Commonweal has a discussion of the decline in the number of Catholic marriages; they have declined 60% since 1972, even as the Catholic population has grown by 17 million. Our Sunday Visitor has the data and some speculation about the causes.
There are parallel declines in mass attendance and reception of the sacraments.
Everyone has his favorite target. Liberals blame the failure to follow through what they see as the logic of Vatican II, which seems to mean the acceptance of contraception, abortion, divorce, women priests, and gay marriages.
Conservatives blame Vatican II for breaking good habits of sacramental and prayer life that had taken centuries to develop and replacing them with incoherence. But these habits were so easily broken one has to wonder how deeply rooted they were.
The Episcopal Church and other mainline churches, which have followed the liberals’ prescriptions, have suffered similar declines, so something apart from failure to update the Church has caused the decline.
Conservative churches seem to be doing better, because they attract new converts to replace the members who leave. That is what the Catholic Church in the US has failed to do. Catholic numbers grow because of Hispanic immigrants, who have replaced the 1/3 of baptized Catholics who leave the Church. But Hispanic populations have never accepted all the church discipines of the post-Tridentine Church, such as getting married in a church ceremony. The Hispanic male aversion to the clergy is probably also starting to affect Catholic practice in the U.S. – in general, Hispanic men do not go to church or to confession – the book on which I am working, Meek or Macho? Masculinity and Religion, examines the hostility that Hispanic men have long felt to the clerical version of Christianity. Hispanic and Spanish men, if they are Catholic, have their own way of being Catholic, a way which often does not include going to Church or receiving the sacraments.
My hypotheses is in short: whatever is causing the decline in the mainline churches is also affecting the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is replacing its lost adherents with a population that has a lower level of sacramental practice. Hence the decline in the number of marriages
A good sociological survey could confirm or disprove this; if the problem is the lack of Hispanic practice, a approach must be adopted to their background and culture, which is different from that of Euro-American Catholics who have undergone secularization.
This table from Our Sunday Visitor suggests this is the explanation:
Marriages in the Church per 1,000 Catholics by diocese in 2010
Highest Rates
Salina, Kan. 7.3
Owensboro, Ky. 7.3
Wichita, Kan. 6.2
Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo. 5.9
Oklahoma City, Okla. 5.8
Belleville, Ill. 5.7
Bismarck, N.D. 5.7
Yakima, Wash. 5.7
Tulsa, Okla. 5.6
Rapid City, S.D. 5.6
Lowest Rates
Las Vegas, Nev. 0.9
Brownsville, Texas 1.0
El Paso, Texas 1.2
Dallas, Texas 1.2
Sacramento, Calif. 1.2
Juneau, Alaska 1.2
Laredo, Texas 1.3
Gallup, N.M./Ariz. 1.4
Brooklyn, N.Y. 1.5
Orange, Calif. 1.6
Most of the cities with the lowest rates have large Hispanic populations.
Are these people getting married in civil ceremonies instead? or just not getting married at all?
What fees are involved in the simplest reception of the sacrament of matrimony?
So, to summarize, you’re saying that Catholic marriage is declining because the Catholic population is becoming more Hispanic and they have an anti-clerical view of the faith.
Good points made Leon.
I wonder though, how machismo Latino immigrants will react once they realize that some of their pastors are effeminate?
There is an outcry against Marcial by the Mexicans who now know what he was. I have also read a catholic website blog from Paraguay in which the posters are extremely upset that Fr Urrutigoity formerly of SSPX has landed under the Opus Dei Bishop there, after being exposed in Scranton Diocese here. Of particular interest, was that he died his hair blonde and was allowed to host an Opus Dei Informational seminar down there.These Latinos were angry and disgusted…..
http://www.theinquiry.ca/OD_290310.hide.php
Go figure……….the alleged Conservative Bishop speaks……..
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/archbishop-calls-gay-marriage-bill-an-ominous-threat/
The Liberal reporter writes….
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/opinion/19dowd.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd
But really where is his moral authority now?
“The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying.”
She has a point doesn’t she?
The Catholic Church, through its history, has had situations were the rest of the world always tries to bring it down. Many the Church for their leaders have taken critical decisions for its members. Nevertheless, whether its marriage, gays, abortion, race, etc., etc.; there is always something. But, do not forget who founded the Church and He who founded the Church promised that He would send a Counsel, and He would be with us until the end of times.
I am not saying that the leaders are perfect, nor that some decisions can be out of focus. Humans tend to do that. Don’t we?
In conclusion, the Catholic Church will always have detractors. Christ had them too. Its going to happen, whether we like or not. Its part of being Catholic. I do not worry for those outside looking in. I am worried for the ones inside looking out.
Can I suggest an important theme to be discussed, yet no intellectual touches it, not even with a ten foot pole: racism inside the US Church today. I would love some book writer would have the impulse of studying this issue. Its a tabu!
Dowd says “The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests ….”
(1) Is that true.
(2) If so, why?
(3) Does the church see it as a problem to be overcome, or a situation to be managed?
“Are these people getting married in civil ceremonies instead? or just not getting married at all?”
Most hispanics married civil or never married just live with their spouse. Lately in Latin America is getting better.
=============================
“the Catholic population is becoming more Hispanic and they have an anti-clerical view of the faith”
Yes, years of PROPAGANDA from the left and right goberments all over Latinoamerica.
==============================
“I wonder though, how machismo Latino immigrants will react once they realize that some of their pastors are effeminate?”
We just look the other way but we KNOW is there.
Crowhill, the stats I’ve read indicate that up to a third of the North American priesthood is homosexually oriented. Most everyone seems to agree that the percentage is higher than in the general population.
One reason is that, until recently, it was hard for a young man to live and work in the world without demonstrating an interest in the opposite sex. A well intentioned man without this interest would gravitate towards the priesthood.
Also, at least one study indicate that homosexually oriented men tend to be more interested in religion than heterosexual guys. Conservative psychologists theorize that what’s inborn with homosexual men is not their same sex attractions, but a sensitive and non-aggressive temperment. In many cases, boys with such a temperment don’t mix well with other boys leaving them with a longing to get close to members of their own gender. In adolescence, this longing may become eroticized (it doesn’t for all or even most boys of this sort). Obviously men with a sensitive, non-aggressive temperment are well suited for ministry.
I think the leadership of the Church is afraid of
looking in “the closet” for fear of what it will find and also, of course, wants to avoid scandal. I fear Our Lord’s words “The truth will set you free” are not believed or taken seriously.
It would be good to know what countries of origen are the Hispanic populations in these cities noted. Absence from the sacraments could be for a number of reasons not related to ideology, machismo or bias. Solutions may not be in the realm of fine point cultic beliefs or ritual practice either. Believe me, when you are hungry, they are all fine points.
I belong to a women’s ministry which has built a church in Colombia and an orphanage for drug war orphans, in a city of 11 million people. When we first started ministering there, two priests served the entire population.
Recently, we gave a score of couples in the parish new wedding clothes and a trip to the barber so that they could have a proper wedding – group affair. These couples live in lean-tos with dirt floors and no furniture. The only water in the barrio was brought in via a truck once a week until we built a well outside the church. Church attendance is soaring.
Father,
There does seem to be an interesting correlation between empathy and religion. We all know that women tend to be more religious than men, and you mention that homosexual men tend to be more religious than other men.
Also, there is some evidence that atheists tend to score higher on the asperger’s scale.
If empathy includes the ability to understand another person’s emotions (or, as you put it, being “sensitive”), it would make sense that people with more empathy might be more religious.
This whole idea of a “relationship with God” is a very emotional, empathetic thing.
I was once a parishioner at a country parish where a former military chaplain was pastor – and a member of the volunteer fire association – a real guy’s guy. The church was always full – and with 50% men. The week after he left for another parish, so too left the men. The church stayed at least a third empty after that.
The supposed “statistics” cited that 1/3 of the clergy are homosexual are not statistics at all because they are not based on empirical data. They are impressionistic “guestimates” by pundits and commentators, even pundits who were or are in the system. For all we know, only 1/10 of the priesthood is homosexual. Or, perhaps its actually 4/5ths of the priesthood. That is not to say that impressionistic “guestimates” are without value, but they are completely unscientific and of highly questionable reliability.
Crowhill
Recent research on empathy ties it to so called “mirror neurons” which enable the brain to construct models of other minds. This ability not only enables us to imagine the minds of other human beings, but of animals and even non-sentient things like trees, flowers, toys, machinery, etc. Those with a large concentration of these neurons can more easily imagine the minds of beings that are not even visible. Some neurologists say this means religion and belief in spiritual beings is an illusion. It could also be argued that our minds are wired in this way to help us relate to God and the invisible world.
Disgusted in DC
I think I quoted the “stat” with a certain caution. The 1/3 estimate made sense to me because 1/3 of my graduating class was gay. Of course that’s not scientific and I grant that. However, I’m not sure anyone who’s been on the inside for any amount of time would dispute that a higher percentage of men in the priesthood is gay than in most other professions (though perhaps not most other all-or nearly all-male professions). I suspect that if accurate studies could be done there would be some variation between dioceses as much depends on the vocation directors and seminaries.
Actually I don’t like using the term “gay” and am sorry to have used it in my last post. It implies an at least inward embracing of same sex attractions by the one so labeled. Most priests with such attractions, whom I have counseled, do not embrace them but merely acknowledge their existence and persistence but are committed to be chaste.
Eulogio Rivera, may I remind you that if the Church ceases to follow the guidance of its Founder — IOW, if it sacrifices its Petrine calling on the altar of institutional arrogance and prestige, and a pervasive sense of entitlement — then it effectively becomes apostate. The fact that people are human is no excuse. Christ has always demanded that those who lead focus not on prestige but on service (John 12).St. James said that not everyone should teach the faith because teachers will be held to a far higher standard. For centuries, the Church has basked in the power of “apostolic succession” without understanding the inherent responsibility that accompanies it. For centuries, it has relied on people to make the kind of excuses that you have made. Enough is enough!
Don’t believe me? Look up the vision of Pope Leo XIII. This faithless Church is more than ripe for divine condemnation.
Joseph, even in the 400’s St. John Chrysostom feared most bishops and priests went to Hell. And his era is often seen as a golden age in Church history! We know it’s not a matter of Christ failing to make available grace to be good, righteous leaders. Perhaps the majority of men in leadership have simply failed to avail themselves of that grace.
I’d like to issue cautions about any research showing that empathy has to do with brain neurology, or that heterosexual men might be less interested in religion than homosexual men.
First, empathy is as much of a choice as it is a neurological phenomenon, if not more so. Empathy is a moral value, so it’s not limited by neurology.
Second, does the possible correlation between homosexuality and interest in religion and theology hold for women? If not, why not? If it does, wouldn’t that provide evidence against the correlation concerning homosexual men?
Finally, and most importantly, Christ showed tremendous empathy toward the hurting people who came to him and, obviously, had a great interest in theological matters. Nothing in the NT suggests that he was homosexual.
Joseph, I think you’ve got it exactly right.
My own suspicion is that part of the problem lies in the theology that has been attached to both baptism and ordination. In both sacraments it is alleged that an “indelible character” is imprinted on the soul, with the result that one is an essentially different sort of creature than one was before. I have no problem with this if it is understood as a potential to become better than one was before; but all too often it is taken as an accomplished fact simply by virtue of having received the sacrament, so that baptized Christians are held to be intrinsically better and more valuable creatures than non-Christians, and ordained clergy to be intrinsically better and more valuable creatures than laity.
Once this sort of thinking takes hold, it gives rise to all sorts of evil: religious persecution, forced conversions, inquisitions, the confessional state, rampant clericalism, immunity of clergy from prosecution for secular crimes (including sexual abuse of children), etc. It has led the laity to blame themselves for the misdeeds of the clergy, and both clergy and laity to blame the victims for being victimized, on the grounds that such exalted beings as “our holy priests” could not possibly have fallen so far unless they had been first neglected by their flocks and then “seduced” by the children they violated.
Of course Christians are not alone in this sort of thinking; similar problems occur in almost every religion. I was just reading the other day about abusive monks in Buddhism, and the reasons the laity give for putting up with them. They are almost identical to the excuses Christian laity give for tolerating their own abusive clergy, ranging from a refusal to admit the problem exists at all to “we honor the office, not the man” and “we have to have someone to perform the rituals for us.”
“We have to have someone to perform the rituals for us.”
Perhaps that explains the behavior of the laity far more deeply than you surmise, Sardath. That statement reflects a fundamental sense of inferiority not only to God but also to the clerical class, an inferiority that defines the relationship between the laity and the clerical class.
No wonder the clerical classes would exploit the laity and blame them for it. It’s like Mark Shea’s comment (which he got from some modern saint, though I don’t know which one), “We get the bishops we deserve.” Do we? That sounds like the child blaming himself for parental abuse over which the child has no control.
If I’m right, then what does that say about the lack of grace in the Church or the ineffective (at best) way it’s communicated to the faithful?
We’re a body-soul composite. In so far as we are bodily beings, neurons, etc. are important. To the extent that we are spiritual beings, will and choice are important. The soul is the more elevated part of human nature and so of course, Joseph is right, empathy at its best is something chosen. Nontheless, emotions based on flesh and blood and pulsing neurons help. The physical is an esssential part of who we are as is evident in the ressurection (both Christ’s and ours).
Perhaps in our culture homosexuals are more drawn to religion than their heterosexual counterparts because of the nature of religiosity (at least Christian) in western countries since the Rennaisance. Leon has writen about this at length in his book The Church Impotent. He and others believe that western Christendom became “feminized”. The way The Lord has typically been portrayed in western devotional art is telling. He often looks like a bearded woman or a refugee from a cross dressing festival.