Gen-X Catholic Debacle

Mark Silk at Religious News Service has a fascinating report on Gen-Xers in America – those born between 1965 and 1972: “Gen-X Catholic Debacle.”

Some excerpts:

In the history of religion in America, there has never been a more Catholic generational cohort. In 1990, when they were 18-25 years old, fully 33 percent identified as Catholics (as opposed to the one-quarter of the American population that had been Catholic since the late 19th century). But by 2008, one in five of those 1990 Catholic adults had dropped away. …

The story behind the numbers would seem to be that Vatican II generated such energy and excitement inside American Catholicism that not only did young parents eagerly enlist their children in church life, but the children remained highly committed through their teens and into their twenties. So what happened? …

It is more than likely that the increasingly conservative winds that began to blow out of Rome during the papacy of John Paul II blew a lot of Gen-X away from the church. Many on the Catholic right–including in the hierarchy–have been happy to say good-bye and good riddance to what they’ve dismissed as its cafeteria Catholicism. But you’ve got to figure that, as the percentage of Catholics in America drifts towards the teens, those in charge will live to regret blowing the opportunity to capture and hold one-third of the U.S. population.

Read the full article here.

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

138 responses to “Gen-X Catholic Debacle”

  1. M. Jackson Osborn

    I suspect that the reasons for individuals or highly generalised groups (such as Generation X) leaving the Church are various and complex. Clearly, large numbers of persons have left the Church for just the opposite reasons postulated for the group chosen here for empathy. As always, whoever’s (‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’) research is in the interest of a particular agenda or grouping of persons will quite often have only the interests of that group in mind; and, will reach conclusions favourable to it. As in the case here, there is no concern for those whose sensitivities are in contrast to those of Generation X. I know quite a few persons who have left the faith for precisely the sort of developments which should be rather pleasing to the group chosen here for lament. Nor do I experience that the conservative ill wind written of here has had too much of an impact on the poor musical taste and liturgics that prevail and are firmly entrenched in the vast majority of our parishes. It would seem to me that one would need to look to something other than this conservative ill wind as a reason for Generation X’s disenchantment.

    Reply
    1. Jack Rakosky

      One the reasons I posted an outline of American Grace was that we Catholics analyze what is going on among Catholics too much in terms of internal church politics

      We tend to neglect environment events that are affecting everyone, and we particularly neglect generational effects, i.e. each particular generation interprets what is going on in terms of its own life history.

      This study has to do with Generation Xโ€™s religious identity as measured at two points, 1990 when they were 18-25, and 2008 when they were 36-43 years old. That is almost 20 years later. People who were unmarried and just beginning their educations and careers are now well established married with children.

      What we can safely say about Generation X is that their Catholic identity was safely intact when they were 18-25. That identity had not been damaged by Vatican II, the sexual revolution of the sixties, Humanae Vitae, the Mass in English etc.

      Now their religiosity, i.e. Mass attendance was likely less than people of the same age in the 50s, but all the evidence is that lower Mass attendance of this age group in the 60โ€™s, 70.s did not result in loss of Catholic identity and that most young people returned to Mass attendance as they married, etc. We can argue about what kept that identity, but it was kept, even for these Generation X people at age 18-25.

      What has happened in the almost 20 years since is that a very substantial number and a very substantial percentage of Generation X Catholics have not only ceased to attend Mass, they no longer identify as Catholics.

      We now have a situation in which Catholics marry and have children but no longer identify as Catholic rather than returning to attendance.

      In some cases they have become Evangelical Catholics but in many cases they have no religion. So it not just attraction to other faiths.

      And the watered down Catholicism explanation does not apply; Mainliners have not declined, and Baptists took a big hit among this generation.

      Reply
      1. Samuel J. Howard

        And the watered down Catholicism explanation does not apply; Mainliners have not declined…

        Except that they have.

        “Mainline churches reporting declines in membership are United Church of Christ, down 2.83 percent to 1,080,199 members; the Presbyterian Church (USA), down 2.61 percent to 2,770,730 members; the Episcopal Church, down 2.48 percent to 2,006,343 members; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. down 1.96 percent to 4,542,868 members; the American Baptist Churches USA, down 1.55 percent to 1,310,505; the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), down 1.08 percent to 2,312,111 members; and the United Methodist Church, down 1.01 percent to 7,774,931 members.”

      2. Jack Rakosky

        Samuel,

        We are takling about a specific cohort, not about the general population. It is important in analyzing what is going on to disaggregate cohorts. That is precisely the entire purpose of this study, and is its original contribution.

        I strongly encourage everyone to read the original paper. It is short and has a lot of graphs, etc.

        http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2012/05/ARISGENX2012.pdf

  2. Thomas Dalby

    I am a member of “Gen-X” and this article seems to be calculated to stroke the prejudices of my parents’ generation, rather than addressing the reasons for the fall off in practice among people of my age.

    I would point to three items that the author ignores:

    โ€ข the abuse crisis started hitting the headlines in the early-mid nineties and hasn’t gone away – like most people of my age, I found the whole thing deeply demoralising – it really rocked my faith in the Church (like many people I was and am sickened by the institutional failures, although these were no different to the utter failure of the secular authorities to deal adequately with child abuse, but the greater impact was simply that these sorts of crimes could be committed by clergy at all – I know that sounds naรฏve, but the scandal hit while I was in my late teens/early twenties);

    โ€ข my generation was the first to experience the utter devastation of parental divorce on a large scale – friends and family members who were affected by their parents’ divorces often seemed to reject anything connected with their upbringings;

    โ€ข inter-generational conflict – the whole “Spirit of Vatican II” ethos that gripped the Church and continues to have a hold on it today was something that really struck a chord with some of my parents’ generatio, but it’s a project that became utterly imbued with that generation’s cultural preferences that it had stopped speaking to me and to my peers when we hit our late teens;

    โ€ข linked to the last point, liturgies and music in the Church seemed to have become fixated around my parents’ generations cultural choices – attending Mass can sometimes feel like one has been transported to a badly staged Crosby Stills & Nash tribute gig.

    I don’t think that any one of these factors will account for the decline in observance among Gen-Xers, but they all seem to have worked together to chase many of us away from the Church. Rome’s writ rarely runs in our…

    Reply
    1. Thomas Dalby

      Ologies for the long and tortuously punctuated post!

      I’ve noticed that I’ve listed four points, not the promised three, and run out of space.

      My last sentence should have read ” Rome’s writ rarely runs in our parishes, unless one makes an effort to be informed, most parishioners will be unaware of Rome’s conservatism: it makes no sense to place the blame for decline at the feet of a conservatism that many of us are unaware of.”

      Reply
    2. Shane Maher

      I too am a member of this generation and I’d like to expand upon what my peer wrote above:

      1. we were the first generation to be brought up wholesale in the Church of rupture. We received little formation in the faith of our ancestors. The clergy, religious, and laity who ran our parishes and staffed our youth groups were typically uncertain about everything and they often communicated their lack of certitude.
      2. the widespread confusion was most evident in those dioceses, communities and parishes that were most invested in renewal (including my own). The Church of our youth was often a Church that appeared to follow fads and was unsure about her own identity. We seemed to be a Church of assimilation to the wider secular culture in everything that was visible from the pew. The end result was a Church that typically failed to provide my generation with an understanding of what it was to be Catholic.
      3. Lastly, we were the generation formed by the former ICEL translation – for good or for ill. Our early memories are of “Abba Father” not Panis Angelicus.

      Reply
    3. Samuel J. Howard

      And of course, not all those who have left the Catholic Church have left for more “liberal” options… many have joined conservative Protestant churches. (Some may later return to the church of their youth, e.g. Francis Beckwith, though being born in 1960, he’s a tad too early to be a generation x’r).

      Reply
    4. Richard Malcolm

      As another Gen-Xer – I was born at the end of ’69, perfectly timed for the arrival of the Pauline missal – I have to say just about all of this rings true for me, too. It really does. And the same goes for Shane’s comments too. (“Abba Father” indeed.)

      The sex abuse crises were very dismaying to me, but never shook my faith – but I can empathize with those for whom it did.

      Time in the modern age moves quickly, and it can distance generations from each other more than ever before.

      Reply
  3. M. Jackson Osborn

    So, you’ve heard it from the horse’s mouth. The villains are not those nasty old Roman conservatives blowing a ill wind after all. So, now who do you blame. Perhaps the tired tyranny of mis-implimented liturgical and musical praxis is the culprit after all?? Oh, no! No, it couldn’t be that, could it!

    Reply
    1. Thomas Dalby

      One of the horse’s many mouths! No doubt someone of my age will pop up shortly to refute what I’ve said!

      Reply
    2. Shane Maher

      It is important to be willing to observe what worked pastorally and what did not work. We all (including me) have to be open to this. The Church of my youth included:
      a. contemporary music (remember Cary Landry anyone)
      b. sacred dancing on major feasts
      c. creative liturgies in other aspects as well (rubrics, vesting, deletions and additions). Never saw a stole under a chasuble until I was an adult.
      d. no Latin, no bells, clay vessels, stood for EP, held hands for the “Our Father”.
      e. incense was carried in bowls by the sacred dancers when used but was rare.
      f. communion in the hand was normative
      g. no chant (R. Psalm typically replaced by contemporary hymns). Priests never sang any of the prayers beyond the “Through Him, ….”.
      h. uncertainty from pulpit, confessional, and classroom about everythng but esp. morality (religious & lay teachers).
      i. lay preachers (male & female), homilies were treated seriously but seemed to be essentially forgettable from my perspective, lots of focus on justice issues. It is true that we never heard about Rome’s efforts at reform.
      j. highly progressive Newman Club in college – continued everything mentioned above but were even more “creative” (we baked our own communion bread & now I’m not certain that it was always valid matter).

      When recalling the list above it seems to have generally failed pastorally…..most of my family and peers no longer practice regularly…sigh….

      Reply
      1. Paul Inwood

        How very sad. To take just one example,

        f. communion in the hand was normative

        Communion in the hand is normative. And it was for the first ten centuries of the life of the Church. Re-read Cyril of Jerusalem and see the rich symbolism offered in this way of receiving Communion.

      2. Bill deHaas

        Sounds wonderful – too bad it had so little effect on you. As Fr. Allan is so quick to remind us – everything you mention was and is “technically” licit; if not valid.

      3. Bill Logan

        How weird! I’m a Gen-X’er and the church of my youth included almost none of this! From my experience growing up in San Francisco (which is more conservative than many might think), here’s my reaction to what you’ve listed:

        a) I have no idea what or who Cary Landry is. You also mentioned Abba Father–I presume it’s a song, but it’s not something I remember

        b) I never saw liturgical dancing in church while growing up

        c) what you describe as creative liturgies were totally foreign to my experience growing up

        d) no Latin, but otherwise the rest of this is the opposite of my experience

        e) when incense was used, it was in a thurible used by a priest (remember, no liturgical dancing)

        f) Communion in the hand was normative

        g) The Our Father was often chanted (in English). The responsorial psalm as found in the missalette was used about half the time; the other half being an appropriate hymn as allowed by the Church’s legislation. The frequency with which priests sang the prayers seemed to be a reflection of how comfortable they were singing in general–most weren’t, so they didn’t. The one notable exception to this was a priest who was also in the archdiocesan priests’ choir–he sang the prayers quite frequently. And speaking of the Per Ipsum, the priest who best chanted this (not the one who was in the priests’ choir btw) was later prosecuted for several acts of child abuse. I’d still say of all the times I’ve heard this chanted, his chanting of it is the best I’ve heard.

        h) with the exception of one high school teacher, your experience is different than mine

        i) I don’t recall homilies delivered by anyone other than a priest or deacon

        So judging by your list, it seems my experience growing up was pretty much the opposite of yours. Yet your final conclusion (“most of my family and peers no longer practice regularly”) is identical to my experience! So I don’t think your diagnosis of the reasons why all this non-practicing…

      4. Shane Maher

        Bill L,
        I’m pleased that your experience was different than my experience growing up in the US Southwest. It seems that our experience diverges on some points but converges on others. For example we both:
        a. grow up with the former ICEL translation
        b. experienced little or no Latin in the Mass (contrary to the stipulation in SC),
        c. were taught to receive communion in the hand. I for one was never told as a youth that we had the option to receive on the tongue.

        Bill d.,
        I think your quip about the liturgical praxis of the “80’s-“90’s in my area had little effect on me speaks to its problems evangelizing a generation but fortunately is not reflective of the wider Church’s pastoral response to the problem under discussion. I’m also not certain where your seeming appeal to legalism works pastorally.

        Paul I: communion in the hand “is” normative in some places but not others. Recall Benedict XVI’s practice during papal Masses, the negative view a growing number of bishops seem to be displaying toward the communion in the hand (Ranjith, Jan Pawel Lenga), and the growing criticism of the practice among pastors:
        http://www.communion-in-the-hand.org/articles/025.html?iframe=true&width=680&height=500

      5. Bill deHaas

        Sorry, Shane – my “quip” was a half-hearted attempt at humor. Bill Logan’s response gets at my point – your list is personal, at best, but reflects your own bias and ideology (as Paul indicates – a bias that is not necessarily founded on liturgical facts/regulations).

        We could argue about your examples – e.g. can think of any number of people who sang, enjoyed, and were spiritually moved by Carey Landry’s songs. Dance – happened very infrequently but remember when it did as a positive. Incense – not sure that a thurible is mandated e.g. Spain has cathedrals with huge incense burners hanging from the sanctuary (why? in medieval times, it helped to overcome the “unwashed” smell of catholics in attendance)

        My quote from Allan – find that folks pick and choose and then justify with “technical” legalism – licit, valid, etc. Agree that pastoral should guide rather than legalism but the ROTR folks use legalism all the time to justify all kinds of ridiculous antics around EF, TLM, mutual enrichment, etc. That may be legal but not pastoral.

        Fact – dance, communion in the hand, incense, baking unleavened bread – all of these are legal and can be “wonderful” ways of pastorally improving the community’s celebration of the eucharist. Would suggest that your “reaction” is just that – a personal reaction.

        Your fixation on Rome – means what? Per VII, liturgy is guided by local conferences of bishops; not a centralized monarchy. What B16 chooses to do is fine but that doesn’t require that we do the same – talking about legalism.

        IMO, evangelizing starts and is influenced by leadership – as Jack states repeatedly, since 1968 we have had a series of poor leadership decisions from morality, natural law, sacraments, liturgy, sexual abuse, financial shenanigans, episcopal/curial hypocrisy that has become enshrined through a defunct episcopal appointment process.

      6. Richard Malcolm

        Hello Paul,

        “Communion in the hand is normative. And it was for the first ten centuries of the life of the Church. Re-read Cyril of Jerusalem and see the rich symbolism offered in this way of receiving Communion.”

        Assuming, of course, that Cyril even wrote that passage.

      7. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        It is a well-known true fact, attested many places on the Google Machine, that Bugnini and his minions modified all the manuscripts of Cyril to make it look like he said this. You people really should not be so trusting of the so-called “scholars” who write books.

      8. Bill deHaas

        Just another conspiracy – probably “leaks” back then, too.

      9. Samuel J. Howard

        It is a well-known true fact, attested many places on the Google Machine, that Bugnini and his minions modified all the manuscripts of Cyril to make it look like he said this.

        I’ve never before heard of this controversy, but it’s apparently still controversial enough that lots of people are still writing about the debate over the authorship of the work.

      10. Richard Malcolm

        Hello Dr. Bauerschmidt,

        Really, I expected better from you than this kind of snark.

        One need not venture into the traddie online hothouses to uncover doubts about the authorship of Catecheses, nor do they begin with Bugnini’s career. You could look at Swaans, Wilkinson, Renoux, Telfer, Bihain . . . none of them SSPX mouthpieces, last I checked. Yes, there are reputable scholars who take the opposite tack. But it’s still a matter of debate.

        It is astonishing still to see the mighty castles built on this one passage of one of Cyril’s works, with so little other support in the patristic tradition, even assuming that, in fact, he wrote it (something we may never know for certain). It’s one thing to say that communion in the hand was licit and even practiced in certain places in the Early Church; it is quite another to claim, on the basis of such scanty evidence, that it was “normative.” And therefore, presumably, should be “normative” for all of us today, too. And that’s what irked me.

      11. Fritz Bauerschmidt

        Hmmmm. . . I didn’t consider it all that snarky. Oh well, my apologies. Unfortunately my PhD. did not cover how to express oneself well on the internet. Do I get any points for Paul Inwood thinking I was serious?

        But I think the point remains that whoever is the author of the text, there is no real doubt that it is describing a practice of 4th century Jerusalem. The equally well-attested practice of people taking the Eucharist home for communion during the week certainly implies lay people touching the Eucharist with their hands, and maybe even self-communicating. I don’t really see the point in trying to cast doubt on this evidence.

        A serious question: is there any evidence that communion in the hand was not the norm?

      12. Shane Maher

        It is striking how difficult it can be to realize that something we’ve invested ourselves in personally may have failed pastorally.

      13. Samuel J. Howard

        But I think the point remains that whoever is the author of the text, there is no real doubt that it is describing a practice of 4th century Jerusalem.

        True, but there is in the literature referred to a real question about whether what is being described is an Arian practice.

  4. Mark Silk

    Just to be clear, I did not ignore the abuse crisis. Here’s the sentence that precedes the final excerpt above: “No doubt, the abuse scandals beginning in the late 1980s and accelerating rapidly after the turn of the century took a huge toll.” I would suggest to Thomas Dalby that he take a look at the entire post prior to making such a comment.

    Reply
    1. Thomas Dalby

      Thank you for pointing that out, Mark. I am afraid that the extract posted above didn’t give me an appetite to read the rest.

      Reply
  5. Paul Robertson

    Speaking as another horse (although, strictly speaking, I’m three years too young to be Generation-X), I find myself in surprised agreement with M. Jackson Osborn. The reasons for the departure of so many of my peers will be legion.

    My older sister’s stated reason for departure was that, as we were growing up and facing a decline in priestly vocations was that we were urged to pray for vocations (the gender of the callees was never specified). When the Spirit provided many willing candidates, they were turned away. The Spirit isn’t really calling you: you’ve got breasts.

    From where I stand now, in the early 21st century, I find myself demoralised time and again by the arrogance and the vitriol that flows from Rome in a never-ceasing flood. It seems that, whenever anyone asks bishops/cardinals/Vatican officials awkward questions, they are greeted with a patronising pat on the head and a “we know best, dear, don’t worry your little head about it”.

    This is a far, far cry from Lumen Gentium 37’s “[the laity] are, by reason of the knowledge, competence or outstanding ability which they may enjoy, permitted and sometimes even obliged to express their opinion on those things which concern the good of the Church. When occasions arise, let this be done through the organs erected by the Church for this purpose.”

    This inspired text, which individual popes do not have authority to ignore or overturn, treats us, the Body of Christ, with the dignity and respect due to any adult child of God. The fact that it has been utterly ignored is, I think, the single biggest problem I have with the Church of today, and provides the biggest sticking point when I try to tell my friends and colleagues that Catholicism has much to offer them.

    Reply
    1. Richard Malcolm

      “When the Spirit provided many willing candidates, they were turned away.”

      That was true of some friends of mine, too – but they were men.

      One can not always know why a vocation was turned away; there may be multiple reasons, good mixed with bad. But many seminaries were run by men who *did* believe in women’s ordination, and they were steadfast in weeding out young men who did not share that position, and the larger theological casts of mind that might go with it. Caught praying a rosary in your room? Sign your walking papers now.

      No doubt there are some Catholics, including even some who post here, who would prefer to keep men with such views out of the priesthood, too. But it is still worth observing that a lot of potential male vocations were short circuited over the last fifty years, and therein lies at least part of the vocations crisis.

      Of course, not everyone who feels a calling to the priesthood actually has one, and the voice they believe they are hearing may not be who or what they think it is. It’s up to the Church to decide that. Sometimes, her servants make mistakes with regard to particular cases. But it’s spoken authoritatively that women can never be called. And we have to accept that.

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        “But it is still worth observing that a lot of potential male vocations were short circuited over the last fifty years, and therein lies at least part of the vocations crisis.”

        It may be that people who desired to become priests lacked a vocation, and that was why they were turned away.

        More likely that the American surge in vocations, which peaked in 1947, was the exception to the rule. And perhaps given the impact of immature sex addicts on the Church, particularly Holy Orders, we live in better times where such vocations are concerned.

        I have no problem with conservatives, even those who oppose the ordination of women. What hobbles the ordained ministry of the Church is when it ordains people who are immature. Opposing the ordination of women is not necessarily immature. But opposing the discussion of it almost always is.

      2. Paul Robertson

        It’s spoken authoritatively that women can never be accepted. I, for one, am not comfortable with anyone deciding what the Holy Spirit chooses to do by his own divine will.

        It was also spoken authoritatively that the Earth is flat. I’ll bear that in mind the next time I fly to the US…

      3. Matthew Hazell

        Todd: Opposing the ordination of women is not necessarily immature. But opposing the discussion of it almost always is.

        That depends. If said discussion is perceived to be a step towards some sort of compromise, then I don’t think it’s “immature” for the Magisterium to step in and state the parameters of Catholic belief, as Bl. John Paul II did. What point is there in “discussing” it if the very act of discussing something that cannot be changed gives the impression and false hope to some that it can or may be changed?

        Paul: I, for one, am not comfortable with anyone deciding what the Holy Spirit chooses to do by his own divine will.

        If you don’t believe, among other things, what Vatican II says about the Magisterium in LG 18-29, then what authority do you believe God gives the Church? Your position would seem to lead only to an empty and cynical agnosticism.

      4. Paul Robertson

        Matthew, I see nothing in Lumen Gentium 18-29 that gives even the pope the authority to tell the Holy Spirit that he’s wrong.

  6. John Molnar

    Each of the above commentators has a much better understanding of the angst among Catholics concerning their religion than Mr. Silk. Simply, the young leave because their parents and parish priests never catechized them.

    The New York Times’ reporter, a Mr.Dauthat in his book Bad Religion explains in great detail why loss of “orthodoxy” in general, and in Catholicism Vatican 2 in particular lead to abandoning faith or to joining happy-clappy self actualizing sects and various other emotion not faith driven congregations.

    It could also be argued that the Catholic Church in the USA is an empty shell because the various local parishes are practically independent from each other. They act much like protestant Baptist congregations. Not believe me? Well, attend Mass at a half a dozen Catholic churches and you will find they hardly resemble each other in their liturgies.

    The law of prayer, the liturgical practice, defines the faith. In that they are all free wheeling. Each cafeteria has a different line up on their menus. The Bishops, until the Obama health care plan threatened their fiscal independence, were off the job. Now they find that many so-called Catholic parishes do not care one way or another and resent their shepherds’ intrusions into their internal affairs.

    Mr. Silk does not understand Catholicism. There are informed Catholics who are loyal to the faith including Generation X Catholics. In time, such Catholics will rebuild the Church. The younger, more orthodox priests are the Gen-Xers who overcame and will lead a restoration. God will not abandon his people

    Reply
    1. Paul Robertson

      I fear that you mischaracterise my statement. It is exactly the tendency of church authorities to roll back the reforms (or “to restore”, as you say it) that I find infinitely frustrating.

      Call me shallow, but I need a liturgy that speaks to my heart. I need a personal relationship with God. One thing I, most emphatically, do not need is to go back to an exclusive sect that serves up exactly the same homogenised rubbish, in a language that no living person can call her own.

      God created us in a vast array, each unique and each uniquely loved. I consider it a great strength that the liturgy varies so much between churches (or even between Masses in one church). We are all different, it is folly to foist the same remedy on us all. Imagine this, if you will…

      Jesus said to the man, “get up, pick up your mat and walk.”
      “But master,” he said, “I’m blind. There’s nothing wrong with my legs.”

      ***

      By way of a side-comment, you can’t abandon the Ecumenical Council with a hand-wavey “…and in Catholicism Vatican 2 in particular…” Vatican 2 is Canon Law. Vatican 2 is the faith.

      Reply
      1. John Molnar

        One of the fatal distortions in the liturgy is an egoistic insistence that it be constructed to please, even entertain an audience.

        In reality, the Mass is the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, now re-presented as our gift to the Father in thanksgiving and adoration. It is certainly not rubbish as you put it. It is not your Mass, it is Christ’s Mass. That is why we say the priest is saying it in ‘persona Christi’. You have the immense honor and privilege to offer it along with the priest. That is why we are told by The Magisterium that no one has the authority to change anything about it.

      2. Karl Liam Saur

        John

        Paul is not discussing being pleased and entertained. There is an important difference.

        The conciliar reforms were aimed with this in mind: “In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.”

        The needs of the faithful are a legitimate dimension of the liturgy.

      3. John Molnar

        Karl

        I think Paul is old enough to speak for himself. His characterization of his needs (liturgy speaking to his heart) and calling any Mass rubbish is beyond the pale. Immature certainly, possibly sacrilegious.

      4. Paul Robertson

        While I am old enough to speak for myself, I think that Karl understood me quite well. Thank you, Karl, for speaking while I was off getting dinner, etc.

        1. I never suggested changing the Mass. I was expressing my joy that the Mass is different every time and in every place you celebrate.

        2. The Mass has changed. Many times. Unless you’re suggesting that the current Roman Rite is an exact recreation of the Last Supper…

        3. My primary complaint is that trying to make the Mass exactly the same everywhere and everywhen across the entire planet is a) folly and b) a fatal distortion in the liturgy. It will become a statue leeched of all meaning. Mandating that it is in a language that is the mother tongue of nobody on Earth alienates still further this static theatre from the Body of Christ. This is what I mean by “rubbish”.

        4. The Father gains nothing from our praise and adoration (I think there’s a Preface to that effect). The Mass was given to us for our benefit.

        5. Stating that my own spiritual journey requires a liturgy that speaks to my spirit is neither egotistical, nor a demand that the liturgy is shaped for my personal enjoyment.

        6. The priest “in persona Christi”, with his back to me, speaking in Latin is not an image of Christ I recognise from the Gospels. He addressed the people on their level, he met their needs, he spoke their language. If it is Christ’s Mass we celebrate, let us, at least, present as Christ presented himself

        7. “So called Catholic parishes” are so called because they are Catholic parishes. You set yourself above the bishops if you wish to decide which of them are valid. Tread with care.

        8. As for sacrilege, I am merely exercising my duty as an informed Gen-X Catholic who is loyal to the faith and trying to rebuild the church.

      5. Kim Rodgers

        I’m w/ you Paul.
        IMO John is a perfect example of that chilly “conservative wind” that is blowing through as indicated above.

        His attitude is why many leave. Many are just tired of the pharisees. Do we need any further proof?

        Choice words from John:

        “fatal distortions”
        “egoistic insistence”
        “constructed to please”
        “entertain an audience”
        “not your Mass”
        “immature certainly”
        “possibly sacrilegeous”

        I would characterize this “conservative wind” more as the “smoke of Satan”.

        He’s been duped.

  7. Brigid Rauch

    It wouldn’t be the first time an opportunity was trashed in order to preserve the status quo. Am I the only one to be reminded that the Jesuits were called out of China because they were adapting the outward signs of the Faith to local custom?

    Reply
  8. Julius Penrose

    Statistics are a devilish thing. It’s a fascinating data point, but I can think of three interpretations of the top of my head:

    1. The first generation to grow up in the Vatican II milieu dropped out of the faith as soon as it moved into the trials of adulthood and the blandishments of the secular mainstream. Cause: the postconciliar disaster of catechesis and faith.

    2. The article’s implicit hypothesis: Gen X’ers grew up in the 1970s and early 1980s with the expectation the Church would be cool, modern, and liberal. The Church stalled or moved away from that wish, and so they dropped out.

    3. Outside the hands of the Church; geographic, social, or ethnic trends. With one data point from one paper, it’s thin stuff.

    Or a combination of two or three of the above. I think different readers will tend to find the explanations of this statistic which match best their prior prejudices.

    Full disclosure: I believe 1 caused 2 and was accompanied by 3. But I’m just a millennial.

    Reply
    1. Paul Robertson

      I’m not sure I agree with your assessment of “cause” in point 1.

      For me (I can speak for no other Gen-X-er), what frustrates me now that I have “moved into the trials of adulthood” is that the institutional church still treats me like an infant. This is the church failing to implement Vatican 2, not a failure of Vatican 2.

      Reply
  9. Karl Liam Saur

    From my own observations, I will say this:

    1. The Humanae Vitae bomb that hit the Silent Generation and first wave Boomers in 1968 had long since been absorbed as effective nullified in practice, so that was not as actively at work in the following generation because succeeding generational cohorts had already become more Roman in their Catholicism than American (that is, no longer expecting a high correlation of life to law).

    2. Abuse of power issues have been the leitmotif of culture (not just Catholic) since the 1970s, and have imprinted a deep skepticism about those who purport to wield authority; leaders, as a result, have to earn their authority. This is a profound problem for the current culture of Catholic governance, which is in reaction trying to revive docility as a practical summum bonum (if need be, by attritting the flock down to the most docile rump) without having to expressly say so. Leaders exercise power but not necessarily authority, and the institution pays a high price when they fail to carefully gauge the gap between their power and authority (most individual leaders don’t stay in office long enough to reap what they sow where they sowed it).

    3. The failure on the part of leaders to realize that many assumptions are no longer shared, in no small part because of existential crises that first took off in Europe with World War I and gradually spread throughout the world courtesy of totalitarianism and colonialism. It’s difficult to have an argument when people don’t even share enough assumptions to have an argument; assumptions, being pre-rational, don’t lend themselves to logical parsing. The Holocaust and colonialism in particular had an insidious effect on these assumptions: it became clear to increasing numbers of Christians that many non-Christians were more moral than the Christian peoples or colonial powers that governed them. (Within the US, the echo of this was the realization that white hegemony that had terrorized black & aboriginal Americans for centuries was profoundly at odds with Christianity). As a result, there has been a huge crisis of legitimacy of the assumptions that undergird church governance, but the reaction today is that leaders would prefer to “re-evangelize” simply by re-proposing truths without engaging in the deeper crisis of legitimacy. (I don’t this is true of Benedict XVI, but it is quite true of many bishops and pastors who think they are following his lead, because for them to engage at that level would be career-threatening).

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      PS: I should note why things like the Holocaust and colonialism had an effect that was not as evident in prior centuries with programs and imperialism of those prior centuries: Technology. That is, there were pictures, movies, sounds and voices, seen and heard in a way that was not possible in early centuries. And, as the industrialization gave us new tools of oppression (and liberation), it also increased population, so that the scale of absolute numbers was overwhelming even if proportionate to prior the tragedies of prior centuries. Killing or oppressing 10,000 people out of 100,000 is not the same as killing or oppressing 1,000,000 out of 10,000,000, even if they are proportionally that same; absolute scale matters more than we think in how our assumptions can be challenged.

      Reply
    2. Jimmy Mac

      The gap between clergy and laity does not measure apostasy but rather points to the problems facing merely formal authority and the need to narrow the distance between it and the deeper grades of legitimacy and trust. The numbers show that the leaders of the Church seem too remote, too caught up in the formalities of office to be taken seriously, too prone to flattering themselves when they claim that by Godโ€™s design they speak for everyone on the difficult moral and political issues of life.

      A necessary starting point for any improvement in the life of the Church is candid discussion and debate within it, a point registered by most within the Church. That such a simple thing may be impossible at the moment shows how deep the crisis of authority has become. Observers of church affairs are mindful of the unhappy fate of Cardinal Bernadinโ€™s common ground initiative of 1996, which had this aim. What is needed is to start with the problems of Catholics who are divorced and remarried, to rethink celibacy in the priesthood, the greater roles of women in the church, and the issue of contraception under specific circumstances.โ€

      The authority of the magisterium has been fractured for so many reasons since Vatican II. Has modernity infected many in the clergy, most theologians and laity with a cancer that distorts the workings of Godโ€™s spirit? Are most of the members of the Body of Christ adrift in sinful behaviors, invincible ignorance and ills of modernity? Can Catholics follow their informed consciences if certain church teachings are in marked tension with human experience? Can those that disagree be faithful to Christ and His Spirit?

      The issue of authority must be understood and balanced against a theology of non-reception if we want to move the conversation forward and resolve the crisis of authority and truth in our Church.

      โ€œThe Crisis of Authority in the Catholic Modernityโ€ by Michael Lacey

      http://www.commonwealmagazine…

      Reply
  10. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

    The Catholics I know who have left the Church starts with that generation that rejected Church authority in general and not just Humanae Vitae but Humanae Vitae is a symbol of that rejection right after Vatican II. But there are two groups in this, those who just couldn’t live up to a truth that was proposed to them in terms of artificial contraception, who used it for a variety of reasons and tried to justify its use and then felt hypocritical about being a “good Catholic” which caused them to drift from the Church and those who simply rejected it and other Church authority issues and who either left or tried to change things from within.

    But then there is my age group’s children (I presume the Gen-X but I’m not sure) who were given less than a stellar experience of Mass, obligation, sin and judgment at home and Church in terms of catechesis and liturgical piety and spirituality. Church attendance was hit and miss and they were formed more by dissent than assent to Church teaching, more on what you feel personally than what the Church teaches. They received from their parents the “I’m okay, you’re Okay” pop psychology of the 1960’s and 70’s.

    Now their children are being born and many are not even being baptized leading to more of what I describe as the Southern Baptist mentality concerning Christ and the Church, that one makes a personal choice for both at a certain age, but even in the Southern Baptist Church, there was strong participation in the Church that assured a good outcome to the personal decision to accept Christ and then find a Church that supports one’s beliefs. The strong participation in the Catholic Church and Sunday Mass though is lacking.

    In other words, people are all over the place in terms of why they leave the Church. I can’t help but wonder if it is not a loss of faith based upon false expectations and lack of awareness of sin, division and how that manifests itself even in the Church in both the clergy and laity. Do they expect perfection from the institution and their fellow travelers? Or do they expect the faith and morals of the Church to change making it easier to be perfect?

    Reply
  11. Richard Weeks

    I’m a few years too young to qualify as Gen-X, but I personally struggle with the dissonances within the Church. My parish is pastorally sensitive but I feel that the Vatican is not. I see my bishop caught in a disappearing corner between pastoral sensitivity and obedience to the Vatican. And, due to the all too human power games played in our hierarchy, games that Jesus himself spoke out against in the organised religion of His time, very few people, including my bishop, dare to speak the truth of the situation to the powers that be.

    Reply
  12. Jordan Zarembo

    Actually I’m eight years younger than Gen-X, but the following certainly applies to many in their generation and mine.

    The Church’s behavior towards gay and lesbian people has pushed many more younger to middle aged adults of all sexual orientations away from the Church. Some Catholics might blame poor catechesis on human sexuality, and perhaps insufficient promotion of Theology of the Body, on many younger to middle-aged Catholics’ tolerance towards gay and lesbian relationships. Instead, many younger to middle-aged adults know rather decent and honest persons who are good acquaintances or close friends and happen to be gay. Many have concluded that personal choices, and not innate sexual feelings, determine sexual conduct. In other words, there’s no necessary and direct correlation between hedonism or sexual assault and homosexual orientation. For many Gen-X Catholics and younger, the individual and his or her particular qualities are more important than a forensic approach to human sexuality.

    The Church can’t compromise on its dichotomous view of human sexuality (“male and female he made them”, and what many now call “heterosexuality” is in fact intrinsically ordered for the male and female sexes) without having to re-examine core doctrines such as the incarnation. I strongly suspect that the Vatican wishes to avoid the doctrinal controversies now common in some Christian traditions. Vatican neologisms such as “persons with deep seated homosexual tendencies”, while trying to balance doctrine and compassion, return a syntax error from most younger Catholics.

    Reply
    1. Paul Robertson

      I have to agree: many of us know deeply loving homosexual people who are forced either out of the church or into a place where their conscience is clean yet they feel the stares of those who would judge.

      Archbishop Vincent Nichols had stern words for those who would condemn the people taking Communion at the Soho Mass that explicitly targets London’s gay community. (Having mentioned that, I should note that his latest pastoral letter asks us to tell the government that we don’t like gay marraige).

      Personally, I find it distressing that the church tells us that it’s all about love yet, when we see a couple who love each other deeply, enduringly and in fidelity, that love is relegated to second-class because they’re gay (and even worse if they share a bed).

      I should point out that even “male and female he created them” is an approximation. There are many recorded genetic variations from the simple XX/XY that we are all used to. There is also androgen-insensitivity syndrome (AIS), which produces a person who is genetically XY male but looks and feels female, has a vagina and breasts, but (internal) testes and no uterus (I am yet to receive any sort of answer to the question of whether or not such a person can be ordained, but that’s a side-issue).

      Frankly, until the Church addresses the whole wealth of natural variation, I am left with little faith in appeals to Natural Law.

      And, to your last point, I think that much of what flows from the Vatican causes many syntax errors, not just for the younger Catholics. The new translation is a case in point.

      Reply
    2. Shane Maher

      The problem with your presumption is that there is really nothing new with homesexuality unless you refer to the secular world’s acquiesance toward it. We also continue to see little growth in denominations that mirror the secular perspective on non-marital sexual behavior. More pertinent to our own conversation, however, is the fact that religious orders and dioceses where we’ve seen the most accomodating ministries and perspectives toward sexuality are the same places where we see the most rapid decline.

      Reply
      1. Paul Robertson

        To quote Wikipedia: “citation required”

      2. Richard Malcolm

        Oh, I don’t know, Paul. The Episcopal Church is losing about 5% of its membership per year. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/episcopal-church-reports-lowest-membership-in-70-years/

        Or you could look at the average age of sisters in LCWR orders versus those in the CMSWR. I can get you started by noting that the average age for the Ann Arbor Dominicans is 28.

      3. Shane Maher

        Paul:
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/20401214/Stark-and-Finke-Catholic-Religious-Vocations-Decline-and-Revival?vm=r&s=1

      4. Paul Robertson

        Richard, you raise a good point with that article that does actually seem to link the decline in the Episcopal church with the bishop who admits that he is gay. One is caused to wonder just how many of our own bishops are gay but haven’t said anything about it and what the reaction would be if anyone found out.

        Another possible explanation is that homophobia is so firmly rooted in Western societies that such a decline is inevitable when someone asks us to look at an old issue with a new heart.

        Shane, I can only see the abstract from that article, so I cannot see if it makes any statement at all about possible correlations between attitude towards homosexuality and membership of those orders that are growing, but thanks for the link.

    3. Jordan Zarembo

      re: Shane Maher on June 7, 2012 – 9:59 am

      There’s no correlation between orthodoxy, open or closeted homosexuality, and intra-group conflict about homosexuality. Maybe some Catholic interest groups, parishes, and religious orders manage to suppress discussion about homosexual identity and activity among their members. That’s not the same as the non-existence of homosexuality. It’s true that certain Christian traditions are sorely tested over questions of human sexuality. Inevitably there will be arguments and dissent within groups struggling with contentious questions. One has to wonder, however, if it’s better for a tradition’s “family” to argue through divisions rather than plaster over fault lines with an institutional suppression of dissent.

      High-profile cases of pastors and priests who have vehemently preached against homosexuality only to be caught in same-sexual behavior has undoubtedly contributed to young and middle aged alienation from Christianity. While not all pastor or priest affairs have been child-abusive or non-consensual, flagrant hypocrisy is high on the list of behaviors many consider unacceptable in a religious leader. Hypocritical speech verbally abuses innocent persons who are often valued members of a peer group. Because of this, a religious leader who makes any statement about homosexuality, even an objective doctrinal statement, is viewed by many with a wary eye.

      Reply
  13. Todd Flowerday

    Catholics have long had a sense of entitlement. People born to us? We’re entitled to them, and if they leave, it’s their own damned souls, so to speak.

    Karl’s observations are accurate. Less so those criticizing poor music or catechesis. Churches that had those after the council probably had them before. We’ve always had bad music, bad preaching, bad teaching. Pre-conciliar Catholicism had a strong culture that made up, in part, for those sins. Those who would blame Vatican II and its implementation seem to think it was all smooth sailing in the 50’s and before. Likely it was not.

    Parishes have failed miserably at evangelization. Many of the so-called orthodox are more excited about the intellectual conversion of evangelicals. Less pleased about welcoming liberals and their sins. Many so-called orthodox Catholics, including clergy, are literally antigospel in their sentiment of love-it-or-leave-it. But they still cheer for the ordinariate. Or non-Catholic book authors to pump up sales for Ignatius Press.

    A lot of small, dumb things, and a few big catastrophic blunders have hobbled us. We should be disheartened we’ve fallen behind the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, the Methodists, and the other Main Street churches. But the Temple Police are already in full denial.

    Reply
    1. Richard Malcolm

      “Churches that had those after the council probably had them before.”

      Actually, I’m going to agree with you on that, Todd. 1958 America was no golden age (at least in many places) for liturgy or sacred music.

      Of course, in many instances, I do think it got even worse. St. Louis Jesuits to Haugan/Haas/Joncas, etc. But the problem was there already before the Council, no question.

      Some of your other comments are small-minded, and I’ll pass them over in silence. When I find a point of agreement with you, I like to single it out.

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        Well, sure, some places got worse. Composers have far less effect on the quality of liturgical music than the actual persons doing it. I can give Paganini to a middle school violinist, and it will get butchered terribly.

        Name-dropping contemporary composers as a lament doesn’t hold much water. Unlike preconciliar hymn-writers, they were composing for liturgy, not the Church’s devotional life. And they were using the Scriptures in such a way as to put the bible on people’s tongues even outside of Church. I have no argument with that. And I seriously doubt that you can pin millions of disaffected Catholics on Marty Haugen. Those are the kind of small-minded comments I don’t mind tackling.

      2. Paul Robertson

        It seems that liturgical music is being blamed for all manner of ills, and that the music of the ancients is being held up above all. Like the Latin liturgy, however, it is a small and exclusive club. It can only really be sung by a trained choir and is usually sung in Latin. I agree that, performed well, it has transcendant beauty, but it’s a performance, not something that I (or anyone else for that matter) am able to participate in. It is yet another of those little indications that I, as a lay member of the congregation, am not really welcome.

        Of course I agree that not all modern hymns great, many are trite, cheesy and generally horrible, but they have all been written with the aim of getting us to join in with the worship. Their aim is sound even if their execution is not.

      3. Samuel J. Howard

        It can only really be sung by a trained choir and is usually sung in Latin.

        False. Much of it is musically simpler than the “folk” music put out by GIA. And I can teach you enough Latin pronunciation in about 15 minutes to be able to sing Pange Lingua or the Sanctus, etc. Will it be perfect, no, but it doesn’t have to be.

        I agree that, performed well, it has transcendant beauty, but itโ€™s a performance, not something that I (or anyone else for that matter) am able to participate in.

        You may not be able to sing a Palestrina Mass, but learning to sing the chant Masses and the Gregorian propers is, I’m pretty sure, within the ability of anyone who can sing the standard GIA Gather repertoire and is willing to put in the effort.

        It is yet another of those little indications that I, as a lay member of the congregation, am not really welcome.

        Given the above, the conclusion is unsupported.

      4. Todd Flowerday

        A few things …

        The last time anything like folk music came out of GIA was 1981.

        As for plainsong, I will agree that it ranges like most other folk music from the very easy to the difficult. It’s handicap is not in its difficulty but people who don’t understand proper tempo. Hence, a reputation as boring. That’s too bad, but there you have it.

        I think the Gregorian propers are largely a dead-end, for a lot of reasons, none of which have to do with their musicality.

        As for the phenomemon of young adult hemorrhage in the Church, aside from the basic courtesy of hospitality, preaching and music lack a broad excellence. We didn’t have it sixty years ago, either, but the difference today is that Catholic social culture is adrift and has nothing to keep young people connected.

    2. Thomas Dalby

      I suspect the great difference between the pre and post concilliar era is that Low Mass was the norm before the Council: a Catholic could dodge the bullet of bad music for most his or her life; now there is no escape.

      Reply
    3. Shane Maher

      Todd: “Those who would blame Vatican II and its implementation seem to think it was all smooth sailing in the 50โ€ฒs and before.”
      Not smooth sailing but the biggest problem we had in the “50’s was builiding and staffing schools quickly enough to meet the needs of our booming population.
      I agree with your other comment “…parishes have failed miserably at evangelization” but I think it is important to recognize how the wave of uncertainty about Church teaching, a loss of identity, and liturgical experimentation contributed in a major way to that lack of evangelization.
      Question: in what way have we fallen behind the other Christian communities you mention?

      Reply
      1. Todd Flowerday

        The 50’s saw a continuation of the European problem: four decades of defacto conflict and no real leadership from the Church. As for the US, it was the end of ethnic Catholicism and when cultural forces amassed that would prove unmet challenges: race relations, women’s rights, mass media, sagging confidence in leadership, the autmobile, the suburbs, substance abuse, the arms race, sex, and so on.

        Catholic leadership was largely a collection of bystanders, except for many at the forefront of Church reform. Those people were leaders.

        Somehow, I don’t think that funeral rites for cremated remains, guitar-accompanied psalms, or women distributing Communion contributed to uncertainty nearly as much as hierarchical blunders.

        Answer: in our ability to retain believers born in 1965-1972.

  14. Jim McKay

    As GenX grew from 18-25 to 40-47 year olds, some of them found support outside the Church rather than within. They met and married Buddhists. They divorced Catholics. A Methodist helped them cope with a child’s death. A compassionate infertility doctor seemed more Ideal than a dogmatic pastor. So they drifted toward the loving Jesus that they were taught, which unfortunately was not in or accepted by the Church. Jordan expresses this well, though I would not limit this to homosexuality or even sexual issues. Death, prayer, illness and many other things touch hearts too.

    What we need now are explanations for why it is only one in five who have left. Overall, one in three Catholics have left iirc. While I am deeply concerned about why this group left, I think we also need to think about why 80% stayed. Why is this group so faithful?

    Reply
  15. Halbert Weidner

    I think that a regional study of these figures would reveal much.

    Reply
  16. Christopher Douglas

    I think that, given historical events, changes outside of the Church in the larger culture of the West made a decline in Church participation inevitable. Speaking in the broadest possible terms, humans tend to align themselves in various groups, that is to conform. In a bygone era, Christianity, either Catholic or Protestant (keeping in mind I’m speaking of the West), had many adherants with pretty much one world-view: Transcendent Truth was to be found there; of whatever variety, the various denominations held many assumptions generally agreed upon by the larger society.

    Now that unity exists no longer in the West. Speaking very broadly, there are three basic world-views, with variations and permutations, by which people guide their daily lives or vote with their feet:

    1. Eternalists (for lack of a better term): There are unchanging truths from the foundation of the world, recognized universally by all the major religions and thinkers, to which Plato, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, and Shakespeare would agree.

    2. Modernists (with ideals rooted in the Renaissance Humanists and the Enlightenment): Yes, there are eternal truths, but humanity has gotten some of them right and some of them wrong; some of them must be revised.

    3. Post-modernists: There are no eternal truths; still, there are correct moral choices, based upon various -isms, e.g., environmentalism.

    The Catholic Church lost most of the post-modernists a while ago (although some modernists seem to be changing into post-modernists had haven’t quite given up yet), along with some eternalists and modernists, who left in disgust for opposing reasons. And of course, the fourth group we will always have with us: the apathetic who don’t need a reason to leave.

    Reply
  17. Claire Mathieu

    I’m a Gen-X but in college far less than 33 percent of the people were visibly Catholic (as in, sometimes found at Mass for example.) In my secular corner of society the numbers are far too small to be able to distinguish a 1-in-5 decrease from, say, a 1-in-10 decrease.

    As far as I am concerned the sexual abuse scandal has done much to awaken me to our responsibilities as laity and to the need to limit authority and to demand transparency. I haven’t walked out, but on the contrary, have become more engaged – because horrible things happen if we just trust others blindly.

    Reply
  18. Matt Connolly

    Preface: born in 1959, so I remember the Gen X ers in diapers. Also, this opinion is more of a sketch than a thesis, so feel free to disagree or to deepen it as you wish.

    My experience is that those of deep faith (any age) either leave the church or at minimum stretch their ties. This seems to be the experience of the last 15 years especially, so I would see why Gen X is a good study group, but I don’t think the phenomenon stops with them.

    However, as conservatism overtakes my church, I certainly see that there are conservatives who have deep faith because they stay. Their experience, where mine is negative, is positive and growthful instead. Seems like a conundrum, doesn’t it? It’s way too easy to say that the deep and faithful leave and the shallow needy stay, or vice versa. Both are wrong.

    I think that conservatives are trying to recapture the via negativa, lionizing those who suffer in faith. They seem to find comfort in the effort to control sinfulness, and they seem to believe in the general fallen nature of humans. Emotions are faddish and can blind or lead astray, while the church stands impassionately strong against our weak willed failures. The mind must be closed off from its selfishness to be open to the Lord.

    Liberals seem to be protecting a via positiva that lionizes growth and experience. Comfort comes from lifting others up, and humans are generally God’s blessed children and essentially good and saveable. Emotions teach us and must be read properly, and an impassionate authority must earn its spurs to be heeded. The mind must be opened to its possibilities to be opened to the Lord.

    I think both groups loosen their ties when the church doesn’t reflect their worldview, and both respond well when the liturgy and mission of the church bolsters what they live out. Fancy liturgies, or Latin , or dancing, or fiddlebacks, or great guitar groups all pale before the simplicity that the liturgy must reflect our lives. (more…

    Reply
  19. Jack Feehily

    I am very weary of those who like to cite the liturgical and catechetical aberrations of the Vatican II era as the root cause for those who have left the church. First of all, many of those people didn’t stop seeking to follow Christ they just found themselves unable to sustain any longer an official connection with the RCC. There were plenty of liturgical and catechetical aberrations before VII. I grew up in the forty’s and fifties and experienced them firsthand. Mass was tolerable because it was mercifully short. I tried rosaries, prayer cards, and missals and still couldn’t wait to get the blessing and leave. Very seldom received Holy Communion, of course, since it always looked like the priest wasn’t expecting anyone to go….certainly not at one of the later Sunday Masses. I grew up in one of the few parishes in Boston that didn’t yet have a school which meant it was CCD and released time for me for many years. From my recollection, they talked about the same few things over and over every year. No one ever mentioned anything about “participating” in Mass, nor did they have anything to say about sexual feelings or feelings of any sort. Just “who made me, God made me” over and over again.
    Now let me state what I believe the critical problem is in every age and certainly now. The RCC always wants to teach thing about God, about Christ, about Mass and the sacraments, about morality, etc. But it presumes that those being taught are already believers when most of them clearly are not. They may be pre-believers or potential believers but they often lack even the vocabulary to be able to talk about their connections or encounters with God’s saving grace. We don’t need a “new evangelization” we just need authentic evangelization based on the kerygma by people whose lives are being changed by the love of Christ.

    Reply
    1. Jimmy Mac

      Jack: you expriences mirror mine – and I may be slightly older than you.

      Reply
    2. Shane Maher

      Jack – thanks for this. I especially appreciate your cogent point about evangelization.

      Reply
  20. Matt Connolly

    I skew quite liberal, so I’m having a tough time with the revised liturgy. For me, it pretends some type of perfection that no words have, and it creates a distant formalism that doesn’t befit a God who formed me naked and stupid. The liturgy, the Vatican, the hierarchy all seem tone deaf to the music of the Spirit.

    But I’ve given up on telling people what God wants us to do, because by definition I usurp Her position then. And authority, as handed down by Jesus, drowns in an ocean of sexual abuse lies, Vatican Bank chicanery, and pogroms against nuns and girl scouts. I wish I had someone in authority whose voice I trusted. And I wish we’d quit fighting over who is in or out, right or wrong, and learn to recognize those living in faith by their fruitfulness.

    I stay because I think God wants me to serve here. I don’t like it. And I understand when people drift or leave, from any side.

    Reply
    1. Paul Robertson

      I’m very much in the same boat as you, Matt. I stay because of a moment … must have been 16 years ago now … when I realised that I really really did believe in transubstantiation, in spite of knowing that it was all a load of hogwash.

      There is nowhere else to go, so I stay. If the Spirit is calling me to be a thorn in the side of the current order of bishops, so be it.

      As for someone in authority whose voice I trust, Bishop Michael Evans, my bishop, one of my heroes, died a year ago. I miss him terribly. May he rest in peace.

      So stay, we can keep each other company in the unfashionable end of the boat, living out our faith as best as we can.

      Reply
      1. Christopher Douglas

        Your post is interesting to me, because it answers a question I have had for a while: If they don’t like the Church, why don’t they leave?

        You confirmed one of my guesses: You believe in the fullness of the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation as a primary belief. No one else does, so you must stay.

        I’m guessing that you probably believe in the efficacy of all the sacraments, with the Apostolic Succession as necessary, so whatever quarrels you have with discipline or doctrine (as opposed to Dogma or the Deposit of Faith), you have no where else to go. Am I correct?

        (I’m slow on the uptake, but I notice that you and the LCWR speak of the “Spirit” instead of the “Holy Spirit.” Is there a disctinction, or is that merely a vogue or recent conformity about which I’m ignorant? Do you seek Divine guidance from God the Father, the Most High God? The God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life? Or is there a more recent and broader convention in terminology?)

      2. Jim McKay

        “Spirit” is a convention of ancient provenance, as in Numbers 11 when “Taking some of the spirit that was on Moses, he bestowed it on the seventy elders; and as the spirit came to rest on them, they prophesied* but did not continue.” or Psalm 104 “Send forth your spirit, they are created and you renew the face of the earth.” Many NT authors follow this convention, ie John 423; 6:63 etc., Acts 2:4 (where “holy Spirit and Spirit are both used); 2Cor 3:6, just to mention a few off the top of my head. It is used in the first chapter in the bible, Gen 1:2 and in the last, Rev 21:17.

        More interesting is the fad of adding “Holy” to Spirit in order to try and tame the overlapping meanings.

      3. Paul Robertson

        Christopher, I’ll take your points in order:

        I do believe in the fullness of the Catholic teaching on transubstantiation so yes, I must stay.

        I do believe in the efficacy of the sacraments and the necessity of the Apostolic Succession. I have many quarrels with the Church, but have just enough humility to admit that I may be wrong, just as the church may be wrong.

        My use of “Spirit” (capital S) is synonymous with “Holy Spirit”, the third person of the Trinity.

    2. Deb Pryce

      “I stay because I think God wants me to serve here. I donโ€™t like it. And I understand when people drift or leave, from any side.”

      Matt I so totally agree with your entire post that I copied it and saved it for those times when my heart is so heavy that I can’t remember why I stay.

      Reply
  21. Jimmy Mac

    โ€œThat is why we are told by The Magisterium that no one has the authority to change anything about it.โ€

    Oh, for heavenโ€™s sake! The mass has change many times in the history of the church. Trent made significant changes. Hereโ€™s a concise history of many of the changes:

    http://www.americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac1006.asp

    Reply
  22. Matt Connolly

    Christopher (6/7/12, 5pm) If faith is assenting to a series of doctrines, you might be right. For me, that is not a good definition of faith. I feel more like a member of a family, learning to love and live as God’s people. I can’t/won’t leave, even if I want to, because of my heart and my gut, not my head.

    Reply
    1. Christopher Douglas

      I don’t presume to be right. Either the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, with the successor of Peter as the head is right or it is not. If not, no big deal. Go on down the road on your own way. But if you believe that one great institution has the right to define it’s own boundaries, then you can agree or disagree. But if you don’t believe in sovereignty, in the ability of an organization to define its boundaries, then we have nothing to discuss, because then nothing is allowed to be different; therefore, no liberty exists, because there is nothing between which to choose.

      Bye the way, Matt: Saint Paul defines Faith in the following manner; it has two components: 1) Evidence of things unseen; 2) Substance of thing hoped for. (Keep those two things in mind.)

      But if you do believe in boundaries, then you’ll also believe in the the right of others to disagree in the extreme.

      Reply
      1. Matt Connolly

        I experience the boundaries as man made, as well as trying to limit a limitless and holy Spirit. Our history seems to show that limiting our reach also limits our horizons, while broadening our reach in faith (as in admitting non circumsized Gentiles, or allowing those who feared martyrdom to return to the church rather than be banned) seems to make us more forgiving, like Him.

        I think we certainly have the right to disagree strongly. I don’t think we have the right to disinvite each other from the altar. That’s something I think I’ve learned only through my own failures.

  23. Tony Ball

    I’m generation Y, though I’m also a former Catholic. I left because, looking around at Mass, it seemed no one really believed in anything going on. The liturgy and music sent the clear signal that nothing important was going on, the sermons blatantly rejected what I was learning to be Catholic doctrine, and every aspect of everyone’s lifestyle was wholly unaffected by Catholic teaching. I began to doubt what I thought I believed, and eventually left. I’m now a theologically (though not politically) conservative protestant, pretty much without a home. Some might say, correctly, that I left “because of the liberals.”

    BUT, any impulse I have to return is nullified by the conservatives. Truth is, I identify very strongly with “conservative”/”traditional” Catholicism, but I can’t stand being around that culture. There’s some good ones here and there, but by and large the MO remains the same: find the enemy, destroy.

    So I can certainly see where the Catholic culture drifting to the right may turn off some members of younger generations.

    Reply
    1. Jordan Zarembo

      re: Tony Ball on June 8, 2012 – 7:41 am

      It’s okay to take a “time out” from Catholicism. Much of what I’ve learned about being Catholic has been gleaned from worshiping with Anglicans and mainline Protestants. Sometimes a trip outside of San Pietro piazza to Canterbury or even the American frontier preacher tradition provides a new perspective on Catholicism.

      One of “cart before horse” major flaws of the Catholic conservative/traditional liturgical movement is the notion that liturgical audio-visual semiotic communication (i.e. solemn Mass, chant, polyphony, historical liturgical vestments, precious vestments and altar plate) are intrinsic to “traditional” worship. Quite the contrary. The Word made flesh (แฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚, verbum) necessarily informs not only the didactic level of liturgy but also the musical and performative aspects of liturgy. Our liturgical musical heritage must be enlivened by the Word and not present itself as a rival to the Word.

      Perhaps many are alienated from liturgy when the performance of Mass does not reflect its absolute basis in the incarnate Word, holy sacrifice, and paschal mystery. We don’t worship Borromean chasubles. A chasuble is merely a fancy rag without an absolute emphasis on the celebrant, congregation, and Lord truly present.

      Reply
      1. Jonathan Day

        Jordan, I thoroughly agree that Word and sacrifice go together. Unfortunately many of the neo-traditionalists among us are promoting a very different message. For instance:

        – The view that there is no need for the congregation to hear, less understand the proclaimed scripture, which can be read facing the altar, and only in Latin

        – The view that the homily is “not part of the Mass”, so that the celebrant removes his maniple, signalling that Mass has stopped while he delivers the homily

        – The view that a congregation is neither essential nor even relevant to the Mass, bringing back private Masses (see a recent blog post here.)

        All of these disturbing trends seem to me to break the union of Word, sacrifice and paschal mystery that you speak of.

      2. Samuel J. Howard

        The view that a congregation is neither essential nor even relevant to the Mass, bringing back private Masses (see a recent blog post here.)

        A congregation isn’t essential to the Mass. This is the long term teaching of the Church. If a congregation was essential to the Mass, a priest wouldn’t be able to celebrate a Mass without a congregation, but he can.

      3. Jordan Zarembo

        re: Jonathan Day on June 8, 2012 – 9:47 am

        Jonathan, I find the third example from WDTPRS especially discomforting. As well known, the Church has always stated that a server should be present for every Mass. I am skeptical that the priests pictured could not find servers for Mass. I hope that the priests did not dissuade laypersons from attending or serving their Masses on the pretense that this was “their Mass” and “their time”, as if a priest’s Mass is his personal devotion akin to rosary recitation. The Mass has always been and will always be the corporate worship of the Church. An assembly is as integral to Mass as the priest-celebrant. The importance of the liturgical assembly wasn’t invented in the post-Vatican II period. Eucharistic prayer (including the Roman Canon in its Tridentine redaction) is in the first person plural precisely because of the necessity of congregational presence and participation.

        I have long sensed that traditionalist permissiveness towards, and even praise of, abuses such Mass without a server and congregation, is an oppositionally defiant reaction against Ordinary Form practices which rightly include the assembly. If the OF emphasizes congregational dialogue and lay participation in the role of lector, for example, then some traditionalists will counter that the EF should have little or no lay participation. I have experienced this attitude personally — I have gotten glances for singing or saying all the responses of the choir and servers at both sung and said EF Masses. I have wanted to say after Mass that the gradual silencing of the laity over the centuries has nothing to do with piety but rather lay ignorance of the congregational responses. The best antidote to this destructive direction in traditionalism is greater education not only in the responses but also in the Latin language itself.

      4. Bill deHaas

        Thanks, Jordan. Can you address Mr. Howard’s comments – am always dismayed when someone takes an “exception to the rule” or principle or directive and uses that to globalize or turn things upside down as if the exception is the rule.

        Would suggest that in Fr. Z’s limp example, two of those folks could have participated in the one liturgy?

        This is more of the Allan approach in which “technically” it is licit or even valid; therefore, justified.

      5. Todd Flowerday

        “A congregation isnโ€™t essential to the Mass. This is the long term teaching of the Church.”

        It’s also not relevant teaching. The celebration of Mass is one of the most vital aspects for the sanctification of people. Mass with a congregation is a spiritual and pastoral service. It provides a John 13 opportunity not only for the priest, but for the entire assembly.

        When the Mass itself, not God’s grace and salvific plan for humanity, takes center stage, there’s a significant risk of idolatry.

        Three priests back to back in a little room isn’t wrong, as such. But it’s not right, either.

      6. Jordan Zarembo

        re: Bill deHaas on June 8, 2012 – 3:21 pm

        Bill: This is more of the Allan approach in which โ€œtechnicallyโ€ it is licit or even valid; therefore, justified.

        From what I have gathered, some traditional Catholics dislike concelebration because of an opinion that less grace is made present in the world when several priests say one Mass together. Can eucharistic grace be quantified? If so, is it better to abuse the Mass for “more grace” than celebrate Masses according to the intent of the Church?

        I suspect that many traditional Catholics’ unwillingness to permit concelebration in the EF arises from a distrust of Sacrosanctum Concilium. SC‘s call for concelebration (c.f. SC 57) expressly encourages the practice not only for conventual Masses but also when “the benefit of the laity does not require a single celebration for every priest present” ([…] cum utilitas […] non postulat […]) (SC 57 ยง 1.2) (my ellipses, trans.) Clearly, the Council bishops especially envisioned concelebration for the situation depicted on WDTPRS.

        Some traditionalists have also not welcomed the Concilium’s other prudent reforms of the 1962 Missal. Inter oecumenici permitted a bishop to say a sung Mass (ยง 48k). Before the Council, bishops often confirmed outside of Mass as not every parish had the resources for pontifical Mass. Despite the great advantages of celebrating confirmation at Mass, Gregor Kollmorgen (NLM) is wary of endorsing a permission for bishops to say the EF missa cantata. I disagree. The 1962 Missal, as it reforms according to SC, should not only adopt concelebration but also remove any liturgical restrictions based on clerical office. Mass is Mass, grace is grace!

      7. Samuel J. Howard

        Itโ€™s also not relevant teaching.

        It’s relevant when Jonathan Day states that the view that the congregation is not essential to the Mass is one of several “disturbing trends,” because it shows that what is the approved teaching of the Church cannot be a “disturbing trend.”

      8. Jordan Zarembo

        re: Samuel J. Howard on June 8, 2012 – 10:20 pm

        Sam, later I will go into detail in a separate post on why Mass said without a server and a congregation, though theologically and sacramentally permissible, is not in keeping with the liturgical mind of the Church and certainly not ideal, let alone praiseworthy. Fortunately the Ordinary Form rubrics have finally enshrined the role of the assembly in unambiguous terms. Still, the identical liturgical thought of the Church in the Tridentine era can be proven indirectly despite the absence of the faithful in the red print of Missale Romanum 1962.

        A key to understanding this difference can be found in the bull Auctorem fidei, by which Pope Pius VI condemns certain “Jansenist” teachings of the Pistoian Synod. Later in this thread Dominic Montini [June 8, 2012 – 2:15 pm] cites (but does not explain the significance of) Auctorem fidei ยง28. Inexplicably, Montini offers Auctorem fidei ยง28 as proof that Mass without an assembly is presumably idoneus (“suitable”). Auctorem fidei ยง28 must be read within the context of a refutation of Jansenist prevenient grace, and not as an ipso facto endorsement of regular celebrations of Mass without a server or congregation.

    2. Samuel J. Howard

      Itโ€™s okay to take a โ€œtime outโ€ from Catholicism.

      It’s OK to visit other ecclesial communities’ services. It’s not OK to do as Tony has done and leave the Catholic Church for a Protestant denomination.

      One of โ€œcart before horseโ€ major flaws of the Catholic conservative/traditional liturgical movement is the notion that liturgical audio-visual semiotic communication (i.e. solemn Mass, chant, polyphony, historical liturgical vestments, precious vestments and altar plate) are intrinsic to โ€œtraditionalโ€ worship. Quite the contrary.The Word made flesh (แฝ ฮปฯŒฮณฮฟฯ‚, verbum) necessarily informs not only the didactic level of liturgy but also the musical and performative aspects of liturgy. Our liturgical musical heritage must be enlivened by the Word and not present itself as a rival to the Word.

      This is very unclear. But to the extent I think I can understand it, I think it’s a strawman. The teaching (and it’s the teaching of the Church and of the Saints, and not just of “conservatives”) is that these things are fitting for the liturgy, not that they are “intrinsic” to it.

      Perhaps many are alienated from liturgy when the performance of Mass does not reflect its absolute basis in the incarnate Word, holy sacrifice, and paschal mystery. We donโ€™t worship Borromean chasubles. A chasuble is merely a fancy rag without an absolute emphasis on the celebrant, congregation, and Lord truly present.

      A “fancy” chasuble is a way of emphasizing these things. As for “reflect an absolute basis,” motives, attention, etc. will almost always be mixed. But this doesn’t per se make them evil or idolatrous.

      Reply
      1. Jordan Zarembo

        re: Samuel J. Howard on June 8, 2012 – 11:21 am

        It’s better that a person takes a “time out” from Catholicism and worships with another Christian community than drop out altogether. Real confessions: for about two years or so, while living in Montreal, I attended an Anglican church. Part of it had to do with the fact that francophone OF worship in MTL can be, um, innovative. Also, there aren’t that many anglophone Roman Catholic churches with small communities. The congregation was loving and kind, and the priests educated, well-spoken, and even gender-inclusive. I’m reconciled with Catholicism now, but if you still want to get the stake ready I’d suggest lump charcoal rather than briquettes. More even heating.

        Sam: The teaching (and itโ€™s the teaching of the Church and of the Saints, and not just of โ€œconservativesโ€) is that these things are fitting for the liturgy, not that they are โ€œintrinsicโ€ to it.

        That’s exactly my point. However, when I read NLM all I see is wall-to-wall bespoke. There’s little discussion of the text of liturgy, the linguistics of liturgy, the way in which the assembly and celebrant, word and eucharist, greeting and dismissal, flow, overlap, and ebb in the divine liturgy of heaven and earth. Rather, I learn the minute details of the altar parties of now extinct southeastern French aristocratic court liturgies. In order to appreciate bejeweled tunicles, one has to delve back into the semantics, syntax, and literary sense of prayer through which Word is made flesh. The musical and performative aspects of liturgy then follow. Last, and not first, is the artistic provenance of vestment and plate.

      2. Kim Rodgers

        Jordon, if all conservative/EF catholics were like you there would be little to no controversy rattling the Church!

  24. Brendan McInerny

    One of the interesting things about professionals, or “arm-chair” (please forgive if that sounds condescending, I don’t mean it to – take it as a high compliment)theologians/liturgists is that the tendency is to see the problem primarily, if not exclusively, in terms of liturgy (and its changing face) and catechesis. As the saying goes, when you’re a hammer…
    While as a student of theology with strong opinions on matters liturgical, I completely sympathize with this tendency and engage in it often and with pleasure.
    However, as people have pointed out, the reasons for leaving the Catholic or any other ecclesial community are legion. I would add also, that it may be that people leave for no reason whatsoever – but may be able to provide reasons when asked. I’m not trying to dismiss the very real frustration people feel with ‘bad’ liturgy, Church governance, or teachings (taken however you like), but from my own observations of friends and family (obviously not scientific), very often the disengagement with the Church occurs in a general lack of interest or desire to attend.
    I’m not sure what to call it, but religious complacency or laziness might come close if one recognizes that many of these types are quite spiritually thoughtful. The general sense isn’t one of protest, but of indifference. This is why I think you don’t see those who claim attitudes toward sexuality, women’s ordination, etc as reasons for leaving generally not joining a church that shares their declared views. My more liberal friends who were raised Catholic simply aren’t hunting down Episcopal or ELCA churches to attend.
    I’m not sure what that means for liturgists and theologians, but I would suggest that we as professional or amateur theologians and liturgists often don’t really bother to consider what Good News we claim to offer in the Church. Who can be surprised when people drift away because sleeping in or yard work on Sundays seems more important than attending…

    Reply
  25. Dominic Montini

    Jordan-I too take issue with the “time out” from Catholicism issue. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It would be like saying, “Eh, go ahead and take a birdwalk down the (insert sin here) trail and see what its like. Come back when you learned a thing or two.” While it is true that folks often stray (formally or informally), this cannot be approved of.

    Secondly, the traditionalist fancy stuff issue is a strawman. I have yet to meet someone of this bent (of which I’m a card carrying member) that really thinks this. Some folk might get caught up in the details, but at the end of the day if you parse it out with them, they would not pose this dichotomy between fitting externals and the Word. The Mass is about offering the proper worship to God, its not merely about having pretty things around.

    That said, its also about the “given-ness” of the Mass. These fancy things should be a “given” as part and parcel to the Mass because it is Mass.

    Jonathan-It would seem like these issues only continue the received Roman practice while this notion of “union of Word, sacrifice and paschal mystery” posed as something in contradistinction (implying it was wrong) to the older practice is a god our fathers never stood in awe of.

    1. Get a missal or learn Latin. Normative (Sung) Masses can be heard, even Low Masses can. Most of the time the readings are read in the vernacular later anyway so its a non-issue.

    2. Why should the sermon/homily be an actual part of the Mass? It would seem that this isn’t very liturgical when compared to chanting and ritual. They used to preach at a variety of times outside of any liturgical context anyway and even when the sermon was delivered around the time of Mass it was often before or after. The idea that the sermon is actually part of Mass is just a recent innovation.

    3. Auctorem Fidei, sect. 28 under the heading “The Partaking of the Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass”

    Reply
    1. Bill deHaas

      Geez, i’m lost – is this Fr. Z’s blog or Allan’s embarrassment. Started to read this and had to check/verify that it wasn’t the “wrong” blog post.

      What century are we living in? 1794 in a bull caused by Leopold. Ah yes, still relevant today.

      – just love it – sermon – thought it was reformed and became a homily (forgot – just a recent innovation)
      – normative (Sung) masses can be “heard”; even low masses – could have sworn that the reformed Latin Rite did away with distinctions such as “normative sung”, high, low, etc. unless you live in the “alternate” universe of Allan.

      Reply
      1. Jeffrey Pinyan

        For the love of whatever, please stop using “quotes” like that.

      2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

        Obviously I pose a threat to his universe! Sad, very sad.

      3. Tony Ball

        I said how the nastiness of many conservatives keeps me away from the RCC. But the same is true of the nastiness of many non-conservatives.

      4. Bill deHaas

        you referring to me, JP – what “quotes” – I included a number. Sad, sad – yes, especially embarrassing blogs and comments. See below – Jonathan captures it well.

      5. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Bill, it’s that you use quote marks apparently for emphasis (I think) instead of to quote someone or to use a word in a peculiar way.

        unless you live in the “alternate” universe of Allan

        It’s just a gripe of mine to see quotation marks used that way. It’s like its vs. it’s, you’re vs. your, etc.

      6. Bill deHaas

        Geez, JP – I humbly apologize for my faux pas. Yes, do use them sort of indiscriminately to provide emphasis. Could bold, etc. but my technological prowess is not the best. As we say in the behavioral health field, you may want to take your medication when reading my stuff.

        Thought you might enjoy this article from the Vatileaks – the head of Communio & Liberacion wrote a private not to B16 in which he slandered the remarkable and appreciated legacy of Martini and Tettramanzi, cardinals of Milan. His point was to link them to conspiracy against the ROTR/Retrenchment that is going on – note he uses the phrase – “…. warned that โ€œa sort of โ€˜alternative magisteriumโ€™ to Rome and the Holy Father is often theorized,โ€ creating a โ€œprofound crisis of faith.โ€

        Just goes to show that the world of EWTN, Fr. Z, The Wanderer, Allan, etc. spin their alternative narratives based upon an approach we in the historical field would call – historical novels which means that you borrow just enough actual historical fact to make your story sound believable – but, in the end, it is just fiction. Sad when you do this in the name of the gospel and as an ordained minister. It also walks a fine line in terms of slander, calumny, false witness, etc. (at least if I remember Sister teaching me the catechism in 6th grade).

      7. Jeffrey Pinyan

        Bill, even just using *this* sort of emphasis (asterisks / stars) or _this_ sort (underscores) instead of quotation marks would go a long way. Every now and then, I can’t quite tell to what purpose you’re using quote marks, and it makes it harder to understand and engage you.

        I’m not asking you to accommodate me and my pathologies, just letting you know I’m impaired. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    2. Karl Liam Saur

      “… learn Latin.”

      Be assured that Jordan is already fluent in Latin.

      And that you’ve missed his point.

      Reply
  26. Paul Inwood

    Fritz Bauerschmidt: It is a well-known true fact, attested many places on the Google Machine, that Bugnini and his minions modified all the manuscripts of Cyril to make it look like he said this. You people really should not be so trusting of the so-called โ€œscholarsโ€ who write books.

    Oh, come now, Fritz. That is really beneath you. You don’t really believe what you read on those blogs, do you?

    Bugnini’s “minions”? The same old ridiculous conspiracy theory?

    Or did I miss a sarcasm emoticon?

    Reply
    1. Karl Liam Saur

      yes, you did.

      Reply
    2. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      Paul, I thought the phrase “the Google Machine” could serve in place of a sarcasm emoticon.

      Reply
      1. Paul Inwood

        Fritz,

        My apologies for late-night naรฏvetรฉ! I’m not familiar with the phrase “Google machine” either. Glad to know that you couldn’t have meant what I knew you couldn’t have meant!

  27. M. Jackson Osborn

    Well, it may be that the distinctions of ‘high’ and ‘low’, & cet., do not apply to the mass of Paul VI. However, that a completely sung or chanted mass is ‘normative’ most certainly does apply. What is (supposed to be) abnormal is a mass that is not sung. Spoken liturgy is an historical aberration with its origins, first, in the mediaeval development of multiplied private or personal masses said by a multiplication of priests at a multiplication of altars; and, secondly, in Renaissance Protestant Christianity. It is, in the history of Christianity (or any other human religion), wierd. And is, to our Orthodox cousins, a bizarre innovation. Spoken liturgy is aberrant and ab-normal. We are an historical and cultural embarassment in having produced generations of priests and people who cannot, or WILL not, sing the mass… ALL of it… prayers, dialogue, readings, creed, universal prayers.. every last word.

    Reply
    1. Fritz Bauerschmidt

      While tending to agree with the substance of what you say, your remark raises one of my favorite questions of how we distinguish between developments that are “organic” and those that are, as you put it, “aberrant and ab-normal.” Why couldn’t the low Mass simply be an organic development, occasioned by a maturing theology that recognizes the infinite value of each Mass and therefore seeks to enable more frequent celebration?

      Reply
      1. Jonathan Day

        Fritz, it’s all a matter of proper verb conjugation:

        “The changes that we advocate are part of the organic development of the liturgy.

        The changes that you advocate are questionable but probably licit.

        The changes that they advocate are bizarre, inorganic, fabricated innovations.”

        In Latin:

        “Mutationes quod suademus et pars talis ipsius liturgiae et naturales progressae sunt

        Mutationes quod suadetis ambiguae sunt sed tamen licent

        Mutationes quod suadent prodigiosae, artificiosissimae, fictae sunt.”

        Hope that makes it all clearer.

      2. M. Jackson Osborn

        Fritz –
        Perhaps, as you suggest, ‘organic’, in the sense that a cancer is ‘organic’; and, certainly not ‘occasioned by a matururing theology’. ‘Maturity’ of any sort does not radiate from it. Your observation, though, about the infinite value of every mass and the goodness of more frequent celebration is admirable; but, I don’t see a necessary corollary here with spokenness. Singing the mass does not in and of itself mean singing it less or more often. A spoken mass is one that has been denuded.

        After writing my first remarks above, I also had the thought that, if the mass were totally sung, then the plethora of remarks and asides, and commentary which so may priests like to add (illicitly) to the mass would seem even more out of place and ridiculous that they already do and are.

    2. Jim McKay

      Do you think the Passover meal was sung or chanted?

      Parts of it are, or can be, but they look like later developments and might not have happened if the whole was already chanted. Haggadah means “telling” but it might not have the same talking connotation that English has. Certainly it was a ritualized text very early, but sung?

      Any one know?

      Reply
      1. Karl Liam Saur

        Well, the Haggadah post-dates the time of Christ by several generations. It’s a post-Temple development.

      2. M. Jackson Osborn

        JMcK –
        A valid question. We, of course, can only speculate; but we can do so from a somewhat educated vantage point. Knowing that ‘liturgy’ or any form of worship was in some manner sung in Jesus’ time, one could safely assume that the passover was sung. This singing may have been actual singing, or it may have been some form of chanting, or pre-chant cantillation. Almost certainly, though, it would have been unthinkable for it to have been just spoken. The ancient Jews (in concert with all other cultures) would have considered merely speaking to God, or reciting holy writ in a merely spoken voice a grave affront. There can hardly be a question that whenever Jesus is recorded as having quoted scripture, he chanted, or in some manner cantillated it – even on the cross.

        Our Holy Father Benedict has said that ‘when man comes into contact with God, mere speech is not enough’. This is certainly the witness af all religion until the medieaval private mass and Protestant Christianity. Numerous mediaeval and pre-mediaeval writers (forgive me if I do not look up chapter and verse at this moment) attest that ‘from the beginning everything has been sung and nothing is said in the spoken voice’. St Isidore of Seville even went so far as to assert that a man who could not sing should not be ordained.

        Singing, chanting, does, indeed, add power to one’s words and lifts them into another dimension and spiritual realm. I’m wondering out loud if the intuition of this actually frightens those who won’t sing or chant. It is certainly strange that numbers of priests have some fear and trepidation when singing for the first time, ‘as though’ they were doing something novel; and they imaginge that they are doing something groundbreaking if they only sing the per ipsum. What they SHOULD have fear and trepidation about is NOT singing every last word of the mass. Singing the mass is NOT adding something extra TO it: speaking it IS taking something FROM it.

      3. Paul Inwood

        Well, given that the Hallel psalms would certainly have been sung (and many have used this to “prove” that Jesus was a singer, as indeed all Jews were supposed to be), it seems more than possible that high ritual meals would have been accompanied by cantillated texts. Perhaps Gelineau’s views on ekphonesis come into play here, even if actual cantillation did not take place.

        It’s similar to the question of whether, when Jesus unrolled the scroll in the synagogue, he chanted the sacred text from Isaiah.

      4. Jack Wayne

        What hooked me on the EF Mass right away was that everything that is audible is sung (bear in mind that the vast majority of EFs celebrated today are High Masses). I’d never experienced the Mass as a flowing beautifully sung prayer before.

        I’m sure the OF can be sung this way, but there seems to be a lot of fear in doing so. It’s very difficult to come by.

      5. Jim McKay

        I asked because the Seder is undoubtedly an influence on the Eucharist. It is different in many respects from other liturgies, ie it is a family event, so semi private rather than public; its purpose was to fulfill God’s command in Ex 13:8: And on that day you will explain to your son, โ€˜This is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.โ€™‘ not to address God directly. So while I accept that public worship of God was sung, I am not so sure about something like a Seder. (This is particularly true of a meal where the leader extemporizes, as Jesus did, but…)

        OTOH the text was not standardized until some centuries after Christ. When it was, it appears only parts of it were sung. Other parts were read. And there is the issue of language; if they used Hebrew, it probably was chanted. But if the goal was to answer the questions of the youngest child, that could mean vernacular. (though the questions are now sung) Most stories were told with song.

        So I have my doubts about MJO’s statements, since the Eucharist may have been influenced by the Seder. And it was not a fully public celebration until the 4th(?) century. And a great deal was added in the early years, which is easier to some point with a spoken text. Not that I disagree, I just have doubts I thought others might answer.

  28. Bill deHaas

    Jonathan – thanks – a little humor helps explain the current approach. Perfectly captures the Allan approach.

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Just to be clear, the illicit/valid term I used was in reference to the sacraments celebrated by priests of the SSPX–illicit but valid as their priests are validly ordained but suspended and thus celebrate the sacraments illicitly from purely a canonical perspective. No where was I referring to organic or inorganic development in the revised Mass or the Ancient Mass.

      Reply
  29. Bill deHaas

    Let’s add a little clarity to your last comment:

    “But on the left there is also dogmatic dissent. This was quite evident in the 1970’s when the historical critical method of interpreting Scripture was still in its adolescent period and used recklessly by Catholic scholars who collaborated with liberal Protestant scholars who had used this method since the early 1900’s. Catholics scholars began to use this method only in the 1940’s when Pope Pius XII opened the door to it in his famous encyclical “Divino Afflante Spiritu.”

    This method in an unbridled way and without the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church and her Sacred Tradition and Natural Law can call into question the divinity of Christ, His incarnation without a human father, His virgin birth and what he knew and didn’t know in his earthly existence. It can also call into question his sinlessness. It can call into question His bodily resurrection and the nature of the Ascension and Pentecost events not to mention the expect Second Coming. In other words it calls into question historical Christianity the fullness of which subsists in the Roman Catholic Church and her Bishop of Rome and Bishops in union with him.

    It also calls into question the belief that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus, papal infallibility and the role of bishops, priests and deacons. It opens the door to a revision of all the sacraments especially Holy Orders

    “There are fringe groups on the far left, who advocate such things and have started practicing them. Fortunately, they don’t have a charismatic archbishop such as Archbishop Marcel Lefebrve to create an actual schism or bishops like Bishop Fellay today. Progressive Catholics by nature are dissent-minded and thus have no real cohesiveness and have a disdain for episcopal authority.

    This type of dogma and doctrinal dissent is sinister and of the evil one.”

    Posted by Fr. Allan, June 8th

    Can we say…’stream of unconsciousness’?

    Reply
    1. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      Bill, there are many people here who read this blog, who don’t believe that Praytell should change its name to “What does Fr. Allan really say.” I would recommend Praytell be Praytell and that I be allowed to post my own comments here and you yours.

      Reply
  30. Brian Duffy

    Oh, how I miss Janet Darcy proclaiming her eternal love for her boy friend or the astute comments of my lord Cardinal!

    Reply
  31. Jack Feehily

    The comment that every last word of the mass should be sung or chanted is a statement of preference. The singing of the ordinary by all is, in my opinion, highly to be desired and is, in fact, common practice. Chanting the propers, preface dialogue and preface is fine for good chanters. Beyond that we run the risk of making the mass sound like an operetta with too much focus on the diva at the chair and altar. There are ways to celebrate the mass with minimal music on weekdays that wonderfully gives God thanks and praise. I say these things as a priest who sings very well.

    Reply
    1. Jeffrey Pinyan

      The Orthodox Divine Liturgies I’ve attended have all been almost completely sung, and I never felt that they sounded like a performance, nor that the priest, deacon, or choir was a diva. I think they accomplish this by using mostly simple chant tones.

      Reply
    2. Fr. Allan J. McDonald

      The “feeling” of being a “diva” had prevented me for about the first 12 years of my priesthood from singing a goodly number of the parts of the Mass, but since about 1991 at our principle liturgies, I’ve always sung the Collect, preface dialogue, preface and led the Our Father. Of course the other parts of the congregation are sung by them and the priest together.
      I have to agree that if a normal chant mode of the Church is used either simple or solemn that this prevents it from seeming like a performance, whereas if one uses a more “performance” type of singing, then indeed it does sound like an “oppertta.” The plain chant could be accomplished by most priests (not all of course) if coached by a music director.
      Just a final note, when I celebrate the EF Mass and chant all that is required for it in the Sung Mass, facing away from the congregation really takes the “diva” out of it.

      Reply
  32. M. Jackson Osborn

    Diva, indeed!!! One doesn’t have to sing to be a diva of sorts. Priests who make the mass into a personality-ridden Ed Sullivan show peppered with non-ritual comments and see-me posturing are far more distracting and un-holy than a thousand divas. I think, Fr Feehily, that your diva remark is rather a cheap shot that is beneath you. It is also a rather crude (and astonishingly judgmental) denigration of those who would celebrate mass as it normally should be celebrated. Too, you seem to overlook that in the normative fully sung mass the priest is not the only one singing and is not the sole focus which you (in a bit of overly clerical emphasis?) seem to make of him. The mass is a continuous song from beginning to end, in which priest, people, cantors, lectors and choristers all have their rhythmic, energetic and uninterrupted parts.

    This is, as history and tradition will bear out, far more than mere insignificant personal preference.

    Reply
  33. M. Jackson Osborn

    Please, Fr F, read my first remarks more carefully and you will note that my, or anyone else’s, personal preferences are not what this is about.
    I would commend to you an outstanding article by Fr Mark Daniel Kirby, OSB, who was in the Diocese of Tulsa, but is now, I think, starting up a monastery in Ireland.

    It is a superb, almost magisterial, treatise on this subject and would be of great spiritual and intellectual value to many contributors and readers of this blog.

    It appears in the summer 2009 issue of Sacred Music (Vol 136, No 2) published quarterly by the CMAA. The essay is entitled ‘Toward a Definition of Liturgical Chant. I cannot recommend it enough. To anyone who wishes a copy and can’t get one, I will mail one.

    A definitive recent book on the subject is The Christian West and its Singers: the First Thousand Years, by Christopher Page (Yale).

    There is a mountain of recent schoarship on these and related matters that makes it increasingly difficult to concoct a respectable rationale for not-sung liturgy. To repeat what I said quite a bit above here, spoken liturgy is unique in human history to Protestat Christianity, the private priest’s private mass, the degenerate low mass which developed some time after Trent, and finally, as a conscious (some would say ‘deliberate’) aping of Protestant practice after Vatican II. It is clear that the thinking of Vatican II was that the completely sung mass was normative. None of this is opinion or personal preference.

    Reply
    1. Paul Inwood

      MJO,

      You are undoubtedly correct, particularly your last two sentences (though the one before that is up for considerable debate).

      However, the fact is that for several hundred years the experience of most Catholics was quite different. High Mass was the exception rather than the rule, and the Missa Cantata was a rare bird, seldom seen. You could go through your entire Catholic mass-going life and never hear a note of music.

      Anthropologically, then, having music at Mass was a tremendous wrench for many post-Varican II, and many did indeed feel it was a question of personal preference. There are still people today who go to the “quiet Mass” in order to “escape from the music”. It is amazing that we should have moved in such a short space of time from being a Low Mass culture to being a Sung Mass culture. This is especially notable in the US, where folk seem far more accepting of music at Mass than they are in some other countries. Many parishes in my part of the world still have a proportion of weekend Masses senza musica.

      I think this acceptance has been achieved not by bludgeoning people with Vatican expectations about whether music is normative or not, but by having the kind of music that has drawn people in. But that is opening up another huge can of worms!

      The underlying philosophical question is whether there is a particular kind of music which is more suited to the liturgy than others (just like whether the liturgy demands a sacral language divorced from everyday speech), or whether, as some say, God can take any style of music (or speech, come to that) and transform it to good in the cause of worship. The argument for a particular style is based on historical considerations as much as anything else. The argument against any particular style is based on culture and semiotic analysis. The challenge is to get these two into the same room so that they can debate.

      An interesting starting point might be John Paul II’s 2003 Chirograph on the centenary of Tra le sollecitudini, whose paragraph 12 contains the following statement:

      It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it.

      and, more controversially,

      The faith of countless believers has been nourished by melodies flowing from the hearts of other believers [i.e. non-catholics], either introduced into the Liturgy or used as an aid to dignified worship. In song, faith is experienced as vibrant joy, love and confident expectation of the saving intervention of God.

      Reply
      1. Jack Wayne

        Are we now a Sung Mass culture? What’s the definition of a Sung Mass? I would liken the typical OF to a low Mass with hymns. The main difference being that the Gloria, Pater Noster, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei are typically (but not always) sung.

        In my city alone, I would call maybe two of the the thirty Masses being celebrated this Sunday “Sung Masses.”

  34. Bill deHaas

    Would take your comment, Mr. Wayne, and say that this is a *marked* improvement over the typical and mostly 1960 low mass experience especially since most parishes at their major Sunday eucharist achieve what you lay out.

    Keep in mind – 1965: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWINOEC.HTM

    Think how far we have come since this motu proprio.

    Also, keep in mind that many of us would keep the principle that the congregation needs to be able to both hear and understand whatever is being proclaimed or chanted. If anything with the foreign priest experience, we have moved backwards on this and it hinders trying to develop and move forward.

    Reply
    1. Jack Wayne

      Whether or not it is an improvement probably depends on what came before. A few of the accounts posted here claim most Masses were low Masses without music (that one could go their entire life without hearing a single note of music), yet this contradicts the accounts of virtually every older person I’ve ever met here in the midwestern US – not to mention any parish history I’ve ever read. Most Masses were low Masses with four hymns, virtually every parish managed at least one High Mass for Sundays and feasts, and the vast majority of school and funeral Masses were High. So, at least in the Miswest, we seem to have taken one step forward and two steps back in that there is slightly more singing at all Sunday Masses, yet there are far fewer totally sung liturgies on Sundays and weekdays (school Masses and funerals) than there were prior to the council.

      Reply
  35. Jack Feehily

    I believe you are simply mistaken. Almost all Masses that I am aware of include a sung ordinary, response psalm, as well as three or four liturgical songs. Especially in the midwest.

    Reply
    1. Samuel J. Howard

      Jack Wayne’s comment doesn’t seem mistaken to me, what you describe are not “totally sung liturgies” unless you mean that almost all the Masses you are aware of include a sung creed? a sung prayer of the faithful? A sung preface?

      Reply
    2. Jack Wayne

      Samuel J. Howard is right – I was referring to a Mass that is totally sung – like a Latin High Mass or Missa Cantata. A bit of a rarity in the pre-Vatican II American experience, but almost totally unheard of today.

      As I said before, there is overall more music at Sunday Masses than there was prior to Vatican II (that seems to be an improvement), but sung liturgies are pretty much extinct (a *major* poverty). Part of this may be because the OF has so much more to sing than an EF does since almost everything is said audibly. A priest in an OF has a much bigger singing role than one in an EF (where the choir dominates the music).

      Reply

Posted

in

by

Other Voices

Tags:

,

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading