Why do fewer Catholics go to mass? We hear many answers: loss of faith, the impact of secularization, the decline in leisure time, the explosion of alternative leisure activities, the “permissive” culture, the failure of Vatican II reforms, the scandal of clergy sex abuse, church teaching against contraception—all these are offered to explain the apparent change among American Catholics. I don’t really disagree with any of these explanation; they may all be partly true. But I have come to suspect they all over-explain the change. In my opinion, the problem is not that there’s been so much change for worse. The problem is, there hasn’t been much change at all!
Think of it this way: back in the “golden age,” say 50 years ago, most churches were full, often several times a weekend. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves that people had more faith then. Remember, Catholics were taught that missing even one Sunday Mass meant an eternity in Hell. Most of the people at Mass then were just going through the motions. They were “token” Catholics, a captive audience doing the minimum required of them. They couldn’t see what the priest was doing or hear what he was saying, so they spent their time saying the rosary, or daydreaming, or sleeping, or talking, or standing at the back of the church. Very few worshippers actually followed the mass itself, using a Latin-English missal, and none participated in any active way (except the altar boys). At Communion time, very few people (maybe 15-20%) came forward to receive the Eucharist. The rest stayed in their seats, or even headed the opposite way, out the door. In many cases, the number leaving early exceeded the number receiving Eucharist.
Vatican II was supposed to encourage people to go beyond the minimum, to take their faith more seriously, to renew themselves. What happened? For many people, nothing happened, except the minimum requirements changed. Today few Catholics believe the gates of heaven close for someone who misses Mass. In other words, times have changed—and with them, the definition of what it means to be a “token” catholic. Now, instead of “going through the motions” at Mass every Sunday, the token Catholics “go through the motions” by showing up to make sure every family milestone (baptism, first communion, confirmation, wedding, and funeral) gets blessed. So Catholic life still continues for them—but the minimum requirements have changed.
For these people, the Catholic Church still counts in their lives—but the parish is no longer their place of worship. At best, they treat it like their own private family chapel. At worst, they’ve reduced it to the ATM of their spiritual lives, useful but not important—and only useful as long as it’s convenient.
During Vatican II, my father was skeptical of its outcome. “I bet a lot of priests,” he said, “will be just as good at mumbling the English as they ever were at mumbling the Latin.” The key word, of course, was mumbling: none of Vatican II’s reforms could work if people—whether priests or laity—kept on “mumbling” their way through the motions of Catholic life. It even looks like “mumbling” is hereditary, since the “ATM” Catholics of today are mostly the children and grandchildren of the “go through the motions” mass-goers of 50 years ago.
Why does this matter? Because if all that’s changed are the “mumblers” habits, we shouldn’t fool ourselves with bogus nostalgia for a “golden age” that never existed. Yes, the churches were full—but mostly they were full of “mumblers” who added nothing to our celebration of Mass except body heat and a few bucks.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
#284: Cause--or Coincidence?
EXCERPT: The percentage of US Catholics who attend weekend Mass has been declining gradually for nearly 45 years. Since 1965, in fact (according to Gallup polls, the encyclopedic Religion and American Cultures, and the New York Times’ Peter Steinfels), Mass attendance by US Catholics has dropped from 65%-75% to 25%-35%—although those receiving communion has jumped from 10%-15% to 90%!
Some want to blame the 1970 liturgical renewal of Vatican II. For me, there is a logical problem: coincidence never proves cause-and-effect. But linking low attendance to liturgical renewal faces a tougher problem: there are TOO MANY coincidences. Forty-five year of declining attendance leaves a lot of time for multiple coincidences. For example (note: see the complete CrossCurrents #284 for explanations of these examples):
That decline in Mass attendance has coincided with the demographic shift of US Catholics from city to suburbs. It also coincided with a dramatic rise in Catholic educational, professional, and income levels. It coincided with the massive decline in Catholic school enrolments.
It coincided with the explosion of Sunday commercialism. It coincided with the explosion of organized weekend youth sports (especially girls’ sports). It coincided with the new “leisure famine.” It coincided with the multiplication of leisure-time distractions competing with mass-going. It coincided with the phenomenon of “cocooning.”
It coincided with the general decline in church attendance among ALL Christian churches with liturgical traditions. It coincided with a general secularization of US culture.
It coincided with the rise in divorce among Catholic families.
It coincided with widespread alienation over the birth control encyclical Humanae Vitae. It coincided with the 1983 Canon Law reform.
It coincided with the mass exodus of priests over the celibacy issue, and the subsequent graying of the priesthood in many US dioceses. It coincided with the rising shortage of priests. It coincided with the rise of the women’s movement, and the debate over women's roles in the Church, including women's ordination. It coincided with the rise in lay ministry. It coincided with the rise of women in parish leadership, now comprising 85% of parish professional staff. It coincided with the transformation of parish staffs, from the all-priest “drill-team" model to the mixed clergy/lay “ball club” model.
It coincided with the collapse of “Obligation Catholicism.” It coincided with the sex-abuse scandal which touched millions of Catholics even before exploding into public view. It coincided with the revelation of widespread chronic episcopal malfeasance.
Logically, none of these coincidences proves what caused our decline in Mass attendance. One reader believes ONE of these—liturgical reform—explains it all. Sociologist Andrew Greeley likewise believed ONE thing—Humanae Vitae—caused it all. Personally, I suspect many of the factors above had some impact one way or another, but I have no magic method for singling out ONE coincidence as the “poison pill” that caused it all. Having lived through all these changes, I am very skeptical of any easy, one-cause-fits-all answer.
Ironically, my own first experience of empty churches came as a student in 1960s Europe, before the 1970 renewed Mass rite that my reader blames for our losses. I saw churches peopled by a few old ladies and children—churches far emptier than US churches are even today. That Mass rite essentially dated from the Council of Trent. At the time, I blamed secularization. Should I have blamed Trent for those empty churches? For me, it’s another coincidence.
Coincidences CAN be causes, but proving that requires MORE than the coincidence itself.
Some want to blame the 1970 liturgical renewal of Vatican II. For me, there is a logical problem: coincidence never proves cause-and-effect. But linking low attendance to liturgical renewal faces a tougher problem: there are TOO MANY coincidences. Forty-five year of declining attendance leaves a lot of time for multiple coincidences. For example (note: see the complete CrossCurrents #284 for explanations of these examples):
That decline in Mass attendance has coincided with the demographic shift of US Catholics from city to suburbs. It also coincided with a dramatic rise in Catholic educational, professional, and income levels. It coincided with the massive decline in Catholic school enrolments.
It coincided with the explosion of Sunday commercialism. It coincided with the explosion of organized weekend youth sports (especially girls’ sports). It coincided with the new “leisure famine.” It coincided with the multiplication of leisure-time distractions competing with mass-going. It coincided with the phenomenon of “cocooning.”
It coincided with the general decline in church attendance among ALL Christian churches with liturgical traditions. It coincided with a general secularization of US culture.
It coincided with the rise in divorce among Catholic families.
It coincided with widespread alienation over the birth control encyclical Humanae Vitae. It coincided with the 1983 Canon Law reform.
It coincided with the mass exodus of priests over the celibacy issue, and the subsequent graying of the priesthood in many US dioceses. It coincided with the rising shortage of priests. It coincided with the rise of the women’s movement, and the debate over women's roles in the Church, including women's ordination. It coincided with the rise in lay ministry. It coincided with the rise of women in parish leadership, now comprising 85% of parish professional staff. It coincided with the transformation of parish staffs, from the all-priest “drill-team" model to the mixed clergy/lay “ball club” model.
It coincided with the collapse of “Obligation Catholicism.” It coincided with the sex-abuse scandal which touched millions of Catholics even before exploding into public view. It coincided with the revelation of widespread chronic episcopal malfeasance.
Logically, none of these coincidences proves what caused our decline in Mass attendance. One reader believes ONE of these—liturgical reform—explains it all. Sociologist Andrew Greeley likewise believed ONE thing—Humanae Vitae—caused it all. Personally, I suspect many of the factors above had some impact one way or another, but I have no magic method for singling out ONE coincidence as the “poison pill” that caused it all. Having lived through all these changes, I am very skeptical of any easy, one-cause-fits-all answer.
Ironically, my own first experience of empty churches came as a student in 1960s Europe, before the 1970 renewed Mass rite that my reader blames for our losses. I saw churches peopled by a few old ladies and children—churches far emptier than US churches are even today. That Mass rite essentially dated from the Council of Trent. At the time, I blamed secularization. Should I have blamed Trent for those empty churches? For me, it’s another coincidence.
Coincidences CAN be causes, but proving that requires MORE than the coincidence itself.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
#283: George Weigel: Noisy Catholicism?
EXCERPT: George Weigel has done it again--just in time for Lent! He has turned a perfectly sensible appeal for silent reflection and prayer during Lent into a rant aimed at a variety of Catholics whose behavior he deplores.
Liturgists and organists whose prayers, songs, or organ solos produce “all noise, all the time”; children, described as “squawking" twice),” “crying,” “fussing,” “fractious (twice),” and “caterwauling”; worshipers, whom he scolds for “chattering” before mass, “chattering” after the recessional “chattering” during the exchange of peace, “chattering with friends” while entering church, “chattering with neighbors” while leaving church—all these people become targets of George’s ire.
He argues that American culture now surrounds us with noise, citing airports filled with “TSA announcements, airline announcements, airport announcements, muzak, and the ubiquitous CNN-airport channel”—plus “squawking” children, loud conversations, and passengers yelling at cell phones. He concludes:
There is virtually no public space, outside art museums and courtrooms, where our aural senses are not under assault….Churches should be different.
Weigel gets no quarrel from me about the American “noise culture.” I agree with Weigel that environments free from “noise” are increasingly rare. I also half-agree that “churches should be different.” As sacred spaces reserved for sacred activities, it makes sense for churches to offer opportunities to escape the “noise culture” of the outside world.
Does this mean that Mass-time has been invaded by “the contemporary American noise culture”? Hardly!
In fact, the “noises” Weigel describes at church are either ancient (babies crying, people singing and praying) or else date from the liturgical reforms of Vatican II (congregants praying parts of the Mass aloud, speaking at the sign of peace, conversing before and after Mass, singing, even applauding). Everything Weigel complains about was quite commonplace in the churches I knew in the late 1960s and 1970s – well before TSA, CNN, and cell phones.
Then why complain about a lack of silence in church at Mass times? I suspect the clue is in Weigel’s comment that silence is “a way to ensure that you actually get a chance to pray yourself”—as if one only prays when left alone in peace and quiet. In this view, Weigel speaks for many Catholics who simply want to be left alone at Mass.
In fact, I am convinced Weigel uses “silence” as a code word for “private time and space.” And certainly, our spiritual life as Catholics can always benefit from more of that—especially as an antidote to our “noise culture.”
The trouble is, if one wants peace and quiet be alone with the Lord, Mass is neither the time nor the place to seek such privacy. As Vatican II made unmistakably clear:
Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, a holy people united and organized under their bishops…Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church…Communal celebration is to be preferred…to the celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
Vatican II, CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY, #26.
The key here is “communal celebration.” We gather together at Mass, not as random individuals seeking to pray by ourselves, but as a faithful community assembled to offer a communal celebration of the Eucharist which signifies and expresses our communion with Christ, his Father, his Spirit, and each other.
Those who prefer private prayer time with God would do better to come back some other time. Catholic tradition is rich with personal devotions and prayers, and an empty church is not hard to find these days. To insist on privacy during Mass implies one does not want a communal celebration at all.
Liturgists and organists whose prayers, songs, or organ solos produce “all noise, all the time”; children, described as “squawking" twice),” “crying,” “fussing,” “fractious (twice),” and “caterwauling”; worshipers, whom he scolds for “chattering” before mass, “chattering” after the recessional “chattering” during the exchange of peace, “chattering with friends” while entering church, “chattering with neighbors” while leaving church—all these people become targets of George’s ire.
He argues that American culture now surrounds us with noise, citing airports filled with “TSA announcements, airline announcements, airport announcements, muzak, and the ubiquitous CNN-airport channel”—plus “squawking” children, loud conversations, and passengers yelling at cell phones. He concludes:
There is virtually no public space, outside art museums and courtrooms, where our aural senses are not under assault….Churches should be different.
Weigel gets no quarrel from me about the American “noise culture.” I agree with Weigel that environments free from “noise” are increasingly rare. I also half-agree that “churches should be different.” As sacred spaces reserved for sacred activities, it makes sense for churches to offer opportunities to escape the “noise culture” of the outside world.
Does this mean that Mass-time has been invaded by “the contemporary American noise culture”? Hardly!
In fact, the “noises” Weigel describes at church are either ancient (babies crying, people singing and praying) or else date from the liturgical reforms of Vatican II (congregants praying parts of the Mass aloud, speaking at the sign of peace, conversing before and after Mass, singing, even applauding). Everything Weigel complains about was quite commonplace in the churches I knew in the late 1960s and 1970s – well before TSA, CNN, and cell phones.
Then why complain about a lack of silence in church at Mass times? I suspect the clue is in Weigel’s comment that silence is “a way to ensure that you actually get a chance to pray yourself”—as if one only prays when left alone in peace and quiet. In this view, Weigel speaks for many Catholics who simply want to be left alone at Mass.
In fact, I am convinced Weigel uses “silence” as a code word for “private time and space.” And certainly, our spiritual life as Catholics can always benefit from more of that—especially as an antidote to our “noise culture.”
The trouble is, if one wants peace and quiet be alone with the Lord, Mass is neither the time nor the place to seek such privacy. As Vatican II made unmistakably clear:
Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, a holy people united and organized under their bishops…Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church…Communal celebration is to be preferred…to the celebration that is individual and quasi-private.
Vatican II, CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY, #26.
The key here is “communal celebration.” We gather together at Mass, not as random individuals seeking to pray by ourselves, but as a faithful community assembled to offer a communal celebration of the Eucharist which signifies and expresses our communion with Christ, his Father, his Spirit, and each other.
Those who prefer private prayer time with God would do better to come back some other time. Catholic tradition is rich with personal devotions and prayers, and an empty church is not hard to find these days. To insist on privacy during Mass implies one does not want a communal celebration at all.
Friday, February 12, 2010
#282: Today's Moral Prejudice
EXCERPT: The Gospel of John depicts Jesus’ own disciples wondering about the man born blind:
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
Perhaps such moralizing on health is largely extinct (although all readers may well know someone who assigns moral blame to alcoholics, for example ). But it seems the old prejudice has been replaced by a different, equally irrational, prejudice: imposing moral judgment on individuals due to their socio-economic condition!
In effect, today’s moral prejudice poses a revised question: What did these people (people born poor who have stayed poor, for example) do, or their parents do, that left them so deficient in achieving success ?
The underlying assumption is that success and failure must reflect moral character, because we all start on equal footing and strive in the equal conditions. This assumption results from a huge cultural blind spot. It is as if we just cannot see how much "chance" -- meaning forces beyond our individual rule -- shapes our social destiny. So we keep believing that success comes from individual effort, and failure results from a lack of effort.
It astounds me that any modern person can ignore the forces shaping us. Each life brings its unique blend of pluses and minuses, and common sense tells us that some people get more pluses the others, while some lives seem almost all minuses. And all of these differences result, not from effort, but from fortune or misfortune.
The fact is that we have no choice or control over many factors shaping our lives. Some people simply have advantages that others do not. Those advantages are not chosen, or earned, or merited. They are privileges.
The fact is that American society includes extraordinarily privileged classes – people born and raised with great advantages over their fellow citizens – but they represent a tiny portion of our population. It also includes a vast middle class whose lives include both privileges (of education, home ownership, unprecedented access to consumer goods and energy resources ) and detriments (healthcare costs, debt troubles, a leisure famine, declining real incomes). And it includes a vast underclass living lives shaped mainly by their misfortune and their lack of any privileges at all.
Thus it is that, in America, those with good fortune have fortunes and those with misfortune stay poor.
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. "Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.
Perhaps such moralizing on health is largely extinct (although all readers may well know someone who assigns moral blame to alcoholics, for example ). But it seems the old prejudice has been replaced by a different, equally irrational, prejudice: imposing moral judgment on individuals due to their socio-economic condition!
In effect, today’s moral prejudice poses a revised question: What did these people (people born poor who have stayed poor, for example) do, or their parents do, that left them so deficient in achieving success ?
The underlying assumption is that success and failure must reflect moral character, because we all start on equal footing and strive in the equal conditions. This assumption results from a huge cultural blind spot. It is as if we just cannot see how much "chance" -- meaning forces beyond our individual rule -- shapes our social destiny. So we keep believing that success comes from individual effort, and failure results from a lack of effort.
It astounds me that any modern person can ignore the forces shaping us. Each life brings its unique blend of pluses and minuses, and common sense tells us that some people get more pluses the others, while some lives seem almost all minuses. And all of these differences result, not from effort, but from fortune or misfortune.
The fact is that we have no choice or control over many factors shaping our lives. Some people simply have advantages that others do not. Those advantages are not chosen, or earned, or merited. They are privileges.
The fact is that American society includes extraordinarily privileged classes – people born and raised with great advantages over their fellow citizens – but they represent a tiny portion of our population. It also includes a vast middle class whose lives include both privileges (of education, home ownership, unprecedented access to consumer goods and energy resources ) and detriments (healthcare costs, debt troubles, a leisure famine, declining real incomes). And it includes a vast underclass living lives shaped mainly by their misfortune and their lack of any privileges at all.
Thus it is that, in America, those with good fortune have fortunes and those with misfortune stay poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)