In 1955, 75% of Catholics attended Mass on
a weekly basis; by 1975, that number was down to 54%. During that same period, enrollment in seminaries
declined, hundreds of priests and religious left ministry, and the Church that once stood
as a pillar of society quickly began to fade into irrelevancy. What happened? What could have caused such a major shift
in Church life in just a few decades? For some, the answer is obvious: Vatican II. If things were great before the council and
awful after the council, clearly the Council was a major mistake and we need to return
to what made the Church successful back in 1955. Makes perfect sense, right? Yeah... As long as you ignore the fact that Protestant
Church attendance ALSO declined in that time period. And you know those Protestants! They were always so intent on the traditions
and authority of the Church and so when Sacrosanctum Concilium decided to allow the mass in the
vernacular they were like, “forget it. I’m not going to my Presbyterian church
service anymore.” Women were the same way. It’s true. When Vatican II promulgated Nostra Aetate
and suggested a change in relationship with people of other faiths, women all around the
world got together and said, “Enough is enough with the patriarchy. We’re going to demand equal pay, declare
a sexual revolution, and demand abortion rights. All because of Vatican II.” I mean, if Woodstock, the Hippie movement,
and the rise in psychedelic drug use isn’t a direct response to Gaudium et Spes, I don’t
know what is. There was the Vietnam War, Gay liberation,
and the Civil Rights movement, all leading to protests in the streets, the erosion of
traditional values, and enormous civil unrest. Is it just a coincidence that the height of
all of these movements took place in the late 1960s, right after Vatican II convened…? Yeah, actually. In fact it’s a pretty common logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. “After this, therefore because of this.” It's the idea that when two things happen
in succession, the first event must have caused the second, a notion
that is clearly illogical. It’s like saying that a rooster always crows
just before the sun rises, therefore the rooster caused the sun to rise. He may think so, I don’t know, but it doesn’t
make it true. Look. I love our Church and we have certainly been
influential on a global scale throughout our history… But do we really think, honestly, that a few
bishops getting together in Rome caused everything that we see today—lower church attendance
across all Christian denominations, the rise in atheism, overall social unrest? I think we might be giving a LITTLE too much
credit to the Church on this one. The idea that Vatican II is the singular cause
of the Church’s troubles in the 1960s, 70s, and today, ignores the fact that the entire
world went through a complete revolution during that same time. Surely, revolutions of sexuality, gender,
orientation, race, societal norms, war, and communications, all happening at the same
time, is going to have an effect on the average worshipping Catholic, and might just influence
church attendance and seminary enrollment. It entirely forgets that much of the world
had went through two catastrophic world wars, most recently a war that saw the deaths of
80 million people, 3% of the world’s population, and that those who had been born into that
world were just coming of age in the 1960s. It entirely forgets that societal change doesn’t
happen overnight. Each of the revolutions that took place during
this time can trace its roots back decades. Even the four reform movements that shaped
Vatican II—biblical, liturgical, ecumenical, and patristic—they all started 20, 40, even
60 years prior. Vatican II didn’t artificially shift things
overnight or make up stuff on the spot—it responded to where the Church was already
moving. Now, has everything that was taught at Vatican
II and implemented since a complete success? Of course not. But let’s make sure we always remember a
few things. First, there is a difference between what
Vatican II taught and what individuals have done with its teachings since. I dare you to actually read, Sacrosanctum
Concilium, Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, and Gaudium et Spes—the four Constitutions of
the Church, and tell me that they’re not grounded in tradition, built upon scripture
and the patristic fathers. For a second, forget about what some people
did with those documents, and accept that these are incredible works of faith. Vatican II is not to blame. But even bigger than that, when you look at
the changes that were made after the council in light of the complete and utter upheaval
of the world in that time, I would argue that it is far more logical to say that the Council
is the reason that we’re not worse off today. Honestly. I’m 100% serious about this. Look at the values at work in these liberation
movements. Look at where the world was going in terms
of communications, globalization, cultural identity, and collaboration, and then look
at how the Church defines itself at Vatican II. Look at goals of reforming the liturgy. Look how it says we are to relate to the outside
world, how we are to engage violence and oppression and poverty and all the ills of the world. Vatican II anticipated all of that. It was ahead of the curve, a prophetic voice
out in front, welcoming people in and offering complex, meaningful answers to the pain of
the world. I look at this Council and I marvel at what
a gift to the world it is, the true manifestation of the spirit in our midst. It’s no wonder, then, that globally speaking,
the population of the Catholic Church has nearly doubled since the Council. Is this the direct result of Vatican II? Of course not. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, am I right? The world is complicated and so there is no
way we could pinpoint a result to any one factor. All I’m saying is that it clearly not the
cause of the Church’s ills today, and that there’s evidence that it may have even staved
off a complete collapse. The way I see it, the Church is declining
in some areas, not because of the documents of some Council, but because the Church has
ceased being relevant. Its poor handling of the sex abuse crisis,
its insistence on a single-platform political life, its failure to connect with the ever-changing
worries and anxieties of each generation—these are the reasons that the Church is in decline
in some areas. How many people who consider themselves formerly
Catholic would say that they experienced good preaching at mass, that they encountered a
priest that spoke to the problems of their life? My guess is very few. How many people who find the mass boring and
meaningless have ever experienced it celebrated in all of its beauty and splendor, with music
from talented artists, a congregation that participates fully and wants to be there? Probably very few. How many people growing up Catholic attended
Churches where the word “Church” meant more than just going to mass, it was being
a part of a family committed to charity and justice, that made an impact on its local
community worth being proud of? Almost none, I’m sure. I firmly believe that the issues our Church
faces are not a matter of a Council that most average Catholics know nothing about, it is
about relevancy in their lives. I hear all of the time that attendance at
Latin Masses is high and that they’re growing, and that’s great. For a segment of the population, for whatever
reason, the faith bears relevancy and lives on. Really, that’s great. I’m happy that the Church allows this valid
option for people who want that. But that doesn’t mean that re-instituting
the 1962 Latin Missal en masse or undoing Vatican II and going back to the 1955 Church
is going to magically fix the Church. The reality… is that the world has drastically
changed since 1955, probably more than in any time in human history, and all this would
do is create a small, exclusive Church of intense believers, much like Latin Mass communities
today. Vatican II is not the problem, and the
Latin Mass is not the answer. It’s clear from our history that both masses
have produced and nurtured saints. It’s clear that both rites are concerned
with the Tradition of the Church, albeit in different ways, and are meaningful to a lot
of people. And it’s most certainly clear, when we see
the enormous expansion of the Church in the past 60 years in places like Asia and Africa,
that Vatican II is bearing fruit in our world. We’re all upset at the decline of the Church
in some areas, but it doesn’t do us any good to point blame where it isn’t deserved
or to use logical fallacies. Our Church does have some serious problems—poor
preaching, an unengaged laity, a disrespected conference of bishops. I suggest we put our energy here, and give
up this ridiculous blame game.
