Priestly Decline and Communism

[MichaelFilo]

A while back (I say a while because I cannot recall when) Cam and I discussed (partially) Vatican II and the claims against it. I had backed out for many a reason (I did not say well what I meant, nor was I was willing to concede when I was in error, in both cases I failed to meet the a respectable attitude since I was neither well prepared nor ready to admit my error). However, I decided tonight (for some reason I find myself always checking back on the traditionalist arguement) to look at something and some claim I set against Cam and the post-conciliar Church. It was this; there is no suprise that after the Vatican II council we have found our seminary's barren. There is no reason to assume that anything else was the cause.

Cam's response was to the effect of "the priestly decline had begun before Vatican II".

I responded with "Yet, at the time of Vatican II the decrease rate grew greatly".

Now this is as far as that went, again because of my desertion for the above enumerated reasons.

However, I decided to see today if indeed I was in error (I sure hoped not, but I am at least a bit more willing to admit it). I came across an article on the USCCB (United States Confrence of Catholic Bishops) website. Hopefully, its claims maybe found valid, but whether you care to hear them or not, they are quite interesting.[url="http://www.usccb.org/plm/summary.htm"]The website[/url].

If you don't feel like reading the whole thing, I'll just put in the relevant part here.

[QUOTE[b]]The ratio of priests to people in 1900 was approximately 1:900. In 1950 the ratio was approximately 1: 650. In 1999 the ratio was approximately 1: 1200.[/b] [b][i]The 1940's and 1950's saw a significant increase in the number of priests both diocesan and religious[/i][/b]. The years since have been something of a balancing out as the century came to a close. There are several distinctions that are critical in considering the impact of the 1999 ratio of priests to people. [b]First, the age of the one priest in 1999 is substantially higher than it was in 1900[/b]. Second, the 1200 people in the equation reflect a greater diversity than they did in 1900. Third, parish life is more complex than it was 100 years ago, so that, new sets of skills are required of today's pastors. There are also some significant regional differences in this priest to people ratio. Of special note is that the priest to people ratio in the West is 1: 1752. This is much higher than the national rate

Now, some may ask, so what? Well, I can only say this, Cam was wrong. It seems that preceeding the Vatican II council we reached a level of priest to people that was the lowest it had been in the entire century. In fact, the Bishops state that "the 1940's and 1950's saw a significant increase in the number of priests both diocesan and religious". What does that mean? Well, it can mean any number of things; it can mean the sexual revolution had a great impact on the Church, it could mean that Satan was around and putting overtime in trying to destory the Church, it could mean alot of things. (It's the problem of trying to find the cause from the effect; something that is impossible except by ruling out all but one cause).

However, I didn't make this post without a reason. I came to point out the fact that Vatican II's changes are more than likely a large if not the major cause of the decline in priests.

Nuns suffered a similiar fate. [url="http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_137.html"]A website with statistics on nuns[/url]

Nuns were increasing in number all the way up until 1966 (a year after the close of the Vatican II council). The earliest statistic after that is in 1997 (which the site provides 2 different ones, but the sidenote indicates the first one is correct and so it is more feasable to assume the second is incorrect).

To save this post anymore length in this section I'd just like to say that one cannot easily dismiss the very likely effect of Vatican II on the priests and nuns. You may say it's the sexual revolution but I must disagree, that was a social movement that must of had it's roots and was growing before 1960 (possibly as early as 1945). This does not at all reflect the trend in priestly vocations or the amount of nuns, the numbers were growing rapidly. However, one can see that in the case of both the nuns and the priests, there was a sharp decrease in vocations in the 1960's and with the nun statistics being more plentiful, one may point to the fact that the number of nun's suddenly stopped decreasing between 1964 and 1966 and started falling in and after 1966 should be at least a strong testament that with Vatican II we can pinpoint a sort of destruction to vocations. Sure numbers of vocations aren't constant and flux, but with a steady growth in numbers since the beggening of the century, one may wonder why such a change occured; the sexual revolution wasn't as national as one may think, so why the decrease?

----

If you have read thusfar, congratulations. I must know ask this question, and it is short. Why did the second Vatican council NOT condemn Communism, easily the largest enemy of the Church in the century, and the pinnacle of the Enlightenment ideal (of which the sworn enemies of the Church, the masons were born out of )? For a pastoral council it would seem very strange that the BIGGEST threat to the Faithful would not be condemned?

What am I getting at? I don't know. But I have to wonder, when Fatima promised that the Enemy would work his way into the highest positions of the Church, when Pope Leo XIII had a vision of a hundred year attempt for Satan to try to destroy the Church granted to him by Christ (Vatican II was within the time period), when St. Pius X said in 1904 "As of now the enemy is not outside of the Church but within the Church itself" and he further explained that the enemy is in the seminary and has won over proffessors and seminarians when only 50 years prior to the Italian secret societies plan's were seized and published which said "from now on we will penetrate the parishes and into the episcopates, and into the seminaries and so we will have parish priests, bishops and cardinals who will be our disciples, and from these cardinals we hope one day to have a pope, who will be imbued with our ideas and will not appear to have been elected by the secret societies. Thus the Christian people will think they are following the Chair of Peter and in its place they will follow us". When all those peices fall together; and we know that since 1904 the bishops and cardinals of the Vatican II council were the same seminarians that the St. Pius warned about; and we see that the Council refused to condemn Communism, I must wonder (although I can be assured that the Spirit leads councils) whether something diabolic was brewing. Nothing makes me wonder more than the fact that at the close of the council, the masonic newspapers in Italy and France proclaimed victory.

I put this here because it may lead to a response, which I hope it does.

God bless,
Mikey

[Socrates]

Oh, so now the "post-Vatican II" Church is Communist?
Communism had already been condemned by the Church.
And JPII was a staunch opponent of Communism, who had suffered under Communist-occupied Poland.

Get over your silly "Rad-Trad" conspiricy theories!

[jezic]

it might have had an impact, that is certain.

I think though that it isn't a good idea to throw around ideas like this in an open forum. It might not lead to good places.

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 13 2005, 09:57 PM']Oh, so now the "post-Vatican II" Church is Communist? 
Communism had already been condemned by the Church.
And JPII was a staunch opponent of Communism, who had suffered under Communist-occupied Poland.

Get over your silly "Rad-Trad" conspiricy theories!
[right][snapback]787614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I didn't say the Church was communist. I did say that there was no condemnation.

Of course communism was condemned, as it should be. That didn't mean that once is enough. Otherwise, when Manicheanism was condemned, there would have been no need to condemn the Albigenses as they were nothing but a new version of the older heresy. The dualistic view of good and evil was conemned so many times it's not neccessary to point out.

So, why not at the council (the proper place for a condemnation of an error) was the council silent? Communism was not condemned by a council up to that point. Would it not have been quite fitting. Archbishop Lefebvre tells the story [url="http://www.sspx.ca/Angelus/1982_February/Archbishop_Speaks.htm"]here[/url]. I realize you may not give the cardinal much trust in teaching anything, but what would his motive be to lie about the whole happenings?

I'm just saying, this was something awkward.

God bless,
Mikey

[Socrates]

A negative argument (why didn't the Council do something?) is a pretty weak argument.
One could always come up with plenty of things the Council didn't do that one thinks it should have.
This does not give any positive proof of some evil conspiracy.

All this looks like more desperate schismatic attempts to "prove" that the current Church is false or evil and should not be followed.
From your recent posts, it's clear you're going down a dangerous path, Mikey.

[MC Just]

"From some fissure the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God."

- Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972 (On the occasion of the Ninth Anniversary of his Coronation)

[MC Just]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Nov 13 2005, 10:23 PM']"From some fissure the smoke of satan entered into the temple of God."

    - Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972 (On the occasion of the Ninth Anniversary of his Coronation)
[right][snapback]787701[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I can tell you right now that fissure is called "liberalism". Liberalism is laxity, it is a "sign saying "come on in satan".

[MC Just]

good examples of the smoke of satan: Cardinals and bishops letting things get out of hand, gay priests, liberal priests, modernism, misenterpretations of vatican II.

[Era Might]

[quote]If you have read thusfar, congratulations. I must know ask this question, and it is short. Why did the second Vatican council NOT condemn Communism, easily the largest enemy of the Church in the century, and the pinnacle of the Enlightenment ideal (of which the sworn enemies of the Church, the masons were born out of )? For a pastoral council it would seem very strange that the BIGGEST threat to the Faithful would not be condemned? [/quote]

Because the Second Vatican Council did not set out as a definition of dogma or a condemnation of error. It set out as a new Pentecost, a renewal of the Catholic faith.

The Pontiffs had addressed communism many times over before the Council. The Church's opposition was known to anyone who knew anything. The focus of the Council, vis a vis the Church's relation to the civil world. was not to rehash condemnations, but to offer a positive Catholic vision of religious freedom (a fundamental right denied by communism) and a renewal of the common effort to build upon the principles of charity and justice within the world. The Church proposed her answer to communism. By balancing her condemnation with a positive engagement of the civil realm, the Church renewed her voice in the modern world, which had been stifled beneath her own stagnation within the civil outlook of the past few centuries. The world as it was known in the 19th and 18th centuries no longer existed. The Church had to come to grips with this.

Furthermore, the Council coincided, historically, with a period of major social upheaval. Whereas the Council set out to inaugurate a new Pentecost, the local Churches were, to a large extent, swept up in this social upheaval, and this chaos found its way into the Church; a decidely inopportune time, as the Church's vision required serious Catholic reception, whereas, as Joseph Ratzinger has remarked, it was buried under superficial treatment.

As a concrete example, the Church set out to reform the repressed culture of Seminary and religious life. Greater emphasis was sought in the spirit of Christian freedom. Priests and nuns, as noted above, were being swept up in the social upheaval that accompanied the ressourcement of the Council, and they corrupted the authentic spirit of Christian freedom with the licentious spirit of false freedom that had overtaken the world, typified by the sexual revolution. To put it plainly, the Church was giving an inch (eg, the abolition of archaic practices, relaxation of the child-like control exerted by seminary officials, etc), and Priests/Religious took a mile (violation of their vows, opposition to Church doctrine, etc).

We see this lived out in Mother Angelica's early years. Raymond Arroyo describes how she was very supportive of the overdue reforms in the Church's ecclesial life. But her appreciation of the reforms was gradually stifled by its corruption among her contemporaries.

Edited November 14, 2005 by Era Might

[MC Just]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Nov 13 2005, 10:39 PM'] It set out as a new Pentecost, a renewal of the Catholic faith.

[right][snapback]787721[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i only wish the liberals never got a hold of the documents. Personally I dont see a new pentecost, I see many parishes going in a downward spiral. I dont blame the council, i blame all the airheads misenterpreting it.

[Myles Domini]

I havent read this thread in its entirety but I can see in which direction it is heading and that dissapoints me somewhat because I'd very much like this issue about the validity of Vatican II to go away as I've been saying [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=42711"]elsewhere[/url].

Rather than blaming the documents lets begin where its really at: the people. Even if there were malicious things in the documents of Vatican II--and there are not--without people to support those statements there would be no problems in the Church. However, the fact of the matter is there were and are large numbers of designated Catholics who are willing to do malicious things under the name 'Catholic'. Wherever these individuals were displeased with the documents they just added their own opinions 'in the spirit of Vatican II', that or they'd isolate bits of documents and ignore the context of the whole to make it more palatable to their modernism.

Vatican II didn't cause a crisis in the Church, Catholics caused a crisis in the Church. I was listening to a recording of an old show on Vatican II by Raymond Arroyo on the world over and he was interviewing Cardinal Dulles and the retired Archbishop of Pittsburg. The Bishop said that his problem was after the Council nobody knew what was going on and worse all his seminarians came back from Rome expecting radical change. He said he had to endure seminarian after seminarian quitting because they had encountered periti in Rome at the Council who had told them, for instance, that within a few years celibacy would be suspended and when it wasn't they decided to skip down--at least they were honest. We all know sadly there are still many in the Church still [i]waiting[/i] and causing dissention meanwhile.

Arguably the Council called all the modernist periti together and allowed them to infect the seminaries of Rome with their madness, which then was transported back around the world by the new generation of priests. But the fact is if they didnt emerge from the wordwork then they would've now. Modernism is like Gnosticism, it doesnt go away, it just gets recycled. There are always 'rationalists', always those that want to reduce Christianity to being just another discipline i.e. Aberlard. The Council itself is not at fault for this people are.

Read one document of the Second Vatican Council from start to end, any document, and show me how within context that document could possibly inspire the madness we have witnessed? The fact of the matter is the modernists had been waiting since Pio Nono had sat on the Papal Chair to emerge from the shadows and if not for Vatican II they'd still be lurking in the background developing their power. Paul VI said the smoke of Satan crept into the Church after Vatican II but in that he was wrong, the smoke of Satan was already in the Church before Vatican II. The chief modernists e.g. Hans Kung were not trained in the ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium thats for sure! The only difference between the pre-conciliar era and the post-conciliar era was that before the Church we were asleep to the threat which meant the smoke was filling the house suffocating us slowly without us realising it. At least now we are awake and we start fighting the fires and reclaim our home. Sure certain rooms are burnt completely out but we're still alive praise Jesus and we can rebuild, we can start again and make our house even more beautiful this time around.

But that will be impossible if we dont stop recycling this argument about the Council. The 60's was when the modernists chose to emerge, under the guise of the 'Spirit of Vatican II' they spread their doctrine to every corner of Christ's home. The thick black clouds of smoke are choking the life out of its inhabitants. BUT we have the water, we have the hoses, we have the means we need to put the fire out but we've got to stop going back to this issue. By citing the Council as the problem you're merely playing into the hands of the modernists since you create the impression that Vatican II's documents actually support their errors, which is absolutely wrong.

Rather than blaming the Second Vatican Council for the ills of the Church what we need to be doing is identifying the modernists within our midsts and showing against the [b]content[/b] of the Council's documents how the modernists are nout but oppertuntistic decievers whose doctrine can find no support from any document of Vatican II read contextually, properly and above all else: magisterially.

INXC
Myles

[MC Just]

[quote name='Myles' date='Nov 14 2005, 07:44 PM']

Rather than blaming the Second Vatican Council for the ills of the Church what we need to be doing is identifying the modernists within our midsts and showing against the [b]content[/b] of the Council's documents how the modernists are nout but oppertuntistic decievers whose doctrine can find no support from any document of Vatican II read contextually, properly and above all else: magisterially.

INXC
Myles
[right][snapback]789055[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'd rather show the modernists and liberals the door.

[Era Might]

[quote]I'd rather show the modernists and liberals the door. [/quote]

[quote]Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.

--Gandalf the Wise[/quote]

Edited November 15, 2005 by Era Might