The Church’s real marriage crisis?
Paul Moses posted here and Eduardo Penalver posted here on the rather ham-fisted and thinly-argued efforts of New York’s bishops to thwart passage of a gay marriage law in the state, a tense battle that looks as though it will continue for a few more days.
It has always struck me that spending so much time and treasure and scarce episcopal credibility on campaigning against civil marriage for a fraction of a fairly tiny slice of the population is misguided at best, given the parlous state of marriage in America as a whole and sacramental marriage in the Church in particular.
On that last point, Our Sunday Visitor has a story by Mark Gray, numbers-cruncher extraordinaire at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown, that graphically shows the near-collapse of church marriages:
“The number of marriages celebrated in the Church has fallen from 415,487 in 1972 to 168,400 in 2010 — a decrease of nearly 60 percent — while the U.S. Catholic population has increased by almost 17 million,” Gray writes. “To put this another way, this is a shift from 8.6 marriages per 1,000 U.S. Catholics in 1972 to 2.6 marriages per 1,000 Catholics in 2010.”
OSV’s companion editorial argues that this “radical” decline “has potentially even greater long-term consequences [than the sexual abuse scandal] and yet is virtually ignored and unremarked on…”
OSV’s editors ding marriage prep programs but note that there is “a much deeper problem: Many Catholics seem unaware of what the Church means by a sacramental marriage, of its opportunities for grace and its advantages over civil marriage. The solution likely will need to be just as complicated as the problem, and involve every sector of the Church.”
I’d agree. There are plenty of horror stories about bad marriage prep programs and unwelcoming pastors, but that doesn’t seem to be the norm (in my experience) and the vast majority of priests I know really see a marriage as an opportunity to bring Catholics deeper into church life and perhaps introduce a non-Catholic spouse-to-be to the open embrace of the church.
The core problem seems to be that by the time young adults (in particular) think about marriage they don’t have the lifelong religious, spiritual and cultural connections to the church that would lead them to pursue a church wedding in the first place.
I’m not sure the bishops’ campaign against gay marriage is going to change that dynamic in any positive way. Indeed, it hurts the bishops’ witness against gay marriage when they can’t figure out how to promote straight marriage in their own house.
Problem and Question
The raw marriage statistic is rather uninformative.
Are fewer Americans marrying versus living together across demographics?
Are cradle Catholics marrying outside the church?
Is this a result of deferred age of marriage?
Does this have anything to do with longevity and smaller proportion of marriage age people in RC population?
Why do religious leaders not eagerly make the distinction between civil unions as being exactly that in which the government has a legitimate interest and Christian Marriage being something quite different? Sacramental Marriage is about higher things. Civil unions are about inheritance, legitimacy, child support, alimony, tax deductions, insurance. There is a positive argument for recognizing two different realms and their different motives and objectives. Let the government legislate civil unions and leave the churches alone to teach and support Matrimony between one male and one female. The one need have nothing directly to do with the other so long as the State does not restrict or compel the Church to do anything about Christian Marriage other than what the Church itself chooses.
Wow, yet another post. Commonweal is all in on this one, huh?
Maybe in fairness some consideration would be given to allowing someone to write a defense of the Church’s consistently held teaching on same sex marriage. You know, being that this is a Catholic publication or something.
For those not keeping track, this is the 576th consecutive post decrying bishops’ actions, each one thinly argued in a ham-fisted way.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that . . .
Yes, we need more information. This is hardly enough, and really: it’s not news.
I can imagine that gay marriage activists are secretly doing back flips over Archbishop Dolan and his confreres throwing their weight against same-sex persons.
“Many Catholics seem unaware of what the Church means by a sacramental marriage, of its opportunities for grace and its advantages over civil marriage.”
*Sigh* I hope we don’t get stuck on the meme about the poor, uneducated, ignorant laity. If only they had the information the OSV editors have, the marriage rate would double in a year. If not sooner.
So yes, it’s likely this complex problem will need a multivalent, creative set of solutions. First up, we should examine why Catholics demur when it comes to having a church wedding. It’s a lot cheaper than a Hawaiian beach.
Tom, many of your questions are answered in the full article, and in short, Catholics are following many of the same trends as Americans in general — fewer marrying, somewhat later marriages, more interfaith marriages, etc. But those factors don’t account for the overall sharp decline in church marriages.
Jeff Landry and Patrick Molloy: Nice to see you following the blog so closely that you are so quickly out of the box on any thread! We complete you, it seems. I do think that the statistics are cause for concern, not something to be dismissed, and that Catholic publications like OSV and Commonweal (or at least one of its bloggers) arguing on behalf of Catholic marriage is not such a bad thing. But you disagree. So be it.
Whatever the politics of the post and its commenters, this decline in matrimony is a crisis. Solutions are hard won.
Feel free to make an actual argument, Patrick, though no doubt typing gets hard, what with all your hand-wringing.
I’m curious to know how this issue appears at the parish level. For five years I was in marriage preparation in my former parish in Baltimore. It was clear how many couples were disconnected from parish life prior to (and, often, soon after) their nuptials.
Tom (6/20 – 10:36), the raw statistic is pretty bleak. There’s obviously an absence of Catholicity in their lives, no matter how it breaks down. 8.6 vs. 2.6 is off the cliff. Marrying outside means leaving. Longevity, odysseying – that can’t begin to explain it.
I’m an older guy, so I don’t see what they see, but to me the American Catholic Church isn’t very attractive. It’s certainly not beautiful. And it’s dissent riven. Who wants to turn such a drab, socially rocky place into the family home?
Of course, there’s theological depth and life, but I doubt many ordinary people care deeply about fine points of philosophical debate. Religion for most people has much more to do with comforting certainties than with non-stop debate.
There’s a big problem here, most of it cultural, I think – both the cultural dissonance between a God religion and American cultural coolness, on the one side, and the culture clash between two or three versions of Catholic truth within.
The decline in matrimony would not be a crisis if the marriages that didn’t happen were the ones that were going to end in divorce anyway.
David G – I completely agree with you – the decline in Catholic weddings is a much bigger issue of the church!
Really, I think the reason that gay marriage seems so prominent right now is because it’s a happenin’ thing culture-wide. Otherwise, it may not make the Top 5 list of Catholic problems around the sacrament of marriage.
“*Sigh* I hope we don’t get stuck on the meme about the poor, uneducated, ignorant laity.”
Todd, I don’t know about poor, but in fact many young adults of Catholic heritage are quite uneducated in their faith, and consequently ignorant. Somehow, the ‘best-educated generation of Catholics’ that Boomer Catholics have been styling themselves for 30+ years has failed to transmit the faith.
Sacramental marriages started to rapidly to decline in the early1990s, Dioceses, at that time, closed or de-funded Family life ministries. Now on many diocesan websites they sometimes just provide a link to USCCB website that refers couples to secular marriage programs first.. way down on the list are Catholic lay marriage ministries.
For the engaged USCCB refers them back to the diocese or parish for preparation.. even the ‘ignorant laity’ know Catch 22 when they see it. Check USCCB out and then ask why.
http://foryourmarriage.org/dating-engaged/gettingmarried-catholic
I agree with luisa1825, an interesting article, and interesting comments.
It left me wanting better data, however. For example:
*In 1972 the leading edge of the post-WW 2 baby boom was in prime “marrying age”. In 2010, the tail end of the 1965-1991 “baby bust” generation is of prime marrying age. That factor alone would explain some of the decline in the marriage rate.
*The increased number (per 1,000) of adult Catholics over the ages of 50, 70 and 90 (for example) over the past generation likely accounts for part of the decline in the marriage rate as well.
Having said that, I agree with the overall premise of the article, that the American Church has a large pastoral challenge regarding marriage (in particular) and young adults (in general).
“a decrease of nearly 60 percent — while the U.S. Catholic population has increased by almost 17 million”
Mass attendance has declined by about sixty percent too, and confessions by even more. (It’s not surprising that mass attendance declined a few decades sooner, because mass is a weekly event and marriage approximately once per lifetime.) Confirmations and ordinations are down too. Maybe baptisms a little less.
Who hasn’t failed to transmit their faith this century? Just Mormons and Muslims?
The Pew Survey noted that the majority of those who ‘leave’ the Church do not do so consciously or deliberately, rather they simply drift away. If family members and acquaintances who have ‘left’ the Church are any indication of the wider trend, it seems to me that the worrisome drop in Mass attendance and Catholic marriages has more to do with young people (and not-so-young people as well!) concluding that the Church is irrelevant and unnecessary. I have heard some say, “I’m just not there anymore.”
Felapton is correct. I’d add that there is a sequence that is normally followed, and the decline is visible along the sequence. Thus:
* For every 100 children baptized
* Only about 60-70 make a First Communion in the church
* Only about 40-50 are confirmed in the church
(I apologize that I don’t have the actual numbers at hand, but believe I’ve got the proportions pretty accurate).
We’re failing to fully initiate our children, and one of the bitter fruits of that failure is seen in the marriage rates discussed in the article.
Following on my previous comment: in one sense, I suppose we should “blame” the parents for not tending to the religious formation and development of their children. When we ask, ‘why aren’t parents doing what they’re supposed to do; why aren’t they keeping the solemn promises they made at their infants’ baptisms?’, we encounter phenomena as what Ken Lovasik reports in his 8:25 comment. When we ask further, ‘why are the parents drifting away?’ – undoubtedly there are many reasons, and perhaps one of them, of what relative importance I’m not sure, is that some are a bit alienated when the church stridently enters the political arena, as Paul Moses suggested in a recent post.
The more interesting question to me is, ‘what, if anything, can the church do about it?’. This audience of drifted-away parents and families seems to be precisely what the New Evangelization should be aiming at. And that’s on us – on all of us – to reach out to disaffected families, person to person. Part of that means we speak positively, sincerely and from the heart (if we’re able) about our love for God and the church in our interpersonal interactions.
“Marrying outside means leaving.”
Not necessarily. I know a few people who have married outside the church, mainly because a non-Catholic partner has a previous marriage. Catholics are savvy enough not to insist their future spouse deal with canon law, and yet continue involvement. I know some such couples and families still attend Mass, sometimes receive the sacraments, raise their children, etc..
But yes, I would suppose most just leave. If they haven’t left already.
“… many young adults of Catholic heritage are quite uneducated in their faith, and consequently ignorant.”
So, is Bishop Trautman right then?
Seriously, I would say the missing element is not knowledge, but a broad formation in faith. I suspect Catholics of previous generations lacked it in similar ways, but were held in formation by fear (18th to 20th centuries) or by threat of civil punishment (before that). You can’t compel a gospel life, nor can you stuff an unwilling head full of knowledge. What if people actually know it’s wrong to get married outside of the Church, but they don’t give a darn?
So, let’s assess the landscape … We have bishops wringing hands over the “threat” of gay non-Catholics getting married and “stealing” babies from federally-funded Catholic Charities. We have youth ministry farmed out to part-timers and regional gathering centers. We have a formal outreach to pre-1962 Catholics, especially if they hew the line on conservativism; Vatican II be d****d. I’d say the SmallChurchGettingSmaller meme is in full operation. Why cast into the deep when you can splash about in a puddle.
I suspect that solutions will have to include a serious look at least two sacraments, confirmation and marriage. And the focus will need to be on authentic outreach, not museum preservation of some idealized golden age. And if we began today, we might not see the fruits of it for a generation or two. The good thing is that the Church has the potential to turn this around–they *do* think in terms of centuries, not the next news brief. The bad thing is that the Church is stuck thinking of past centuries, not future ones.
I think there is more going on behind the scenes than people realize And, I believe, central to the problem is what David Gibson declares here, “The core problem seems to be that by the time young adults (in particular) think about marriage they don’t have the lifelong religious, spiritual and cultural connections to the church that would lead them to pursue a church wedding in the first place.”
Sadly, this is true. Moreover, the way many parishes treat single young adults, it should not be surprising this is the case. While there may be people (like myself) who find their life’s core is a religious core, and so will be motivated to continue with their faith despite the treatment they get in the parishes around the country, we must understand many (if not most) will not be like this.
Singles in their late 20s and older find themselves often isolated and alone, and ignored by their parish communities. As a Byzantine, I have often found myself the lone isolated guy in my age range at my parishes; of course, I have met many good people and don’t think anything wrong of them. However, at other parishes, especially big Roman parishes when I go to them, I feel people my age range are neglected and hardly have much to pull them in.
An example of this was on Father’s Day. I went to a Roman parish for Mass. At the end of the service, the priest asked the fathers to stand up. 99% of the adult men stood up. They got a prayer. I felt isolated and alone in many ways — being one who just had to sit down because I happened not to be blessed with marriage, and moreover, I find I and men and women like me don’t get their special days at churches where we get blessings like this, confirming our place in the life of the church. And being single, it can be difficult, and such blessings and recognitions could help quite a bit. But we don’t get them.
And when you look at “singles” groups at churches, it tends to be either really really young adults or older widows and widowers who find themselves being taken seriously. While it is good to take the young adults seriously (since this will help affirm their position in the church), again, one wonders about the people in between. One can understand why many of them just stop going. And if some, later, get married, they will have stopped going to church and so won’t think of a church wedding. Or if they do, they will reconsider when they look at all the hoops they have to go through. I’m sorry, but I don’t think the “education” required for marriages helps anyone. A priest can have a one off talk with the couple, but to have mandatory sessions, many of them, in otherwise busy lives — that can and will detour many from weddings — especially if they have a good notion of marriage in the first place. Historically, there was no such “hoops” when marriages lasted. I don’t think they are doing a good job in keeping them together…
Really, the church needs to encourage and bring together better the singles and help them better so they feel more at home in a given parish. They need to be treated with respect and not as the ignorant masses. These two things would do quite a bit to help marriages in the church.
Since bishops are supposed to be the teachers, I am not sure why conservatives (at least) don’t hold them responsible when their “pupils” fail to learn. What would be objectionable about evaluating bishops/teachers based on their performance? Currently, the USCCB is like a teachers’ union, and bishops (like teachers) hold onto their jobs pretty much no matter how miserably they perform.
The comments below the OSV article are interesting, imho. Hoop-jumping is a problem. As is the expense.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is the fact that some parents do not encourage (or want) their children to get married in the Church. They expect (or hope) the marriage will fail, and without a Church marriage, there’s less hassle/trauma.
“Since bishops are supposed to be the teachers, I am not sure why conservatives (at least) don’t hold them responsible when their “pupils” fail to learn. What would be objectionable about evaluating bishops/teachers based on their performance?”
LOL
Such bishops are evaluated on how palatable the message is to the chosen few. Let a bishop wade into the immigration issue on the wrong side, and they’ll label him pro-abortion.
Henry’s example is telling. Also telling are the resources parishes put into different age groups. Lots of money for children. Not so much for teenagers. Hardly any for young adults. Parents and parishes have succeeded in farming out care of youth and young adults to others. Then not picking up the pieces. Good job, that.
“it seems to me that the worrisome drop in Mass attendance and Catholic marriages has more to do with young people (and not-so-young people as well!) concluding that the Church is irrelevant and unnecessary. I have heard some say, “I’m just not there anymore.””
Ken –
I think you’re right, except I’d be more specific about it. I think that especially the younger generations — the ones since the 60′s — have had to confront changing sexual mores in the wider culture, and they agree with the wider culture about much of it (if not all of it), not the Church. And I don’t think it’s just hedonism, as many would like to think. Don’t blame the young unfairly!
Put another way, the young realize they either aren’t Catholic or not Catholic in the sense of the bishops, so why would they marry in the Church? They feel they can’t raise their kids to believe everything the bishops and most or many priests believe. Yet I”ll bet they also realize that they *are* Catholics in basic Church teachings, except some of the sexual ones.
As to not marrying in the Church, if you had doubts about the Church’s sexual teachings or just plain thought the Church was *wrong* about some fundamental things, what would you do — go to marriage prep classes and nod your head in agreement and agree that you accept Church teachings and that you’ll raise your kids to believe the same things? Only you don’t believe some important teachings? What a dilemma for them!
In other words, huge numbers of the young and middle aged are not “Catholics” in the bishops’ sense, and they are honest enough not to pretend that they are.
The big question becomes (the question (for which they get no answer from the bishops): what if they believe the Church really is the true one, but is wrong about some things — how do they raise their kids? The answer: they get the kids baptized. See? They still believe the most basic stuff — see the Creeds — things) but find it necessary to “drift away” from the wrong stuff. They do not renounce the Church. They do not join another one. They pray they have made the right decisions.
And many of thier parents are faced with similar decisions, so they too drift, and they don’t go to Confession either unless they’ve found a priest whom they know understands and approves their reservations about what the bishops are teaching.
Face it. There is a crisis of Faith in many, many adults. These people have honest, extremely serious theological problems, but the bishops and priests gives them little or no help for it. Perhaps the priests and some of the bishops are having their own crises of faith :-(
One of my jobs (I have 3 of them within the Church), is working with couples asking to be married in the parish church. I’ve been doing this a number of years—and I certainly see a difference over the years. There isn’t ONE answer as far as I can see it—but here is my perspective on it.
1) Nobody addresses the importance of sacramental marriage in regular Sunday homilies.
That is where the greatest number of Catholics are gathered on a week-end. But
nobody even HEARS about any of the Sacraments. So younger people won’t be
encouraged to get married in the Catholic Church by attending week-end liturgies.
2) If a non-Catholic (married before in a Christian church, but didn’t have the marriage
annulled in the Catholic church) wants to marry a Catholic—they have to jump through
hoop after hoop after hoop. I’ve had folks want to come into the RCIA—but get
discouraged because of the annullment process. They have to wait and wait
sometimes for as long as three-five years—before the annullment comes in. And
THEN and only THEN can they go on with either the marriage and then RCIA or vice-
versa(if they still have the desire to become a Catholic). BTW—this also is true for a
Catholic married before, who wants to get married to Mr. or Ms. RIGHT in the Catholic
Church. The annullment process is rough!
3) As others have pointed out—younger Catholics do not have the catechesis about
marriage. Very few kids go for religious instruction in high school (after Confirmation).
I’ve had experiences with kids who came from dioceses where they were Confirmed
in second grade—-and quit CCD right after that. One finds oneself dealing with a
wonderful young person who has the understanding of their religion that a 7 or 8
year old would have.
4) There are not enough Catholic married couples encouraged to:
a) Work in the marriage tribunals on the Diocesan level as couples. They certainly
understand more about what the realities of married life are like than the priests
or nuns working there (with their degrees in canon law).
b) Married couples to work and prepare young people for marriage in regular
marriage preparation. Considering all the preparation that “sponsor couples” need
to do this properly—-why aren’t they paid for their services. They are always
volunteers. And today, trying to find volunteers (in this area) is like trying to find
the proverbial needle in the haystack.
5) And yes, singles and un-married in general, are the neglected group in the church—
just as the others have noted.
David’s post is highly relevant.
Folks who see it as pro gay marriage miss the point that it’s really about the decline in belief in some basic considerations about family, community and Church.
Ann is quite right -one can talk about how “uneducated” some (many?) Catholics are, but the issue of credibility stands out.
IMO the Church keeps going backwards to the smaller purer(poorer) Church that has deep credibility issues for many so I’m not sure that the new (non?)evangelization wil have any impact.
One of the pleas to the hierarchy we’ve heard from several quarters is still not happening – the call to listen.
That would be a starting point.
“An example of this was on Father’s Day. I went to a Roman parish for Mass. At the end of the service, the priest asked the fathers to stand up. 99% of the adult men stood up. They got a prayer. I felt isolated and alone in many ways — being one who just had to sit down because I happened not to be blessed with marriage, and moreover, I find I and men and women like me don’t get their special days at churches where we get blessings like this, confirming our place in the life of the church. And being single, it can be difficult, and such blessings and recognitions could help quite a bit. But we don’t get them.”
Henry –
I’m Roman Catholic, and I concur entirely with what you say. I’ve complained about this here before: I’m 80 years old and not once, not once in all those 80 years have I ever heard even a tiny prayer said for the spinsters and bachelors. There are even ceremonial blessings of people’s pets, for God’s sake, on the feast of St. Francis, but we singles never get even a Hail Mary. Sheesh. Some “universal” Church.
Let’s not forget that if Richard Sipe (among others) is to be believed, there is a problem not just with marriage but with the priesthood. Check out this article in NCR, for example. While the statistic isn’t mentioned in this article, elsewhere he says that at any given time, 50% of Catholic priests are sexually active. In the article I link to, he says:
Why should people take a priest (or bishop) seriously when he preaches on sexual morality when the odds are 50-50 he’s engaging in illicit sex himself?
“2) If a non-Catholic (married before in a Christian church, but didn’t have the marriage
annulled in the Catholic church) wants to marry a Catholic—they have to jump through
hoop after hoop after hoop. I’ve had folks want to come into the RCIA—but get
discouraged because of the annullment process. They have to wait and wait
sometimes for as long as three-five years—before the annullment comes in.”
I’ve read that in the not-too-distant past this sort of problem was handled in the confessional. If a Catholic told a priest in Confession, for instance, that his marriage had not been consummated or whatever, the priest accepted the person’s word. (I don’t know about the younger people but somebody would not DARE lie in Confession — it’s God we’re talking to directly there!!!!)
All of those formal procedures handled by the chancery don’t make the people tell the truth any better than in Confession, why all the rigamarole?
“Since bishops are supposed to be the teachers, I am not sure why conservatives (at least) don’t hold them responsible when their “pupils” fail to learn. ”
I do agree – the degree that anyone can hold a bishop accountable. FWIW, conservatives kvetch about bishops at least as frequently and obnoxiously as progressives :-) In the case of at least some conservatives, they want much more, and much more clear, teaching from the bishops, and from the parish pulpit, on topics that are important to them – of which homosexual marriage certainly is one, as is abortion, artificial birth control, Catholic identity, etc.
“An example of this was on Father’s Day. I went to a Roman parish for Mass. At the end of the service, the priest asked the fathers to stand up. 99% of the adult men stood up. They got a prayer. I felt isolated and alone in many ways — being one who just had to sit down because I happened not to be blessed with marriage, and moreover, I find I and men and women like me don’t get their special days at churches where we get blessings like this, confirming our place in the life of the church. And being single, it can be difficult, and such blessings and recognitions could help quite a bit. But we don’t get them.”
Hi, Henry, thanks for bringing this up. I remember having those same feelings when I was single. Those blessings are extremely popular with parishioners, and I do think there is something to be said for acknowledging and encouraging good parenting, as it really is a sacred vocation. But there is no reason not to bless single people, too – you’re certainly right that singles . Think I’ll suggest it to the pastor.
Sorry, meant to say, “you’re certainly right that singles are integral to the faith community and also deserve to be acknowledged and praised”
I notice that even Sipe, who has been so courageous about telling the truth about the de facto Church, doesn’t use the word “blackmail”, but that, folks, is what it’s about. It’s time to face all the ugly issues and name their true names. Reforms can begin only with the truth, the whole truth.
Maybe Jason Berry will do a third book about the clerical culture as it really is. No, I’m certainly not talking about all the priests. I”m sure there are still many fine people among them. But the problem for the laity now is: which ones are they? I must confess: often when I look at my handsome, kind, hardworking young pastor I wonder if he has a girl friend or boy friend. This is no way to run a Church.
“So, is Bishop Trautman right then?”
Hi, Todd, I’ve found over the years that he generally is right, but I’m not sure what the allusion is to in this case. :-) Did he say something about forming our youth?
“And the focus will need to be on authentic outreach, not museum preservation of some idealized golden age. And if we began today, we might not see the fruits of it for a generation or two. The good thing is that the Church has the potential to turn this around–they *do* think in terms of centuries, not the next news brief. The bad thing is that the Church is stuck thinking of past centuries, not future ones.”
Todd, I agree completely here – except that not everyone in the church is stuck thinking about past centuries. There are good professional people in our archdiocese, lay and clergy, who think every day about the future and are dedicating their lives to trying to keep up with the times. It’s very tough sledding.
Thanks for the response, Jim. I’ll tell you: I could never see myself working anywhere but in a parish. At least in my student center, I’m part of a team committed to ministry to young adults. And we manage not to scrimp on married people with families, either.
In a parish, especially a university parish, we have resources to commit to young adult ministry. And while we have room for improvement, to be sure, we’re also miles ahead of other parishes, especially in the rest of “brain-drain” Iowa.
It’s about more than education in the right facts, but forming Catholics in a culture that will support them and that they can be proud of. The last year I knew this many people getting married in the Church was back in 1985, when the last wave of my young adult friends were celebrating nuptials. (13 of them, in fact.) And guess what? That was in another parish that welcomed young adults.
I think we have more than a clue as to what needs to be done. Our bishops and most clergy lack the wisdom and will to implement it.
“Why should people take a priest (or bishop) seriously when he preaches on sexual morality when the odds are 50-50 he’s engaging in illicit sex himself?”
Because a Catholic believes that despite the sinfulness and fall nature of all humans, that Christ acts in and through his Church, yes even through his hierarchical Church. If the faith of the Church depended on the personal integrity of her ministers, the whole thing would have never gotten past the first denial in the garden of Pilate’s palace.
There has been much chatter about the exodus of “young” Catholics from active participation. Much of the blame has been laid at the feet of the bishops, and the institutional Church as a whole, for its failure to keep up with the times. I am one of these “young” Catholics, and I count myself as something of a drifter. And I know most of my other Catholic friends drift as well, some into the priesthood. There are numerous causes and justifications given, but I don’t find any of them really articulating that they don’t actively go to Mass because of the Church’s teaching on X or Y. I’m sure it plays a role, as I’ve been turned off by some of the statements from some bishops about the roll of unions or during the budget crisis, but it’s not like any of us are joining Call to Action or writing checks to Catholics for a Free Choice. Even less are any of us picking political candidates on that reason alone (there is no Kennedy mystique left).
I think two factors are at play primarily: first, the fact that most Catholic churches, at least in Louisiana, still primarily revolve around a school, so that if one doesn’t have school-aged children, one doesn’t necessarily feel vitally connected to the parish. I have seen this attitude change overnight, however, once some of my friends have had kids. The second factor, for me anyway, is the prevailing attitude many people have towards large institutions as a whole: the attitude is that one can be a part of it and apart from it at the same time. Related to this is the notion of authenticity: people are seeking authenticity from these institutions and are attracted to institutions which exhibit a certain sense of authenticity. Thus, I’ve had conversations with friends who, while disagreeing about the Church’s teaching on X, Y or Z, will never fully “leave” the Church because they respect that the Church is consistently holding to certain truths and isn’t just doing “doctrine by committee” (I know many will write off these people as simplistic rubes, but they are far from it). On the other hand, nothing rankles so much as our local parish’s sometimes kitchy attempts to come off as “with the times”, particularly in some of its liturgical expressions. Middle-aged female liturgical dancers in leotards and flowy fabrics are not the way to win more ardent followers.
“But there is no reason not to bless single people, too – you’re certainly right that singles . Think I’ll suggest it to the pastor.”
As a single Catholic, I thank you for this. I would hope if this is heard and listened to, we might see something going around to help the single Catholics, to get them to feel more welcomed and not an abnormal group no one talks about.
Even the dogs get blessed! Ann, that’s priceless. Sad and so true. But funny. Jim, please figure out a way to do it so it doesn’t look like “everybody still on the market, stand up!” :)
I think JeffLandry is correct (though isn’t the odd liturgical dancing thing apocryphal?). The Pew survey data don’t support the idea that people are leaving RCC because of ideological or doctrinal differences, but because their spiritual needs are not being met.
When you combine the problem of numbers leaving with what we’ve seen of the language, the new mass translation loopiness isn’t just deck chair rearrangement, it’s plowing further into the iceberg.
“Since bishops are supposed to be the teachers, I am not sure why conservatives (at least) don’t hold them responsible when their “pupils” fail to learn. ”
It’s hard to teach. I recently discovered the document “Fulfilled in your hearing” that lays out excellent principles. In particular the teacher has to know his people, know what they want and what they need to hear. What is communicated is not what is said but what is heard. They have to manage to be challenging, but in an attractive way.
For example just this past Sunday I heard a homily on God’s love, how everything we have is from him, including our own love for him. I don’t know what it was about the preacher’s words, but I found myself awed by that idea, and, even though he had said nothing but words of affirmation, suddenly aware of my own unworthiness… and of the length of time since I last went to confession.
Had he instead talked about “homosexual marriage, abortion, artificial birth control, Catholic identity, etc.”, I would probably have found it repulsive. If the priest gives a “clear teaching”, there is a real risk that I might hear: “I am a narrow-minded bigot interfering with politics”. What matters is not what is said but what is heard by the congregation. So, yes, if they can’t find the words that people need to hear, then they have some responsibility.
Because a Catholic believes that despite the sinfulness and fall nature of all humans, that Christ acts in and through his Church, yes even through his hierarchical Church. If the faith of the Church depended on the personal integrity of her ministers, the whole thing would have never gotten past the first denial in the garden of Pilate’s palace.
Jeff,
Certainly there must be a point beyond which the lack of personal integrity among priests and bishops would cause even the most faithful Catholic to have reasonable doubts about his or her Church. If Richard Sipe is correct (and I suspect he is), odds are 50-50 that a priest (or bishop) preaching about sexual morality is a hypocrite.
I don’t think the pre-Resurrection, pre-Pentecost behavior of the apostles is the standard by which to measure ordained priests and bishops. And Peter had a moment of fear and weakness for which he was instantly and profoundly sorry. Besides being a matter of personal integrity, if 50% of priests are sexually active, it strikes me as a huge institutional problem.
“50% of Catholic priests are sexually active”
If true, that would certainly be troubling. I myself have no reason to believe it. What would be more troubling is if 50% of the people who believe that statement is true, want it to be true.
Mark, it’s not a question of what people Want to beleive, but of how credible a rearcher like Sipe is.
I don’t think he’s a sensationalist.
If the church has credibility problems in talking about marriage, I’m not sure that this is what people refernece on a large scale.
However, if there is a problem with represed homosexuality among priests(and bishops) what they have to say about marriage/sex/gender and how they say it is an issue.
On Sipe’s credibility: Does anyone remember the story of David Berger, the German priest who was a conservative, but outed himself as an homosexual last year?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,730520,00.html
He says much the same thing.
“50% of Catholic priests are sexually active”
I am quite sure that that’s not true in France, where 50% of Catholic priests are over 75 years old.
My own experience in the church of marriage, was when I married in 1966. The church had pronounced on contraception, but my wife and I were poor, could not afford to start a family, and had no intention of following the rules. The PP was aware of it, and said it was up to us. It was all going to change in due course anyway.
Of course it did not change, and over the next 45 years the church has got more and more concerned with, and stringent about, the below the waist rules. Society as a whole, and young people in particular,have got less concerned with those sexual mores. They as a group see women as equal to men, Catholic women are as likely, if not more so than their protestant friends, to seek an abortion. They have seen the abuse crisis, they know they are being fed a crock. They use contraception, they live together before marriage> They may be cultural Catholics, but they are no more Catholic than I am, someone who has renounced his membership.
Thanks for the smile Claire
@Michael, thank you for that link. “Emancipators, freemasons, and gays.” Mercy. We are completely ’round the bend.
If true, that would certainly be troubling. I myself have no reason to believe it. What would be more troubling is if 50% of the people who believe that statement is true, want it to be true.
Mark Proska,
From Pedophilia & Celibacy on Richard Sipe’s web site:
Let’s say the number is only in the third decile, not the fourth. Still eye-opening, no?
Sipe’s 50% statement comes from his document “The Celibate Myth”, which explains his grounds for estimating. Valuable background.
Even more useful is his lecture “The Pope Has a Sex Problem”. He points out knowledgeably how a handful of contentious Church teachings related to sexuality are all fundamentally linked together. Countless discussions of them one by one (abuse, celibacy, contraception, …. ) tend to be inconclusive and lead only to more of the same. Furthermore, any attempt to “fix” one or two would bring down the whole house of cards and thus must be avoided by the authorities. Here we are.
http://www.richardsipe.com/Click_and_Learn/2005-10-05-Celibate_Myth.html
http://www.richardsipe.com/Lectures/2010-05-20-boston.html
Mark P. –
About Sipe’s credibility–
There are a number of priests who participate in this blog. If you’ll notice, not one has leaped to the defense of their colleagues. That, to me, is some confirmation of Sipe. A dog that does not bark in the nght . . .
Sipe’s credentials can be critiqued at: http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_cv_2010.htm
The same site provides numerous results of his research.
I think we could debate Richard Sipe and his conclusions all day, and that’s not what this thread is about.
Debating which priests are chaste and which are not actually seems to echo the bishops and their focus on gay marriage while sacramental marriage declines.
In fact, breaking out sexuality or one sacrament (marriage) or one issue as paramount (opposing civil marriage for gays. e.g.) seems to me to be a symptom of the problem — a problem that must be addressed organically and holistically.
All of the well-meaning “marriage” campaigns aren’t going to do much for couples who aren’t listening (and most of them are so cheeseball few are going to listen) or who aren’t connected to the church in a meaningful way already, through all the other family and life cycle events and spiritual enrichment efforts that a healthy parish can provide.
Taking everything as a discrete problem with a discrete solution strikes me as a very unproductive and not terrible “catholic” approach.
In fact, breaking out sexuality or one sacrament (marriage) or one issue as paramount (opposing civil marriage for gays. e.g.) seems to me to be a symptom of the problem — a problem that must be addressed organically and holistically.
David Gibson,
The question in my mind is how can a Church in which it seems quite likely that 50% of priests (and bishops) pledged to celibacy are not practicing it, in which there has been the sex abuse crisis, in which 90% of married couples use artificial birth control, and so on, pull itself up by its bootstraps? If what Richard Sipe claims is true, and if clear and convincing evidence of it were published in the newspapers tomorrow—say a list of all sexually active bishops and priests—I think it would dwarf the child-abuse crisis. How do you address a situation like this holistically?
David and David – Agree strongly with both of you.
An interesting parallel just surfaced (WaPo 6/18/11, p. A1). The Navy fired a dozen commanding officers this year for various forms of personal misbehavior and incompetence. These men and women are trained, experienced, tested, and above all, entrusted with serious, demanding responsibilities. They are members of a strictly hierarchical organization in which obedience to one’s superiors is a central value. First thought was disappointment. Second thought was the good news that 1500 are continuing satisfactorily. Most important – those responsible for the organization showed that they believe in and act on the values and principles the organization espouses.
Everyone has seen the results. People are complicated and the situations are not simple, but, given sufficient cause, the leadership acted. It is tempting to look for analogous Church activity affecting cardinals, bishops, and monsignori known to have been involved in crime-related activities in the child sexual abuse and coverup arena. Examples are hard to find.
I wonder how many Catholic ministers can explain in a persuasive way the obligation Catholics have to be married sacramentally. At a recent diocesan workshop, when a leader of the diocesan tribunal (and a genuinely pastoral priest) was asked to comment on how he’d explain the advantages of a church marriage to couples who were choosing marriage outside the church, he was reduced to spluttering out, “Well … Because they have to!.” We’ll need to do better than that.
There is also a plus side of the decline in the number of Catholic marriages, and that is that the couples who DO present themselves are there because it’s important to them. I work with a number of couples each year getting ready for church marriages, and despite everyone’s constant discouragement here at dotCommonweal about the purported ignorance of young Catholics compared with previous generations, their faith and enthusiasm always cheers me up.
And pace David Gibson’s comment about pre-Cana programs, I am afraid that what I hear from couples about them is quite awful. In just the past six months, I’ve had engaged couples return from them telling me that they heard the “model couples” in these workshops denigrate the choices of working women, question the odds for success in a Catholic-Jewish marriage, and spend more than half the time of the entire formation program on natural family planning. I don’t think there’s much in place to prevent the numbers under discussion here from continuing to fall.
Todd (6/21 9:36):
I don’t think anyone has the potential to turn it around. The problem isn’t inadequate teaching of youth, it’s the disinclination of most people today to believe in anything not described by science and the tendency of the modern analytical mind to look for many answers, not to settle on just one.
You can turn the RCC into a social-welfare organization, but that’s got nothing to do with the Holy Trinity. You can have good works without God. There’s plenty of that around.
My wife and I concluded nineteen years ago that surviving the marriage prep weekend from hell, we were likely to make it through rough seas ahead. Perhaps there’s a bonding through adversity subtext to some of these pre-Cana (a name I can’t stand) programs.
There is a link between David N.’s and Tom Baker’s comments and it is this: people may be willing to participate as Catholics even if they are breaking Church doctrine, in this case, using contraception, but they will generally draw the line at standing up in front of a group and affirmatively pretending that they are orthodox in a way that they are not. Thus, the only people who self-select for wedding preparation are those who are enthusiastic about NFP. What this leads to is a conspiracy of public silence, and, in my view, a culture of corruption where large numbers of people appear to agree with something they do not live. This practice can’t but help corrode personal integrity, a trait valued by the young above all, and no one should be surprised when they walk away once they appreciate the dichotomy between lived and proclaimed truth. There is no doubt in my mind that if the subject of clerical celibacy unearthed the same dichotomy it would be an even bigger problem.
My partner of 39 years and I look forward to the day when we can have a secular marriage and enjoy the rights, benefits and responsibilities attached thereto.
If the RCC (I fantasize; don’t take me seriously) would come to us tomorrow and say that they will now begin to marry same-sex partners, we would say “thanks, but no thanks.” Quite frankly, we wouldn’t believe the church’s heart would be in the right place, nor would we care to accept recognitition from what the church has become.
Maybe a lot of opposite sex couples harbor some of these feeling as well. People do what they find will add meaning and aid to their lives. Obviously holy matrimony doesn’t do either to/for a great deal of people these days.
David N–
Thanks for the link. I find the assertion unconvincing; let me count just some of the ways:
1) The references are like an unravelling thread, they never get to anything concrete.
2) To cite for support on one man’s statement that he has no reason to doubt the accuracy of those figures is not proof, not even credible evidence. I have no reason to doubt that the temperature on Mercury is ten thousand degrees. I have no reason to doubt that it’s much higher than that. I have no reason to doubt it’s much lower than that. Bottom line is, I have no reason.
3) The working definition of sexually active is not provided and, conceivably, so elastic as to have no meaning.
4) Did you notice the most recent sourcing, weak as it is, is from a data that’s 20 to 45 years old?
5) Most troubling, reading Sipe’s locutions, it appears he wants it to be true or, what’s worse, has no idea if it’s true but wants others to believe it’s true.
At least we both hope it’s not true.
Anne-
You’re reachin’, darlin’. No specific priest has been accused, so there’s no colleague to defend. It’s gobbledygook–too nebulous for anyone to even know how to disprove, or even defend against.
Jack–
A but cursory reading of your links contains this gem from Sipe:
“Pope Benedict XVI is a descent (sic) man and a lifelong servant of his church.”
We’re supposed to trust this guy’s attention to detail? I would be as willing to overlook innocuous misspellings as the next guy, but it appears that among the reasons Sipe thinks Pope Benedict should resign are that two other Benedicts have resigned, so that there’s something inherently problematic with the name, and that he may really be only Benedict XV, not Benedict XVI. This is the work of a serious mind?
David G.
As you say, ‘All of the well-meaning “marriage” campaigns aren’t going to do much for couples who aren’t listening.’
I think part of the reason some aren’t listening is because memes such as Sipe’s get into the mix and sour people’s outlook, directly or indirectly. That’s why I’m so exercised by what is, in some ways I concede, merely a tangential point.
I will leave it at that.
Mark, i think Sipe brings both expeience and expertise to the table; what do you bring?
I think your position is what you want to beleive.
……What David said……..agreed
I think that people do still desire lifelong commitment from a partner. However, with so few good examples, they are very, very cautious. This, obviously, involves Catholics as well. Additionally, there is far less social stigma associated with living together than there was in the past so young Catholics have different choices. Still I think stability and commitment is very important particularly for women.
Also, I think just from a prudential political matter, the arc of history is moving rapidly towards society’s embrace of same-sex couples. Gay marriage is inevitable. I think that few people, in their hearts, are really that opposed.
Why on earth the Bishops want to argue against this is beyond me. Instead, I think strengthening family through positive witness and example is a good start; beginning of course with the man (or woman in the mirror) (I know that I certainly could be doing a better job of a husband and father) Also, streamlining and shortening the annulment process is important. If both partners agree that the marriage should be dissolved then I don’t see why it shouldn’t be automatic. If one partner resists, I can understand the reticence to move quickly but that is a matter of justice for the partner. At any rate, effective ministry to divorced and separated Catholics is an important service as is effective marriage preparation.
I completely agree that there has to be some internal soul searching not only about marriage but about sexuality in general.
Finally, the contributions of single people to the life of the Church needs to be affirmed and celebrated as well!!!
Mark –
- Your lack of reason is noted with sympathy.
- What is best assessment of the present-day impact of the very few Popes who resigned?
- For spelling, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ is a preferred source.
- The Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy is the Pope’s man in charge of RC priests and is therefore worth listening to whenever one gets a chance.
- After about 40 years of research on celibacy, sex, & church, Sipe is starting to get smart about it. See link above to credentials, activities, publications. Some results are definitely souring but true and relevant to present issues. Hope is not involved
- The measured temperature of Mars is 210.1K.
Just when I had to decide whether to raise my five year daughter as a Catholic, the Church began to push hard in the legislative arena to fund campaigns against civil marriage for same-sex couples, as in Maine and California.
Until that time I had been a lifelong Catholic as was my wife. We were each the last of our family to remain committed, rather than simply cultural, Catholics. We attended mass weekly (or more), offered our time and talent to various parish level ministries, including marriage preparation, lectors, parish council, etc. We contributed generously to stewardship campaigns at the parish and diocesan level.
Less than two years later, our family of three are active Episcopalians, thus ending hundreds of years of family tradition. My seven year old daughter is in Sunday school and now a communicant at Eucharist, my wife is highly involved in outreach ministries, and I was recently elected to a three year term on the vestry of my parish with an emphasis on spiritual formation.
The death of the Church by a thousand cuts.
When Sipe claims that 50% of Catholic priests are having sexual relations, does he suggest what percentage of those are engaged in homosexual relations?
Mark Harden –
In the 12-page “The Celibate Link”, Sipe’s words are:
“I estimate that at any one time 50 percent of priests are practicing celibacy.”
http://www.richardsipe.com/Click_and_Learn/2005-10-05-Celibate_Myth.html
“celibacy” includes the usually implied chastity/continence as well as being unmarried. Numerous ways of failing to practice it are known to priests as to others and appear to be included in the rough estimate
Related papers at the same site include about 20 at http://www.richardsipe.com/dialogue.html
William (6/21 8:40):
With all respect, I imagine the political thing was just the last straw for you – it sounds as tho you were ready to leave. Best of luck in the new Church.
People who keep blaming the Pope, the bishops, and their “conservative” politics for the decline in the number of American Catholics are, for the most part, I think, scapegoating. All those clueless old men in the Vatican and the chanceries are following same the Church that’s been there for two thousand years. What’s changed is not the Church but the culture of the West. And, I think, many of us are good examples of that. We will no longer take orders, believe what we’re told to believe. We bristle when told we’re wrong and we insist that we’ve got the right, the freedom, the duty, even, to figure it out for ourselves. People who think otherwise – we think – are living in an imaginary past.
Not so. Past and present are the same in and to the Church. Many people will continue to find fulfillment there. But Modern Man lives only in the ever-changing present. The past is dead to him. Science to the Church is only a way of learning a little more about the mind of God. To Modern Man, science is constantly changing the way he thinks and the way he values life. For him, any church worth making part of his life must change and progress constantly, live and breathe and grow with him. Different strokes.
Or, you know, we could just take him at his word…
““celibacy” includes the usually implied chastity/continence as well as being unmarried. Numerous ways of failing to practice it are known to priests as to others and appear to be included in the rough estimate”
Please spell it out for me: is that a euphemism for masturbation? Are you telling me that this 50% “not being celibate” priest figure being used to argue against the discipline of a celibate priesthood includes priests whose only crime against chastity is masturbation? If so, then surely the scandal is severely mitigated for those who previously thought we were talking about 50% of priests having sexual relations with another person.
David S @ 9:45
any church worth making part of his life must change and progress constantly, live and breathe and grow with him.
Sounds good to me, a nice paraphrase of Gaudium et Spes. ie official Church teaching. Too bad there are those who disagree and think the Church need not change, show compassion, etc.
The people whom the Church remembers are usually the ones who identify with “The Modern Man” in whatever modernity they lived. The priests who helped immigrants adapt to their new country, or who fought for unions in the mines, or fed the homeless on the streets — these are the ones we remember. Fr McGreevey founded an insurance collective to help those whom society would forget, and let the Knights of Columbus wear colorful outfits like the masonic organizations of his day. Dorothy Day identified with Communists in her desire to help the poor. These are who the Church remembers and emulates, not the intransigent of a Church that disdains the “Modern Man.”
Marriage preparation is a ministry that relies heavily on lay people, so for starters, I would urge married couples to consider getting involved. There is certainly a need for volunteers.
I think one has to look at the declining number of Catholic marriages in the context of the number of marriages overall. It’s my understanding that fewer couples are getting married in general. I think the economy is a factor. And the weakening attraction the church holds for young non-Hispanic white Catholics is also a factor.
I think OSV is correct to say this ministry should be as welcoming (and accessible) as possible, which means that it needs to be funded and staffed in a way that allows it to be done properly. And it needs plenty of volunteers, not only to give talks to the engaged couples, but also to welcome them and to be easily available by phone to chat them up when they call for information.
The bishops have been active in this ministry – they have a good Web site for engaged couples. And BustedHalo.com has done some fine work also in explaining Catholic marriage in an engaging way.
Perhaps the debate over same-sex civil marriage will lead Catholics to a greater appreciation for how sacramental marriage differs from the civil marriage contract.
Jim (9:45), you’re right, of course, that not to live fully in one’s time is a mistake. But there’s always the temptation – particularly strong, I imagine, in ages like ours in which nothing ever seems to stand still – to mistake the novel for the new. The trick is to get the balance right, and that’s always hard, if only because others in our friendship communities are always forming consensuses that pull us in.
Barbara is so right here:
“people may be willing to participate as Catholics even if they are breaking Church doctrine, in this case, using contraception, but they will generally draw the line at standing up in front of a group and affirmatively pretending that they are orthodox in a way that they are not.
“… What this leads to is a conspiracy of public silence, and, in my view, a culture of corruption where large numbers of people appear to agree with something they do not live.
This practice can’t but help corrode personal integrity, a trait valued by the young above all, and no one should be surprised when they walk away once they appreciate the dichotomy between lived and proclaimed truth.”
My daughter became Episcopalian because she did not want to raise her son in a hypocritical environment, noting that yes, the church preaches this, but we don’t accept a or b. She wanted congruence for him, not confusion. Still, her decision was not an easy one. Now her pastor/priest has a wife who is also a priest, and what a salutary experience that has been to find such acceptance as a woman.
Another daughter is watching her Protestant fiance go through annulment, a lengthy judicial process (first wife Jewish), when two experienced JCD friends confirm that a Petrine Privilege administrative petition to Rome is the correct approach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrine_Privilege
But there is an up and coming conservative bishop in their diocese, which says they don’t have the personnel for a petition. IOW, they don’t know how to do it, or don’t want to, and are depriving a petitioner of due process. The Petrine petition takes much less time and staff anyway. The annulment is following an old strict pattern where his two parents only count as one witness, etc. etc.
My diocese refused to give me a copy of the Petrine norms and application form as background, (policy not to distribute) so I got them elsewhere. That was red meat to me; keeping the rules secret!
The public silence is pervasive across generations, IMHO. Discovering before her 2002 death that a very devout aged French-Canadian aunt and daily communicant disagreed on a number of issues was quite a surprise. She kept her own counsel, but felt fully qualified to form her individual judgment in prayer.
So maybe an independent strain is more widespread than thought. Her gay nephew celebrated 30 years with his partner recently; an outstanding person of charity and integrity. Other family members who rejected him for decades based on church teaching have completely reversed their views. Reality triumphs.
The tension between lived and proclaimed truth is common even within many clergy, also a bishop or two. It was quite a surprise to find at a cathedral demonstration a woman whom McCormack had counseled years ago who spoke of her gratitude for his attitude toward her use of artificial birth control.
Contraception, gay marriage, homosexuality, women priests, married priests, divorce/ annulment, celibacy, these things touch people’s lives very personally. The church’s positions are obstacles to many younger Catholics, and they do not fear eternal damnation for holding such views on principle.
Paul (10:54):
That’s an interesting thought. In fact, how important for the Church in sacramental marriage is the child-producing element? Recent pronouncements tend to indicate that it’s all important, but there must be more there than that. Or is there?
This leads back into personal eros, which is treated as unimportant and undesirable in celibacy and in marriage merely as something unavoidable that leads to the primary goal of engendering new life. How could sexual attraction and psycho-sensual fulfillment have been so unimportant to the Church for two thousand years and suddenly now be so all-consuming? Was that change brought about solely by the birth-control pill? One little pinch of powder?
An interesting discussion, but why the connection to opposition to same sex marriage?
This is a common and in my opinion fatuous line of argument on this blog. The bishops are wasting their time on X when they really should be worried about Y – X always being some liberal Catholic hobby horse like SSM or abortion – as if they are mutually exclusive. You can care for the welfare of young children and mothers and still oppose abortion.
If anything the bishop’s involvement in the SSM debate is fully consistent with a concern for the declining marriage issue. Through the 1950′s Catholics – including Catholic policy makers – were consistently opposed to liberalization of the divorce laws. In the 1960′s and 70′s Catholic bishops and clergy backed out of the debate (Cardinal Cushing, for example in a very public way) on much the same grounds being suggested here. Civil marriage is none of their business. Look where that’s gotten us.
Of all the reasons Catholic marriages are fewer than they once were, the theory that everybody is flocking to the Episcopalian Church is one of the most easily dismissed. When young people from a 63 million member Church flock to a 2 million member church, the 2 million member church doesn’t usually end up with a median age of 57.
I think one reason for the decline in Catholic marriages is diffusion. When a more numerous species combines at random with a less numerous species, the number of pairs in which both members are of the less numerous species is expected to decrease.
For example, if 1/4 of marrying people are Catholic and 3/4 are non-Catholic and everybody chooses a spouse at random (I know this isn’t really the way people choose their spouses.) the number of marriages with two Catholic spouses is expected to be 1/16 (6.25%).
Whether it is a good idea to try to encourage mixed couples to marry Catholic is a question for parish staffs to answer.
In the 1960’s and 70’s Catholic bishops and clergy backed out of the debate (Cardinal Cushing, for example in a very public way) on much the same grounds being suggested here. Civil marriage is none of their business. Look where that’s gotten us.
Sean,
More information please. Ronald Reagan signed the first no-fault-divorce law as governor of California in 1969. Cardinal Cushing died in 1970. When was the debate in Massachusetts about divorce that Cushing backed out of?
Cardinal Cushing, at the advice of John Courtney Murray, did not oppose the 1965 Massachusetts law that decriminalized contraception, but I can find nothing at all regarding Cardinal Cushing and divorce law.
In any case, do you really thing the Catholic Church could have prevented the change in divorce laws in the United States? The Church couldn’t even stop divorce in Malta. The only country left in the world without divorce is the Philippines.
David Gibson, as usual, provides us a thoughtful commentary, something that provides perspective regarding several issues afflicting our Church.
I was very unaware (and am sure this is true for many of us) of the decline in sacramental marriages in the Catholic Church, and this is certainly worth lamenting. However, this comment is as lamentable: “It has always struck me that spending so much time and treasure and scarce episcopal credibility on campaigning against civil marriage for a fraction of a fairly tiny slice of the population is misguided at best…”
Not sure of what all the steps the bishops can do about dealing with the sacramental marriage issue that Gibson has brought to our attention, but I am fairly sure of what the bishops can do about their “scarce episcopal credibility.”
They could start by calling for the removal from office of all the bishops who have not complied fully with the Dallas Charter for the protection of children and start being more modest regarding their many “truth claims.”
The bishops in Philadelphia and Kansas City should go, and any other bishop found in the future not to have been completely transparent with his review board so be removed from office. Removal of Cardinal Law from his cushy assignment in Rome for all his mishandling of clerical sex abuse in Boston would also help in restoring credibility. No bishop has paid any personal price for his deplorable leadership in this matter of clerical sexual abuse.
With respect to “truth claims,” the recent attack on Sister Elizabeth Johnson’s book, Quest for the Living God, is but one example of their lack of modesty regarding their “truth claims.” Another one was their attack on the Obama health care legislation and the support given the legislation by CHA.
As I read the many thoughts about Church leadership in response to David’s post, I couldn’t help thinking of St. Paul’s encounter with the men of Athens in the Acts of the Apostles, when he tried, appealing to their rational instincts as philosophers, to convince them to come to faith in one God by appealing to their belief in an “unknown god”. Their response? “We will hear you at another time!” After Paul left Athens, on his long walk to Corinth, he determined “preaching nothing but Christ, and Him crucified!” That rejection by the Athenians turned Paul around and he began to preach Christ Crucified with passion. That is true evangelization. Our Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching is based in a radical acceptance of, and commitment to, Christ crucified and risen. Are we putting the cart before the horse? As a man of faith who is also a teacher, I meet many young men and women (and older ones, too!), who have not heard Christ preached passionately, powerfully, and persuasively … and who honestly do not see the relevance of what they see as ‘posturing’ by religious leaders.
“To Modern Man, science is constantly changing the way he thinks and the way he values life. For him, any church worth making part of his life must change and progress constantly, live and breathe and grow with him. ”
One of the things the church may have to give up is measuring “success” by counting bodies. No ethnic group is as uniform or as unified as it was 50 years ago. If a Roman Catholic didn’t get married in church back then, they were shunned by just about everyone who mattered to them. And this wasn’t just a product of Catholic Culture; shunning was in the air we breathed. People were written out of families for marrying people of other faiths or other races, for marching in anti-war demonstrations, for being gay. We now live in a time, I’m happy to say, when the phrase “if you do that, you’re no son/daughter of mine” just doesn’t rise as naturally to the lips as once it did.
This affects all sorts of things. Michelangelo lived a long time ago, but lots of people 75 years ago could look at the Sistine Chapel ceiling and shudder about the possibility of hell just as his contemporaries did. It’s not just that we’re all scientists now, it’s that we don’t live in ethnic enclaves where we hear the same stories every day at church, at school, and at our bedtime prayers.
I suppose this is about cheap travel and cable TV and mass migration — we’re all multicultural now. And, on the whole, I think that’s a wonderful thing. But those of us who find value in the faith once offered have to figure out what it is we have to offer to a world that’s just not motivated by the same things our great grandparents were.
Many of us here go to church even though we participate in the modern worldview. I don’t quake, much, at the possibility of damnation. How can we articulate what we get from our faith so that we can offer it to others?
“People who keep blaming the Pope, the bishops, and their “conservative” politics for the decline in the number of American Catholics are, for the most part, I think, scapegoating.”
Some scapegoating, sure. But give us some credit for assessing their qualities, noting the signs, and reading what they write and say.
My own issue with conservative bishops is not their ideology (the most ideological are bad enough, but their predecessors had personal problems, too) but their rank incompetence. Robert Finn, for example, was grossly inexperienced, even after a year in the co-pilot’s seat. He pink-slipped the diocesan official in charge of Charter compliance and he didn’t even know until two weeks later. And we have Archbishop Dolan, the airport theologian, who can’t string together a seriously logical set of thoughts. Carolyn’s comment about their inability to differentiate between simple canon law situations. Their inability to read Professor Johnson’s book.
Is it too much to ask to have bishops who have a few decades of being parish pastors under their belt? I’m sure the Congregation of Bishops feels all warm and fuzzy for having Roman ex-sycophants on the big chairs, but really, all that Roman theology doesn’t seem to have forged connections in the logic node of their brains.
To those who are so eager for pre-Cana, etc. to be staffed with more married volunteers — actually I would take the contrarian point of view and say that there are too many amateur volunteers in the process already. Many of the “mentor couples” in our local programs love setting forth their own opinions about what makes for successful marriage, often loaded up with their own cultural and political baggage. There’s not much quality control, or enough oversight from professional ministers whose primary concern is effective teaching and welcoming these couples closer to the life of the church.
The real brunt of this thread is David focusing on the proclamation of marriage values.(The Sipe attacks by a few apologists for the clergy are really irrelevant.)
I think Carolyn hit upon the crux when she talked about how people perceive their lives are touched and how what’s presented resonates or not.
I think going foward to deal with that is not very easy.
This year our Bishop (Sheehan) issued a pastoral on cohabitation and had it read at all the Masses.
In NCR, Jamie Manson took him up on it and thought it would not pastorally resonate.
The Bishop wrote a letter to the editor saying he was only “proclaiming the truth with love.”
In my view, I don’t think the letter will motivate many given the wide disagreement with
many Church policies. The Bkishop, who at one time was a strong supporter of NPLC has recently loudly proclaimed his friendship with that opponent of the Bernadin view, Cardinal Law.
Like Jim P. here, I think he adopts the “answer man” approach from the traditionalist point of view.
On the other side, as Carolyn mentions are many at the margins (who Prof. Tilley spoke of at CTSA and the role of the spirit.)
So I think for the present we are at “impasse”(there’s that word again ) with even silliness going on like George Weigel ‘s calling out Maureen Dowd as “anti-Catholic” (as though some on the other side might say the same of him.
But the center has collapsed and I think we need a robust center to proclaim values.
Further, we need a shift back from the almost totally canonical approach of the present to a more pastoral theological weight to deal with the many issues on marriage and sexual values proclamation.
(Of course, part of that is dealing with the issues of gays and gay unions and I think David is right that the current situation is wasting resources, and I’d add, approaches, to proclaiming the Gospel.)
Tom Baker; Your concern about the ‘married volunteers’ is twenty years late and a dollar short. Those married volunteers [a few hundred thousand] left married ministry two decades ago. Even the word ‘pre-Cana’ has not been used by them for thirty years. … The first century Christians did pretty well with the married amateur volunteers……I’m eager to hear the next diversion statement??
David,
First, you are dead right on the Cushing remark. I mixed the issues in my mind.
However, divorce laws were being liberalized throughout the post-war period, before no-fault was introduced and the Catholic church progressively had less and less to say about it.
Do I think the Church could have prevented things like no-fault divorce? Probably not, and I don’t think it will stop SSM either, but that doesn’t make it wrong to oppose it. My point was that the idea that what happens in the law regarding marriage doesn’t have consequences for Catholic marriages and the family is simply wrong. The liberalization of divorce laws was also tauted, in large part, as a human rights isssue, as a great boon to women and children in particular, and it hasn’t worked out that way.
I think opposition to SSM by Catholic lay groups and individuals is fine, but I dislike seeing bishops getting into the legislative lobbying biz. It smacks way too much of conflating religious teaching with specific political actions.
I generally agree with Sean about divorce, but those in the Church, including those in official leadership roles, need to figure out ways to operate despite the law. For example, if the Church is so hellbent on saving marriages, why does the diocese offer Retrouvaille no more than a few times a year and only in one location? Why does Retrouvaille require a rather inflexible time commitment that many working people or those with many children cannot plug into? Oughtn’t there to be some sort of pre-divorce counseling offered at the parish level? Ditto counseling for gay Catholics considering civil union or marriage where permitted.
“I suppose this is about cheap travel and cable TV and mass migration — we’re all multicultural now. And, on the whole, I think that’s a wonderful thing. But those of us who find value in the faith once offered have to figure out what it is we have to offer to a world that’s just not motivated by the same things our great grandparents were.”
Mark P. ==
Agreed. But is it the problem one of many cultures? The the Church here faced similar problems before, when so many different immigrant groups came over, and a priest had to preach to 3 or 4 or 5 different ethnics groups in one parish. But somehow the old values were retained, at least as ideals.
It’s been said millions of times before, but I think the biggest problem is the constant bombardment of mainly secular, hedonistic and other trivial values by TV and movies and the internet. Our main interests seem to be taking good care of our skins and wardrobes, plus sports, celebrities, and knocking politicians. (Those are the things that TV and newspaper ads seem to be full of, so I assume that’s what we’re mainly looking for — cheap.)
Yes, the have been great strides made in becoming aware of prejudices and in ridding ourselves of it, but what else is so good about this brave new world? Cell phones, computers, comfortable shoes, microwaves, and extremely accurate watches. American medicine and graduate schools are the best in the world, but only the well to do can afford them. We used to have a country filled with the wonders and beauties of nature, but it is largely defiled now. People used to be polite, but we even have a new word now — snark — for our new nastiness.
I’m no sociologist, but I suspect the greatest loss has been old-fashioned neighborhoods. There used to be neighborhoods where people knew each other and largely cared for each other, even if we didn’t always like each other. Now friends and family are scattered far and wide, and we’re lucky if, when we’re old, we still have three old friends left in the same city. Sure cheap phone calls are fine, but phone calls are not the same as face to face.
Americans haven’t caught on to the word “alienation” yet, but that, I think is what many, many people suffer from — and too many expect marriage to solve that problem. The expectations put on that poor old institution are horrendous.. Relatively isolated as we are, we don’t live the rich personal lives we used to, so many, many people become obsessed with the lives of celebarities whose every movement is noted and pictures by the paparazzi. The famous have become imaginary family and friends for millions of folks, only they have no real substance at all.
If you look at the successful new mega-churches you’ll find that the biggest actually build mini-cities with church, mall, playing areas, etc. for their members. They’re like tiny towns — or old neighborhoods, So I can’t help but think that the new efforts to make couples welcome in the churches is terribly important. But how successful can the programs be if the people see relatively little of each other after the programs are over?
Unfortunately, there is also a common culture of TV, movies, malling, cheap travel, celebrity obsession and one other thing – professional sports. That way of life has hooked a very large number of people. It meets the some of the old neighborhood needs of story telling, gossip, and shared values. Unfortunately, the values are mostly very trivial.
Is this way of life due to our economic system? I suspect so — gigantic malls are more profitable than little neighborhood shopping centers. Can we change that? Who knows.
“To those who are so eager for pre-Cana, etc. to be staffed with more married volunteers — actually I would take the contrarian point of view …”
The answer is to have good training and well-thought-out marriage prep programs, not to snipe at those who have answered a call from the church (usually from a pastor desperate for help) to volunteer in marriage ministry.
Jean Raber; Retrouvaille has no diocesan management/input, quite like Commonweal. Many dioceses won’t even post it on their website [NO Control you see].. Retro is strictly lay run and financed. Times for programs are found when non paid volunteers couples and clerics can find time from work. i.e. W/E and Saturday follow-up meetings. After 20 years Retro has not found a US bishop to be honorary moderator.. asking no time, no work, no money.. go figure..It’s international/inter-continental now ..
http://www.retrouvaille.org
“But the center has collapsed and I think we need a robust center to proclaim values.”
Precisely. Thank you, Bob.
What might an engaged Catholic center look like? Seems like we’d note…
***a sense of solidarity with Catholics grounded in divergent sensibilities;
***a determination to be both affirming and critical of both of the dominant tribes, ‘us’ as well as ‘them’;
***a resistance to binary formulations and openness to creative mixes;
***recognition of our common predisposition to write off ‘the other’ and a determination to replace condemnation with curiosity.
How would engaged Catholic centrists find each other?
I haven’t a clue. I’d love to meet some! Few reliable sightings of a centrist Catholicism in blogdom, IMHO. Let’s face it: sharp, even shrill formulations seem to capture our interest and allegiance more than nuanced and less obviously tribal observations.
I hungered for the Catholic center; this included the experience of worshipping with people whose politics and theology were different for mine. I avoided the most liberal parish on purpose. It was the politicization of the Mass over SSM that was my last straw. Those fundraising envelopes placed in pews during Mass in some dioceses to help overturn SSM in Maine was what broke the camel’s back.
Mike McK is right ‘Few reliable sightings of a centrist Catholicism in blogdom’
something like WWII when only Spain, Sweden, Swiss and Holy SEE were neutral. It’s the S that did it… (-o:
I also liked Mike McG’s comment.
People have been marrying in the church for years which for many made it one of the few times they entered the church except for baptism, communion confirmation and finally the funeral liturgy. So it is unfair to equate marrying in the church with faithfulness. We have to be careful to equate the liturgy with the faith. Liturgy is important, especially when God’s people celebrate the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. But not when they are magic ceremonies served up by dilettantes who are more into Empire and politics than service.
“The only country left in the world without divorce is the Philippines.”
Don’t attach too much significance to that. Many Catholic convents there do not allow priests to say mass for fear that they will prey on the nuns.
“The only country left in the world without divorce is the Philippines.”
“Don’t attach too much significance to that. Many Catholic convents there do not allow priests to say mass for fear that they will prey on the nuns.”
We’re still only in June, but this certainly has cemented the Non Sequitur of the Year award.
We could ask for a citation to prove this calumny, but why even bother?
“I am quite sure that that’s not true in France, where 50% of Catholic priests are over 75 years old.’
Claire, you might be surprised what is possible in “geezerdom!” A few years back there was a spate of articles about the shocking rise in disease, including HIV/AIDS, in seniors communities and nursing homes.
And then there is that favorite Catholic past-time of self-service.
“The the Church here faced similar problems before, when so many different immigrant groups came over, and a priest had to preach to 3 or 4 or 5 different ethnics groups in one parish,”
Wasn’t it more likely that national parishes were formed instead? Othewise why were there some many of those behemoths in major cities that were literally in each others’ back yards?
St. Stanislas. St. Boniface. St. Patrick. St. Maria Goretti. Not much inclusiveness demonstrated in those names.
“Wasn’t it more likely that national parishes were formed instead?”
Jimmy Mac, you are absolutely right. The immigrant communities established their own parishes, with their own language, and close ot the other churches. Just as many Hispanic communities do today.
“And then there is that favorite Catholic past-time of self-service.”
Which probably accounts for the vast majority of those 50% “non-practicing” celibates claimed by Sipe.
Which probably accounts for the vast majority of those 50% “non-practicing” celibates claimed by Sipe.
Mark Harden,
While Sipe isn’t 100% clear on what he means by “sexually active,” here is the context of his assertion:
The bishops have many obstacles making it difficult to teach anybody effectively on marriage and sexual behavior. Not the least is the “in-house” problem of activity by priests proclaimed celibate. This may be another argument for strengthening the role of laity as discussed above. They’re imperfect, too, but don’t carry the celibacy promise as a theoretical defining characteristic.
Mark H. – The catechism CCC (1994) #2352 describes “self service” as “intrinsically and gravely disordered action”, hardly a minor matter among other, widely reported priestly practices that include fornication, concubinage, adultery, sodomy, child sexual abuse, and rape.
Convent concerns in the Philippines might well be motivated by multiple reports which the Vatican acknowledged in 2001 of priests raping nuns in 23 countries.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-confirms-report-of-sexual-abuse-and-rape-of-nuns-by-priests-in-23-countries-688261.html
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2001a/031601/031601a.htm
Ed Gleason, thanks for the info on Retrouvaille. It’s heavily endorsed in this diocese, in fact is the only marriage crisis program offered. It is run at the diocesan center and co-moderated by one of the priests there as well as a local married couple who have been through the program. The award-winning diocesan magazines runs many glib testimonials about the program. I don’t know whether the program is any good or not, but the requested fee is expensive, and many couples struggling with finances could probably not afford the time commitment and child care, either.
“a resistance to binary formulations and openness to creative mixes;”
If I’m to resist binary formulations, isn’t it wrong for me to classify people into those who resist binary formulations and those who do not?
David N, thanks for the context. This seems to contradict the information that was provided at 06/21/2011 – 9:37 pm above.
Jack Barry: yes, masturbation is a mortal sin. But if it is true that most of the “non-celibate” priests are involved only in that (individual) sin against chastity, it still seems an important point in the full context of the charge that half of all Catholic priests are in violation of their vows.
Todd (9/22 9:21 am), if we have bad bishops, it’s either because the candidate pool didn’t offer good ones or because the selection criteria are badly flawed. Probably both.
Mike (6/22 2:40 pm), you privilege the idea of tolerance, acceptance, big-tent Catholicism. That’s a necessary minimum for community, but it’s not, I think, the heart of the dilemma.
As Felapton remarked yesterday (6/21 7:00 am), the pull of the wider society is unavoidable and strong. Without a rock-solid, clearly defined Catholic identity to which people are drawn to the exclusion of other cultural attractions, the Church in America will drift, merge, and evaporate, become something far different and less substantial for its members than what it is in its theological substance.
And such a rock-solid Catholicism may no longer be within reach for Americans in the globalized world we live in. Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and others realize the problem – the danger – and try to meet it head on and counter it by isolating themselves from the source of infection, but that’s obviously not possible for seventy million American Catholics. I suspect that American Catholicism is bound to drift, thin out, and eventually become something very like just another Protestant denomination.
“I suspect that American Catholicism is bound to drift, thin out, and eventually become something very like just another Protestant denomination.”
Mainline Protestantism’s drifting and thinning out too, of course. Same infection? We all have a lot of thinking, praying, and listening to do.
Shazam! I have finally figured out what to do with all of those married ministers who have become Catholic priests: professional marriage counselors. They can bring the theoretical as well as life-based experience to engaged couples. Those who have divorced and remarried can bring even an extra dimension to the realities of marriage post wedding date.
And then there is this man: what HE can teach would be amazing!http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2517560/posts
“Without a rock-solid, clearly defined Catholic identity to which people are drawn to the exclusion of other cultural attractions, the Church in America will drift, merge, and evaporate, become something far different and less substantial for its members than what it is in its theological substance.”
Respectfully, that line didn’t work for St. Augustine of Canterbury, who wrote whiny letters to Pope Gregory about how he couldn’t cram enough religion down the throats of his pagan audience quick enough. Gregory wrote back somewhat testily that you don’t feed infants bread and meat before they can digest their milk. Pope Gregory was willing to let the Anglo-Saxons understand Church teaching in their own way. Which is why Easter is named for a Germanic goddess and vernacular stories of the Bible rendered “apostle” as “learning knight.”
I think we live in a largely “pagan” culture like St. Augustine did, with its secular attractions that seem to trump the hard work of being a Catholic, the rewards of which seem vague and possibly unattainable (go to Purgatory for an unspecified time, do not collect golden mansion or personal planet Kolob).
Perhaps, in that light, the bishops could step back and remember that, if not everybody believes in their views of marriage and many people are not looking at gay marriage sanctioning gay sex so much as strengthening personal and property rights.
Could they be taking a different tack on this without selling out core values of the Church? Yes they could.
Sorry, delete “if” in penultimate sentence.
What’s all this business about Catholic “identity”. To be Catholic is to be universal, to unite all sorts of “identities”.
Ding, ding. Ann gets it in one try.
To be Catholic is to be universal, to accept the entire faith, including loyalty and obedience to the Magisterium and respect for traditional devotional practices. Not to reduce it to the parts that are not annoying to anybody and designate everything else optional.
Felapton’s post sounds like the “distinctive Catholicism” on one side of the Church divide.
We don’t need straw men to try to come to grips with the issues raised here about marriage and the Church’s proclamation of values.
Felapton: learn the difference between creed, code and cult. I was taught that much 50+ years ago.