Was Vatican II Really Good for the Church

[bullmoose88]

Who would dare challenge that Vatican II has been anything but a huge success for the Catholic Church?  I mean, after all, more people would have to come once the priests stopped ranting away in an language that no one understands, doing things that have no meaning to the parishioners.  The new "Buddy Catholicism" surely lifted the Church above the errors of its medieval ways and made it more appealing to all... if only.

Let's look at some stats, shall we:

In 1965... the year Vatican II was enacted... there were 58,000 priests in the US (the figures are even worse in other parts of the former Catholic world, BTW).  Today, there are only 45,000, 16% of whom are immigrants.

In 1965, 1,575 priests were ordained in the US.  Today, only 450.

In 1965, there were 49,000 seminarians.  Today, there are only 4,700 across the country... an over 90% drop!

Weekly mass attendance was 75% in 1958.  Today its less than 25%.

In 1968, there were 338 annulments.  Today, over 50,000.

So... conventional wisdom rarely being wisdom at all, one can clearly see that something has gone terribly wrong.

With the exception of annulments (and how the church has become more liberal in granting them), i think most of thes stats have very little to do with VatII and more with the state of society or society's issues with the church, Vat II not withstanding.

[bullmoose88]

I don't think Vatican II has as much to do with those declining numbers as other factors; of course, I feel that John XXIII was probably one of the three or four greatest Popes of all time, and I'm not Catholic, but that's what I think.

VII - virtually "protestanised" the Church.

Take it the other way, if the Church hadn't modernised, and the priests were still the mysterious "intermediary" - would the numbers be any better?

My father was an altar-boy and a good catholic boy, learning latin and all.... but stopped once VII happened... if he couldn't use the latin. What's the point?

I have no problem with a number of the edicts of Vatican II, however I would argue that Vatican II has clearly established a new culture in the Church that has been detrimental in many way.

I think you're too quickly disposing of the argument other factors, wholly separate from Vatican II are the cause of the church's statistical downfall.


Just a few examples which may or not actually be pertinent
1) The ban against cleric marriage-might be responsible for the lower levels of modern clergy
2) Changes in modern culture beginning right around the time of Vatican 2, the late 60s were an exciting era that might have changed American views of organized religion (let alone Catholicism) irrespective of what the church did to change itself
3) Modern lifestyle where often both parents work, or where the modern work week isn't really a 9 to 5, monday through friday week--if it ever was to begin with, preventing church attendance...

etc...I think you really need to consider factors like that before saying it was Vatican II

[bullmoose88]

Vatican II did not go far enough.

But I agree with Soulty in that these stats can be explained away by societal change and attitudes towards the church. Without Vatican II, I would tend to believe some of the figures would have been significantly worse.

AHEM