30, 2004.

From Kenneth Jones' Index of Leading Catholic Indicators

For the USA

1920 Priests=21019 Seminarians=8944

1930 Priests=26925 Seminarians=16300

1940 Priests=33912 Seminarians=17087

1950 Priests=42970 Seminarians=25622

1960 Priests=53796 Seminarians=39896

1975 Priests=58909 Seminarians=17802

1980 Priests=58621 Seminarians=13226

1990 Priests=53111 Seminarians=6233

2000 Priests=45713 Seminarians=4719

US Population 1965=191 million 2000=281 million

Mass attendance: A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.

The decline in Mass attendance highlights another significant fact — fewer and fewer people who call themselves Catholic actually follow Church rules or accept Church doctrine. For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. Only 10 percent of lay religion teachers accept Church teaching on artificial birth control, according to a 2000 University of Notre Dame poll. And a New York Times poll revealed that 70 percent of Catholics age 18-44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus

Cardinal Ratzinger speaking in 1984 about the state of the church since Vatican II: "Expected was a great step forward, instead we find ourselves faced with a progressive process of decadence which has developed for the most part under the sign of a calling back to the Council, and has therefore contributed to discrediting it for many. The net result therefore seems negative. I am repeating here what I said ten years after the conclusion of the work: it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 01, 2004.

Precisely, Brian.

You have concluded what Frank did before in response to Old Traditional Pius XII and before Catholics who blame the new mass for the exodus in the priesthood.

I discovered that in 1982 while I worked for the Church.

In the 3 letters I wrote to the Pope I asked him to open the priesthood to married men.

In the last one I asked to replace the youg altar boys with married men to control the problem of young people accusing priests of molesting them. The txt is in Spansh mostly. See the bold face.

Ultimamente en los Estados Unidos esta de moda atacar a la iglesia Católica, en particular a los sacerdotes acusados de molestar y abusar de menores. La orientación homosexual de algunos de ellos a hecho pensar a los no católicos que todos los sacerdotes son homosexuales. No se cuantos dejen la iglesia en estos próximos 2 años. Usted ya esta enterado de lo que pasó en Boston y Miami.Sé que la Iglesia no cambiará de la noche a la mañana los requisitos para el sacerdocio. Aunque el Arzobispo Roger Mahony dejó abierta la posibilidad de que mas sacerdotes se les permita casarse porque la Iglesia ya permite la entrada de sacerdotes casados de la Iglesia Anglicana que retornan a la Iglesia. Mi solucion inmediata es de remplazar a los muchachos y muchachas que ayudan en el altar como monaguillos o cosas parecidos por adultos que ya estan casados. No creo que los sacerdotes traten de abusar de un adulto casado de la misma manera que lo hacen con un niño. Para mi, esto es una solución rápida.

Taken from my last letter to John Paul II

I already had visions like the one sister Lucia had in 1917 about the fall of the Church.

I may not be a Catholic anymore, but that doesn't mean I don't care for the Catholic Church.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), June 01, 2004.

For example, a 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter shows that 77 percent believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing.

Please do not take what I am about to say as a criticism of you, Brian. I am sure that you are innocent of any intentional wrongdoing.

It would be very good if no one ever quoted the "National Catholic Reporter" at this forum. That pile of debris should never be treated as though it were a legitimate publication. It is neither "national" nor "Catholic," but a tiny, lay-run, filthy rag, produced by a few sodomy-promoting heretics and dissidents in Missouri. Quoting from one of its polls is of no use, since its poll-takers cannot be trusted as having spoken to genuine Catholics.

Precisely .... You have concluded what an earlier poster concluded in response to Old Traditional Pius XII and before Catholics who blame the new mass for the exodus in the priesthood.

I don't see where Brian concluded the same as an earlier poster had done. To the contrary, methinks. I was pleased to see that Brian presented numbers that agree with what I have heard for most of my life -- showing the numbers of priests and seminarians skyrocketing throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s to 1960. This debunks the earlier poster's erroneous claim that "in 1965 when Vatican II had convened, the church already seen a 95% drop in vocations from its high point around 1934!"

Moreover, Vatican II first convened, not in 1965, but in 1962 (when the number of U.S. priests and seminarians were at their zeniths). The earlier poster went completely against what was reported by the Church in the 1970s and 1980s when he stated, "NO significant drop occurred AFTER Vatican II, practically speaking, there wasn’t much lower it could go." In fact, the big drops occurred after Vatican II, not before it. Why the drops occurred is a topic for scholarly research.

Henry IX

-- (Defender@fThe.Faith), June 02, 2004.

Elpidio,

Are you saying that Frank and I agree? Frank believes, based on data from the Netherlands, that the decline in priesthood numbers has nothing to do with the Vatican II period. I completely disagree with regards to the U.S. The statistics show that the number of seminarians in the U.S. continued to rise from at least 1920 until 1960. But from 1960 to the present, they have declined at an alarming rate, despite the U.S. population increasing and the influx of hispanic immigrants, many of whom are Catholic.

Your solution to the priest shortage is wrongheaded; there have been several threads on this in the forum. The U.S. priesthood was doing just fine up until the 60's with no married priests. Vatican II did not suddenly impose new restrictions on priests.

I agree with you that there is a problem with homosexual priests. But replacing altar boys with married men "to control the problem of young people accusing priests of molesting them" is bass ackwards. The problem is not young boys accusing priests of molesting them. The problem is priests molesting young boys. Get rid of those priests, not the young boys.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 02, 2004.

Henry,

We were posting at the same time. You are right about the National Catholic Reporter. I always get them confused with the National Catholic Register. I should have caught that. My bad. They probably used that poll to make the case for infrequent mass attendance and abortion, not to bemoan such ignorance.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 02, 2004.

John,

It is neither "national" nor "Catholic," but a tiny, lay-run, filthy rag, produced by a few sodomy-promoting heretics and dissidents in Missouri.

Why not say how you REALLY feel?

This debunks the earlier poster's erroneous claim that "in 1965 when Vatican II had convened, the church already seen a 95% drop in vocations from its high point around 1934!"

Actually, it doesn't "debunk" anything. Because the price of salami goes up in Wales, that doesn't mean that the price of salami goes up in Kansas too! Different countries may have seen different effects for different reasons. The sixties themselves may be at blame moreso than anything else, you should be more careful in your expressions in the future. If you want to say something is "debunked", you have to show that it is incorrect, which this does not do. Showing that Kansas salami is as cheap as ever does NOT prove Wales salami didn't have a price jump. I'd expect more from someone of your exactitude.

Brian,

I can understand wanting to blame Vatican II for things, but it didn't happen in a vacuum. The 60's was a time of social upheaval, and most other large denominations ALSO saw a drop in their seminarians. Are these the result of Vatican II as well? If not, perhaps there is a common cause for the decline in seminarians in the U.S. that is related to the culture here, or some other explanation. Where is the proof to say that Vatican II itself is to blame, especially since in other areas of the world and which is also subject to Vatican II the church is booming? Could it be that it is really the cultural values of the United States and Western Europe that are responsible for the decline in seminarians?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2004.

Frank,

You said: I can understand wanting to blame Vatican II for things...

First off, I said that the priesthood declined during the period of Vatican II, because it is unequivocally the truth, and I wanted to avoid someone charging me with blaming the council itself. I guess I shouldn't have bothered being so careful in choosing my words.

In your first sentence in the thread you said: In response to those blaming a fall in vocations on Vatican II, I tried looking for a U.S. vocations/incidence graph, but couldn't find one. You also said: I'd like is a list, preferably with a graph from the 20's at least to now...For myself, since this was not an isolated phenomenon, at this point I'm betting the data will be pretty similar for whatever can be rounded up.

You got what you asked for. You think the problem with the decline in priests may have more to do with the 60's culture, and not with Vatican II. Either argument is subjective and can't be proved authoritatively. But I can't help thinking if the US stats had turned out to be similar to the stats of the decadent Dutch, you would have exclaimed: "Aha! this proves Vatican II is not to blame." But now that the stats are different than the Dutch stats you are saying in effect: Aha! this proves Vatican II is not necessarily to blame. It could be just the 60's." :-)

However, you bring up something that I've been thinking about for a long, long time and thought someday I would start a thread about it: Which begat which? Did Vatican II beget the counter-cultural social, sexual revolution of the 60's? Or did the counter-cultural revolution actually begin in the late 50's and beget Vatican II?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 02, 2004.

Brian,

First off, I said that the priesthood declined during the period of Vatican II, because it is unequivocally the truth, and I wanted to avoid someone charging me with blaming the council itself. I guess I shouldn't have bothered being so careful in choosing my words.

Well, remember that this thread was dug up from a year ago, and you have to understand the context of the original thread. At the time this was written, there were schismatics here saying that everything from original sin to bad weather was the fault of Vatican II. They said *all the time* that the fall in vocations was *exclusively* due to V2. I guess I'm still a bit sensitive about people running down my church all the time, but didn't mean to jump on you about it. The point of this thread was to show with what data I could find, that V2 wasn't responsible for everything bad under the sun. BTW, looking at the data I posted, Vatican II couldn't be responsible for the fall in the Netherlands. I also said that I couldn't find a year to year data set for the U.S., and IMO, 1960 - 1975 isn't very good either at showing when a large chunk of the fall happened here. Would it make any difference to you if the numbers fell from 40k to 25k by 1965 or even 1968? It would to me, as none of the changes of V2 would have been made yet. From this data, we still don't know when the majority of the fall occured, except to say that it's still declining now. It surely doesn't implicate Vatican II as a cause of the decline.

You got what you asked for. You think the problem with the decline in priests may have more to do with the 60's culture, and not with Vatican II. Either argument is subjective and can't be proved authoritatively. But I can't help thinking if the US stats had turned out to be similar to the stats of the decadent Dutch, you would have exclaimed: "Aha! this proves Vatican II is not to blame."

Obviously. If all the fall happened in 1960 and before, for example, it couldn't be the fault of V2, could it? V2 hadn't happened yet. However, since there HAS been a continued decline in this country since V2, it could be a factor, but isn't necessarily one. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

It could be just the 60's." :-)

Exactly.

However, you bring up something that I've been thinking about for a long, long time and thought someday I would start a thread about it: Which begat which? Did Vatican II beget the counter-cultural social, sexual revolution of the 60's? Or did the counter-cultural revolution actually begin in the late 50's and beget Vatican II?

Personally, I think the 60's are or were the result of WWII and the whole mass-production outlook of the 50's. The children of the WWIIers had prosperity and time for reflection, and memory of the horrors of what has been, resulting in Hedonism. I think the 60's were caused by a kind of global sudden prosperity and feeling of enlightenment, real or imagined, and this spirit no doubt influenced Vatican II, but I doubt if either caused the other. It's very dangerous though to ascribe cultural motives to a church council. We believe the Holy Spirit was guiding the Council, to say it only acted on temporal concerns would really be heresy wouldn't it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2004.