Catholic Intellectuals in the 1960′s
Many thanks to Paul Lauritzen for his fascinating profile of Dan Callahan. Equally deserving of a profile is his wife Sidney, a longtime Commonweal columnist whose work at the border of psychology and ethics is extremely helpful.
The article got me thinking about Catholic intellectuals in the 1960′s and early 1970′s–it must have been a fascinating time, especially in the Northeast corridor. All of the people who are now household names in the Catholic world knew each other–the Steinfels, the Callahans, Michael Novak, John Noonan. The Church and the world were changing all around them, and they were intellectual agents of change themselves. What must it have been like?
Wouldn’t it be great if some distinguished Catholic historian (hint, hint, John McGreevy!) could pull together a conference and a book asking all of these people to share some stories and reflect back upon those times, and what was going through people’s minds, for those of us with 7:00 p.m. beditmes at the time, or who weren’t even born yet?
I also think that there should be a good history written about the vibrant Catholic Social Thought and the associated action located in Chicago during the 1950s and 1960s There were the Crowleys and the Catholic Family Movement, the work and thought of Ed Marciniak, Bob Senser , Russ Barta, and others, along with such priests as Monsignors Hillenbrand, John Egan, and Dan Cantwell, and others. There was a group of young women who ran a house for the poor and many other programs.
When Cardinal Cody arrived in Chicago in the mid 1960s he systematically dismantled all these good works. His misrule is notorious. Cardinal Bernadin was sent to Chicago to try to repair the mess Cody had made. Now, sadly, Cardinal Goerge is Bernadin’s successor.
I don’t know very much about the “Golden Years” or about the success of Cardinal Bernadin in Chicago itself. (Bernadin’s funeral showed that he inspired deep love and loyalty.)
If someone has already written a solid study of this period or of some parts of it, I’d love to know. If not, I do hope that someone will do so soon.
P. S. Fro what I’ve heard, The present Cardinal of New York is a protege of Cardinal Cody.
Two sources for some of the stories about the Chicago influence, pick up Tim Unsworth’s books: Catholics on the Edge, and The Last Priests in America. While the focus of neither book is totally on Chicago’s influence, there are enough Chicagoans covered to give a good flavor for you “newbies” on this site.
What many Tridentine advocates are reluctant to acknowledge is that with the “New Mass” one did not have to suffer the whirlwind seven minute masses any more and the celebrant now how to pronounce the words of the Lord’s Supper liturgy instead of mumbling and grunting them. There was an aliveness in parishes that was palpable. The Easter Saturday liturgy was a glowing success.
In contrast many clergy who were educated before Vatican II resisted the changes, maintained old practices and just tried to withstand the sea of changes. Too many of them did not understand the changes or did not wish to. Cardinal Spellman insisted that the changes would not get past the Statue of Liberty. While Spellman ruled with an iron hand, his successor Cardinal Cooke seemed intimidated by the renewed chuch and was very low key.
There was certainly a divide between the younger clergy and the older group. Those “younger” clergy are the older liberals to this day.
The diocese of New York was awash in social programs. Lyndon Johnson’s prolific poverty programs were passed and money was streaming in. A lot of good was done along with plenty of abuse of all that money. Clergy started living in apartments as well as nuns. Religious garb became optional. Monsignor Fox ran Summer in the City and the diocese started the Institute for Human Development which was to help the poor and middle class.
Clergy worked closely with married people and became more practical in advising about birth control.
Then came “Humanae Vitae.”
It may be time for the “intellectual agents of change” to apologize to the Church because so many of their suggestions have clearly harmed the Church pastorally. The ultimate responsibility remains with bishops (and religious superiors)of course but the intellectuals may still want to clear the air (and consciences) with public admission that their work proved unhelpful to most baptized Catholics and never realized any broad pastoral goals.
Bill observed that thanks to the current reformed liturgy the people no longer have to put up with “seven minute Masses” or “mumbling” and “grumbling” celebrants.
Giving Bill the benefit of the doubt and imagining that literal “seven” minute Masses were a real pastoral problem prior to 1969 I can only point out that even with all those difficulties, wherever they existed, the Church in America was far better off before the renewal ushered in by the “intellectual agents of change” in every measurable area.
Bill’s and the agents of change attempts to convince us that things were pastorally more unpleasant before the implementation of the renewal than they are today give face to Gresham’s law applied to religion.
In the dark days of mumbled Masses only 3 percent of the parishes in the US–a total of 549–were without a priest (in 1965). In 2002, after many years of renewal and microphones on our altars, there were 2,928 “priest less” parishes, about 15 percent of all US parishes.
Before the advent of disciplinary renewal the US Church had 49,000 seminarians (in 1965). By 2002 the number had plunged to 4,700: a 90 percent decrease. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002. Seemingly the influx of “thinking Catholics” into graduate religious programs did not keep the seminaries open.
There were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood in 1965 but with our renewal by 2002 there were only 450, a decrease of 350 percent. Fewer young priests, fewer Masses offered, fewer sins forgiven yet we are still told that things are better today.
The religious life is a good indication of the health of the rest of the laity since they are, by definition, the most religiously active laity in the Church and no one participates actively in the liturgy or “lives the liturgy” more than the religious. There were 180,000 women religious in1965. In 2002, after years of renewal and updating in the religious life there were only 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. Good job LCWR!
Still on the religious – in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000, after the renewal there were 3,172 priests and 389 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians.
Remarkably, at the time of the Council there were 4.5 million students in US parochial schools; now, after the renewal there are only 2 million despite a considerable increase in the Catholic population due to immigration during this period.
In 1965 there were 1,556 Catholic high schools; in 2002 there were 786. In 1965 there were 10,503 Catholic grade schools; in 2002 there were 6,623.
Before the Council there were less than 400 marriages annulled by Catholic diocesan tribunals in an average year; now with all the renewal in our CANA programs there are 50,000.
Before the Council 3 out of 4 Catholics attended Mass each week despite the use of Latin and clerics mumbling the Mass – now though we have the benefit of “Glory and Praise,” the new OCP, and the nearly uniform use of H. E. Bishop Trautman’s ICEL – the figure is 1 in 4 Catholics attending weekly Mass. This is probably why so many don’t take His Excellency’s defense of the current ICEL translation seriously.
Conversions to the faith have also dropped considerably since the advent of renewal. 150,000 adults converted to the Faith in America in 1960; in 2002, this number was under 80,000. Seemingly RICA is not as successful as earlier efforts in initiation.
Admit it – no matter how hard you try you cannot sustain an argument that pastorally things are better in the Church today than they were before the implementation of renewal supported by many of these intellectuals – not in any measurable area. To continue advocating the benefits of the renewal in the face of pastoral reality is a good example of Gresham’s Law. Perhaps it is time to hear apologies from those who implemented failed renewal programs in seminaries, convents, marriage programs and from liturgists.
Source: Kenneth C Jones “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II,” published by Oriens Publishing Co.
The Maid
Ms. Maid:
You write, “the Church in America was far better off before the renewal ushered in by the “intellectual agents of change” in every measurable area.”
Perhaps, but it is hard to put a number on fearmongering, something the Church specialized in for centuries prior to 1965. There is nothing like telling people that the eternal fate of their souls rests on their religious affirmations (or lack thereof), to motivate their participation. Many like to point out that there is great growth among Evangelical Christians. I do not find it to be a coincidence that this is also where fearmongering is at its strongest within the churches.
It may take more than a few decades to sort out a Catholicism and a Christianity that works from the conviction that there are few greater obstacles to the presence of God in one’s heart than fearful preoccupation with the future of one’s soul. However, I am happy to give this seed time to grow, and I am grateful to the Catholic intellectuals who helped to plant it.
Person who refers to himself/herself as Maid of Kent: do you seriously mean to suggest that all the changes you cite–whether a drop in priests and seminarians, Catholic-school attendance, Mass attendance, or participation in confession–ought to be blamed mainly or solely on liturgical renewal? The statistics you mention are not self-explanatory. As any first-year stats student knows, correlation is not causation. And please, enough with the Gresham’s Law tick. Calling an opposing viewpoint bad currency is no way to advance a debate.
Once more, I do not think the Maid’s argument of the wonders of childish Christianity days should be graced with a reply.
Bill M’s post though made me think that while Cardinal Spellman was a rigorous leader, he recognized the need to look forward and to use his scholars to shape many activities in New York.
And, speaking of Catholic intellectuals, I cannot help but mention the late Msgr. Myles BVourke, who helped shape many of the outstanding priest thinkers of today.
He was uncompromising in his respect for schlarship and dedication to intellectual honesty and modesty – qualities it would be nice to have more of today.
I also wonder what he would think of the forthcoming liturgical changes not to mention Benedict on Jesus and his exegesis of John’s gospel.
Jimmy Mac, thanks much for your references.
Bernard
I don’ t think we answered Cathy’s question that fully. I know I have a few books somewhere that have the details. There are many stories. Joe K has to have some, Here is a 1966 survey from time which has statistics, Callahan and the Good Samaritan all in one. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,899314,00.html
Callahan and Novak were notable because they were gifted and outspoken laymen in a church dominated by clergy. Novak cannot apologize enough, stating he has certain purgatory while Callahan has lost his faith
An invaluable book is Robert Kaiser’s “Clerical Error” which is a fascinating portrayal of that time. Amazing that he had to wait for Malachy Martin’s death before he could get a publisher. Part of his book is a devastating exposure of Martin.
I wonder how Cathy and others would describe our present day writers and theologians. My take is that because of Karol W and Ratzinger we have mostly a theological wasteland.
Are we recovering or did we never have the need?
Grant,
We all know the “renewal” happened in many areas of Catholic life and I referred to different disciplines including liturgy and religious formation (religious life) and education – taking in more than liturgy alone. The Gresham’s Law “tick” is helpful because it speaks to the contemporary condition of the Church where evidently weaker pastoral practices are nonetheless proclaimed to be superior to the more successful but now largely suppressed pastoral practices used prior to the renewal despite more than forty years of consistent failure in every measurable area of Catholic life. You call it a “tick” but don’t engage the point.
If Vatican II is correct in saying, and I presume most here agree with the last ecumenical council, that the “Eucharist is the source and summit…. ” than liturgy does impact everything in the Christian’s religious life. Additionally, the devastation in the religious orders occurred quickly and among the very Catholics most invested in active liturgical participation even before the council and where liturgical renewal was both anticipated and implemented most speedily. Nowhere was the liturgy lived more actively than among religious whose daily lives were marked by its rhythms.
Bob – refers to something he calls “childish Christianity”. I am surprised that this kind of phrase (should we call it a “tick”) is being used here to describe the faith of John XXIII, the North American martyrs and the young Dorothy Day. Still – I think Bob makes an excellent point and I thank him for it because we Catholics are like children in faith:
“If you do not change your hearts and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven”
St. Matthew 18: 3
And we all know that our Lord’s words here apply to the intellectuals among us too.
Maid
Mr. or Ms. Maid:
Your repeated citation of G’s law without explaining it is the definition of a tick. And nothing about the manner in which you deploy it is self-evident. I have engaged your point by rejecting its premise.
You have arrived at your conclusions about “weaker” pastoral practices erroneously. Using your method of correlation-as-causation, let’s look at when the numbers of priests dropped off the table. Do you think Humanae Vitae was a moment of pastoral weakness?
A post in the past in which I addressed the “Maid of Kent” as Virgo Cantiensis elicited the reply to the effect that she was married , a mother and a woman of a certain age, as they say. I hope this may add clarity to the dialogue.
Grant,
I did define Greham’s law, as applied to religion above. Correlations are often good evidence of causal connection, so the Post hoc fallacy occurs only when the leap to the causal conclusion is done “hastily” or without evidence.
Ken Jones documented work “Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” gives evidence to the correlation which I understand must bring discomfort to many readers of Commonweal but probably not all. I reproduced some of that evidence above.
“Humanae Vitae” is a good example of pastoral weakness on the part of bishops especially those involved in oversight at the Catholic University of America at the time and on the part of the Roman curia who did not support the worthy efforts of the former Archbishop of Washington in his effort to discipline his clergy.
Huanane Vitae simply repeated Church teachings already in place and gave no evidence of rupture in the Church’s pastoral practice or doctrine. This is why the proposed correlation between H. V. and the pastoral failure fails – H. V. brought nothing new into the moral lives of practicing Catholics. Vatican II’s teaching about the Eucharist as the source and summit of the Christian life shows us that instability in the liturgy can easily lead to disorder in the rest of our religious lives and impacts the reception of all Church teaching as well as the religious lives of the clergy and religious. Ken Jones work gives evidence to this correlation.
Maid
Maid,
HV and Vatican II did bring something new into the moral lives of practicing Catholics. Conjugal love as coequal to procreation as an end in marriage.
Naturally, the hierarchy went into its “always taught” propaganda. http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/LOROFFSP.HTM
But this was new and it was huge.
Furthermore, if you believe that the hierarchy’s teaching on sex is healthy and correct then I have a bridge I want to sell to you.
MoK: So, we have a new criterion, then, don’t we? Only if and event introduces “something new into the moral lives of practicing Catholics” does it qualify as a pastoral failure, according to you. I wonder what the many priests who left the priesthood over HV would make of that.
Grant,
Yes, something new would have had to be introduced to cause such disruption in the religious lives of practicing Catholics. HV did not introduce anything new and there would be no reason why it would cause disturbance in convents, among the Christian Brothers, monasteries, or rectories.
The most serious declines came in exactly those areas that were most affected by the pastoral changes brought about in Vatican II’s name (not necessarily in its letter).
If a priest really did say he was defecting from the priesthood over HV you miss the point if you stop there. It was not the consistency in the Church’s condemnation of artificial birth control that really was inspiring his defection but Lumen gentium # 25 and Vatican I (and probably the zeitgeist). He evidently no longer believed the Holy Father was infallible in matters of faith and morals and certainly no longer believed he need give assent to definitive teachings as Vatican II declared. If he did accept the Council’s teaching in the above areas he would have received HV.
Maid