Niall, a question if you don't mind. Here in the U.S., particularly I know in the Northeast, we're seeing at least a generation-wide decrease in participation with the Catholic Church. Many dioceses over the next two to five years are reevaluating their parishes to see which can be combined, with the goal of eventually shutting down many parishes. One of the major considerations is Mass attendance within the parish, which has plummeted just in my lifetime. I'm curious if you are seeing similar trends and/or if your dioceses have similar concerns. You know

Participation is certainly down over 30 years ago. It's probably up over five years thanks to EU expansion and the influx of Catholic Poles and other Eastern Europeans.

Vocations have almost completely dried up and an aging clergy means that it's hard to see the drop in numbers attending mass regularly particularly in rural areas because often there are less masses, or mass times differ to the point where people don't tend to attend the churches their families would traditionally have attended. Actually, I think that has a lot to do with it. Irish society has become a lot more mobile and it just isn't as closely knit as it once would have been. A lot of my peers will not miss mass when at home, but do not attend if living away from home. Church attendance is certainly lower in urban areas than it would be in urban areas. It's not so much that these people wouldn't describe themselves as Catholic or even theists, so much as they really can't be bothered with the whole church thing, when they could have a sleep in or watch a football match.

Now that said, I think we're still ahead of almost all of Western Europe when it comes to church attendance. In regards the US, it seems to me that Catholics tend to be concentrated in the more urban areas, which don't really lend themselves to the strengthening of long-term communities in the same way that rural areas or small towns do. I think that in urban areas, there's always a greater variety of group affiliations to choose from, so it is hardly surprising that many choose to emphasise other aspects of their identity, particularly at a point where ethnic groups like the Irish, the Italians and the Poles have come to be thought of as white, "proper" Americans.

Thanks for the response, Niall.

You've raised what should have been an obvious point that I missed. I'm sure part of the motive in shutting down Churches in the U.S., outside of poor attendance and cost-efficiency, is the lack of clergy to fill them. Vocations are, of course, not what they used to be. I've spoken briefly, with Mad, about the general topic of a noticeable decrease in enthusiasm among Catholic believers over the past generation. He interestingly noticed that

[quote]But I wonder, with regard to Vatican II changes, why isn't the current generation attracted to the Church? Wasn't that part of the point of Vatican II

Mind if I chip in about the state of affairs Downunder? I'm an ex-catholic who has studied at the Melbourne Catholic Theological College with seminarians (training to be Priests).

Mass participation is definitely down, and one consequence of this has been that most parishes no longer hold a Sunday evening Mass. There has also been a decline in Catholic youth groups.

While participation is down, it seems that Orthodoxy/Fundamentalism is becoming stronger, with the result being that there is a hard core of very committed youth who are actively evangelizing. Most conversions seem to come from Protestant backgrounds rather than secular backgrounds. many Protestants grow up hearing ridiculous and inaccurate things about Catholicism and when they hear Catholic beliefs explained in terms of the Bible they suddenly find Catholicism very attractive.

The seminarians are also being trained in much more orthodox lines. This has filtered down from the hierarchy with the late John Paul II appointing more conservative Cardinals and Archbishops and the present Pope Benedict XVI should continue this trend. Those of a more liberal persuasion are often exasperated and can't be bothered battling the Catholic fundamentalists.

The way I envisage this heading over the next half century or so is that there will be one central church in each Deanery and that most catholics will have to travel further to get to Mass. This will be a result of both a shortage of priests and a shortage of parishioners. This will also mean that those that do attend will be more committed and more orthodox, and a vicious circle will be started whereby they reinforce each others fundamentalism.

Hey bradams, I'm glad you posted here compelling me to finally respond to Niall's gracious assistance.

Niall, at the time I bailed out of this, actually at the time I started this, I was already besieged on the homefront. But, I was also in the midst of trying to organize a sort of energy-raising group in an effort to be sure my church was not one of those picked to be closed. In the midst of those efforts, I learned that most of the information-gathering had already been done and the next six months was just for decision-making. So any efforts at making my Church appear active would be moot, which is why the thread lost its immediate importance to me. But now that things have slowed down a bit, I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion for theoretical purposes, if you're still interested.

bradams wrote:Mass participation is definitely down, and one consequence of this has been that most parishes no longer hold a Sunday evening Mass. There has also been a decline in Catholic youth groups.

By Sunday evening, do you mean actually on Sunday, or on Saturday? In the U.S., or at least in my area, Sunday masses are held from Saturday evening through late Sunday morning, and for special occasions through Sunday afternoon (e.g. the healing mass). Sunday mass is never scheduled in the evenings around here, at least as far as I know.

As for youth groups, my Church's youth group disbanded about three years ago. It still had a leader, but the youth interest just wasn't there.

Niall wrote:There seemed to be two broad groups in the church, one that saw it as the ultimate and final concession to the modernising [sic

By Sunday evening, do you mean actually on Sunday, or on Saturday? In the U.S., or at least in my area, Sunday masses are held from Saturday evening through late Sunday morning, and for special occasions through Sunday afternoon (e.g. the healing mass). Sunday mass is never scheduled in the evenings around here, at least as far as I know.

When I was growing up most parishes had Sunday Masses on Saturday evening (vigil), Sunday morning (1-3 depending on parish size) and Sunday evening. Now it's rare to find Sunday evening Masses and the number of Sunday morning Masses is reduced.

These both touch on a thought that I've been throwing around. I think, as Niall suggests, the Catholic Church might have caught itself up in some very dangerous gray area. Vatican II did not create the revitalization that I think was originally intended, but it resulted in the Church stepping away from its more orthodox practices. Now I don't see it returning to those practices, because Vatican II also removed quite a bit of bullshit from Catholicism that was never deistically mandated. But it doesn't quite seem ready to grow with its more liberal bent.

The position of Benedict XVI on Vatican II is that while it made some reforms it was ultimately hijacked by liberals for their own agenda. In the current climate I can definitely see the Church returning to pre-Vatican II practices.
This has already started happening with the revitalization of the Tridentine (Latin) Mass. In my diocese there is also a return, mainly among a substantial number of orthodox youth, to prayer before the Blessed Sacrament with a large weekly Holy Hour devoted to this at st. patrick's Cathedral and a number of smaller versions being held weekly or monthly at local parishes. I witnessed an incident that both amused and moved me at a Holy Hour at the cathedral being led by Archbishop Denis Hart. There had been a very large youth conference held in the diocese the week before and it was "more Catholic than the Pope." Among other things, it preached that receiving communion on the tongue is superior to receiving communion in the hand. Archbishop Hart, in a splendid pastoral display, corrected this notion saying that both were equally valid and neither was superior to the other. It looks to me as if the next generation will be much more orthodox and Pharisaical.

I do agree with you that the liturgy is central to any effort to revitalize the church, and while I am no longer Catholic I am astonished that anyone could play John Lennon's "Imagine" as part of the liturgy as happens in some more liberal parishes.

Wow. I didn't expect to see this thread again. Don't worry about not replying Rose, just write it off against some of the times I've not replied to one of your posts. I'm sure it has happened, or if it hasn't, it will!

The one thing that I'd say about priests' sermons is that it is very difficult for the priests. Remember, they're supposed to write them in such a way that they can be of use to everybody from the age of 10 to 100, and most people just aren't all that interested in challenging sermons.

Brad, I once shared your concerns regarding Benedict/Ratzinger, but I have to admit that - so far - he hasn't done a bad job as Pope. I certainly think that he has performed more to my liking in his current role that he did in his previous one. He is certainly sympathetic to the traditionalists, but he seems to have kept those sympathies in check. The easing of the restrictions on the use of the Tridentine rite was a good thing in itself though I find the traditionalists pretty intolerable.

[As an aside, there is a rather peculiar tendency for the Irish publications written by those sympathetic to traditionalists' causes to promote anti-EU views. They are truly weird creatures who stick to themselves and only appear on radio talk shows every now and then.]

Ratzinger once speculated about Catholicism evolving into a form where its strength came not from its numbers but the devotion of its followers. I can't help but imagine that he was referring to these ultra orthodox types you referred to Brad, but that's certainly a scenario I'd rather not see arise.

I agree to some extent Niall, Benedict has not been as bad as I thought he would.

The Regensburg address (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/197/story_19755_1.html) however, was typical of the man in his former role. What did you think of that one? Personally I think he could have made the same point within Christianity without attacking Islam.

I also find his cries of "Relativism" very annoying. while there are a lot of relativists out there I think the problem is that people believe in different absolutes to Benedict rather than that they believe in no absolutes at all. It is much easier to argue against straw relativists than to actually argue foe catholic doctrine on its own merits.

Well to be fair, he didn't actually attack Islam. He quoted a writer who attacked Islam. I mean, I've read the address and it was made to an academic gathering, I'd have to say that if the man was planning on making some sort of subtle condemnation of Islam (and you'd have to wonder why anyone would make a subtle condemnation) it was a strange way and a strange place in which to do it. I'm inclined to believe that it was an oversight on his behalf. He has a habit of quoting from diverse sources (see his New Year's message where - according to some reports he attacked atheism ) so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The calls against relativism are frustrating if only because they're vague. Relativism is a little bit like Anarchy in this sense. The way people use the phrase anarchy in everyday speech is not what anarchists believe in. Still, there are certain benefits to Popes being vague.