Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Priests and seminarians survey: more vocations in orthodox dioceses
AD 2000 ^ | August 1998

Posted on 09/07/2003 6:40:59 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker

Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 11 No 7 (August 1998), p. 12

U.S. Priests and seminarians survey: more vocations in orthodox dioceses

A comparative analysis of different 'styles’ of US dioceses was recently undertaken by Human Life International (HLI). The survey sought to compare the numbers of priests and seminarians in dioceses broadly typed as "orthodox" and "progressive".

For the purposes of its study HLI defined an "orthodox" diocese as one that had exhibited a "general predisposition of fidelity towards the Magisterium since Vatican II."

The term "progressive" was applied to a diocese exhibiting "a general predisposition towards liberal activism and systematic toleration towards dissent from the magisterium since Vatican II".

In the United States, with its large number of dioceses, the contrasts between those at each end of the theological/liturgical spectrum have tended to be more obvious than in Australia.

One might have predicted at the outset that dioceses where, in general, the sacred character of the ordained priesthood is more emphasised, liturgies are celebrated reverently according to the Church’s rubrics and doctrinal orthodoxy is insisted upon and promoted, would attract more recruits - e.g., Lincoln, Nebraska, or Arlington, Virginia. This, in fact, proved to be the case.

The HLI calculations were based on figures from P.J. Kenedy & Sons’ Official Catholic Directories, 1956 to 1997 editions, and editions of the Vatican Secretary of State Statistical Yearbook of the Church for the years 1975, 1981, 1987 and 1993.

The study examined two clusters of 15 dioceses over the period 1955 to 1996. One cluster consisted of 15 dioceses that have had a generally orthodox tradition since 1955 (and especially since Vatican II); the other consisted of 15 dioceses that have had a generally progressive tradition over the same period.

HLI found the following 15 dioceses to be in the "orthodox" category: Amarillo, Texas; Arlington, Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Corpus Christi, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Fargo, North Dakota; Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana; Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska; Peoria, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Steubenville, Ohio; and Wichita, Kansas.

The following 15 dioceses were considered to be in the "progressive" category: Chicago, Illinois; Detroit and Grand Rapids, Michigan; Los Angeles, California; Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; New Ulm, Minnesota; Phoenix, Arizona; Portland, Maine; Rockville Centre, New York; San Bernadino, San Diego and San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona.

HLI conceded that the terms "orthodox" and "progressive" were "necessarily subjective", but explained that the 15 dioceses "of each persuasion" were selected "after an extensive review of articles carried in four publications over the past 30 years: National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Register, Commonweal and The Wanderer.

A list of these dioceses was then submitted to a number of individuals "with extensive knowledge of the history of the American Catholic Church for confirmation and correction."

Two patterns were apparent from the statistics:

1. There are currently nearly twice as many diocesan priests per million active (or practising) Catholics in orthodox dioceses as there are in progressive dioceses (2,057 vs. 1,075); and

2.

The proportion of diocesan priests in orthodox dioceses has remained steady, while the number of diocesan priests in progressive dioceses has been continually declining for four decades. In orthodox dioceses, there were 1,830 diocesan priests per million active Catholics in 1956, and 12 percent more (2,057) in 1996.

In progressive dioceses, there were 1,290 diocesan priests per million active Catholics in 1956, and 1,075 in 1996, a 17 percent decrease.

A second statistical analysis looked at the numbers of diocesan priests ordained in the period 1986 to 1996.

Two patterns were evident from this:

1. There are currently nearly five times as many ordinations of diocesan priests per million active Catholics in orthodox dioceses as there are in progressive dioceses (53 vs. 11); and

2. The rate of ordinations of diocesan priests in orthodox dioceses shows a strong upward trend, while the rate in progressive dioceses, relatively low four decades ago, continues to decline. In orthodox dioceses, there were 34 ordinations of diocesan priests per million active Catholics in 1986, and 53 in 1996 - an increase of more than 50 percent. In progressive dioceses, the rate was 16 in 1986, and only 11 in 1996 - a one-third decrease.

With acknowledgement to HLI.

Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 11 No 7 (August 1998), p. 12


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; celibacy; dioceses; ordinations; orthodox; orthodoxdioceses; priests; progressive; seminarians; vocations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
Imagine that! What Priest shortage crisis? Go Philly!

Interesting to that the Progressive dioceses have always had fewer Priests. Maybe a pre-existing Priest shortage was a CAUSE of their Progressiveism after Vatican II, rather than a result.

1 posted on 09/07/2003 6:41:00 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; american colleen; Romulus; narses; sitetest; ThomasMore; Tantumergo; Loyalist; ...
Ping.

We have around 1100 Priests and 282 Parishes in Philadelphia.
2 posted on 09/07/2003 6:44:07 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
The following 15 dioceses were considered to be in the "progressive" category: Chicago, Illinois; Detroit and Grand Rapids, Michigan; Los Angeles, California; Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin; New Ulm, Minnesota; Phoenix, Arizona; Portland, Maine; Rockville Centre, New York; San Bernadino, San Diego and San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona.

Am I imagining things or does it seem that news related to church scandals and dissent (if not outright heresy) has a common denominator of LOCATION with this statement?

Even though I am convinced that the media's mantra is "...if it bleeds it leads", I believe that TRUTH is presenting itself, unbeknownst to the media pawns.  Sweet!

3 posted on 09/07/2003 6:58:05 AM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; GatorGirl; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; ...
Great article, great post, thanks. The "priest shortage" is a manufactured crisis. The goal is to ELIMINATE Holy Orders and destroy the Church. The tools are heterodoxy, what HLI called "progressive". Who is doing this? The Adversary. How? By attacking the Faith. How can we do battle? With the Faith.

"The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria
"The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria
"The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria
4 posted on 09/07/2003 7:00:59 AM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
And the progressive liberals just don't want to hear it.
5 posted on 09/07/2003 7:04:09 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Michael Rose got a lot of grief for pointing this out in Goodbye, Good Men, but he continues to be proven right.
6 posted on 09/07/2003 7:05:51 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
He took great heat here from the Catholic Caucus. At least from some. Truth is a great thing. As is orthodoxy.
7 posted on 09/07/2003 7:09:47 AM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
This is, indeed, good news.

I have been saying that the pendulum of the church has swung way over to the left and is currently hovering a little bit to the right of center on its swing to the right.

This article supports that theory in a round about way.

Anyway, a big bump for orthodoxy and vocations!

Now a question - - - - - Will the liberal fish-wrappers for the liberal dioceses carry this story??

8 posted on 09/07/2003 7:47:03 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; pseudo-justin
I wonder what criteria they used to arrive at their lists. I have always thought there were a few key visible means such as:

- Indult granted to at least one parish

- Presence of (i.e., implied sponsorship) of a Dignity chapter

Can you add others?
9 posted on 09/07/2003 8:44:07 AM PDT by cebadams (much better than ezra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker; Thorondir; Polycarp; sockmonkey; NYer; Canticle_of_Deborah
This is an interesting analysis. Thanks for sharing it.

For those of us who live in more "progressive" doiceses, where parishes are being closed and the priest shortage is widely lamented, this report might prove instructive were the bishop to see it.

10 posted on 09/07/2003 9:11:36 AM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GirlShortstop
>>Am I imagining things or does it seem that news related to church scandals and dissent (if not outright heresy) has a common denominator of LOCATION with this statement? >>

I taught at a Catholic School in Boston, led by a militantly pro-abortion headmaster. Apon moving there, I was stunned how dead the Church was. Typical church attendence: two old ladies, a passed-out bum and a housefly. I was totally scandalized. Knowing how pro-abortion Massachsuetts Catholics were in general, I couldn't help wondering, "how could the church have fallen so far?"

Cardinal Law came to the school. At the time, he was known for presenting himself as orthodox. I can't descrobe it an objective way, but it became very clear to me that the Cardinal and the headmaster saw eye-to-eye very well. I then realized: Law is not orthodox at all. He is a very deceptive politician who realizes feigning orthodoxy is his way to power. I would later see how heretical the church in Boston was, how Law would fawn over the Kennedys, including granting annulments to any Kennedy who asked.

Law, like O'Connor, seemed conservative. It surprised me not in the least Boston would become the center of the scandal.

I notice ALI did not list Boston or New York as orthodox or progressive. This was very wise. Boston was the worst possible: Heretical, yet making the heretical seem as if it were the orthodox.
11 posted on 09/07/2003 9:28:46 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
That's what I love about this survey: It IS out of date. Even IF his judgment (defining which dioceses were orthodox and which were not) was skewed, this study is even simply valuable way of being able to say, "See, he told you so."

12 posted on 09/07/2003 9:30:43 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Anyone know where I can get tallies of how many ordinations take plae in a diocese in a year?
13 posted on 09/07/2003 9:36:49 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Law is not orthodox at all. He is a very deceptive politician who realizes feigning orthodoxy is his way to power.

I dunno, seems a pretty simplistic explaination of Cardinal Law. Remember when he was the ONLY bishop to stand up to Cardinal Bernardin regarding Bernardin's "Common Ground Initiative" (Law's letter to Bernardin can be found on the internet) and best of all was when Law wrote a widely published criticism of The Catholic Theological Institute (one of the worst dissenting organizations - the member list of theologians is a who's who of heretics) and he called the Institute "a theological wasteland" - incurring the wrath of the progressives.

Cardinal Law was personally orthodox but not strong enough to withstand the direct disobedience and scathing contempt of most of the priests and theologians in his archdiocese. So he compromised by doing almost nothing to curb the growing apostacy of the ordained and the laity. And I think that the USCCB, promoting "unity" pretty much hogties all but the most strong and faithfilled and faithful bishops. You saw what happened when Bruskewicz stood up and spoke the truth at that dog and pony July 2002 bishops meeting. It was if he never spoke.

I think Cardinal Law, God help him, also fell prey to the good life that can be had if one is so inclined. The nice dinners and hobnobbing with the "influential" people can be very tempting.

PS. Cardinal Law's Masses and homilies were very orthodox.

14 posted on 09/07/2003 10:07:44 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
The bishops would never, ever acknowledge an article like this one. But Bruskewicz's diocese (and a few others) is a glaring reminder to them.
15 posted on 09/07/2003 10:10:32 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Your looking for the Annuario Pontifico, the annual guidebook to the Catholic hierarchy and the universal Church. This yearbook, published by the Librairie Editrice Vaticane, is a veritable "Who's Who" of the worldwide Church. In its bulky 2,365-page form, one can find the names and addresses of every Vatican official and diocesan bishop, along with some key statistics regarding Church life including ordinations.

The only problems ... I can't find it available on the Interent and it appears to be written in Italian only.

16 posted on 09/07/2003 10:11:30 AM PDT by cebadams (much better than ezra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Hi Herman.

Articles like this intrigue me and I have cited them numerous times on FR. A discussion ensued regarding this subject on one of the blogspots last year (Mark Shea or Amy Welborn... I forget which). Anyway, there was much debate (few facts, mostly personal opinions) from the commenters until a priest (generally known as being orthodox) posted his opinion on orthodox vs. progressive ordinations and the number of seminarians in both.

He said that people widely cite Bruskewicz' diocese as one with many seminarians because it is very orthodox BUT it is because seminarians leave their own diocese to escape the progressive seminaries and attend in Lincoln or Omaha --- in other words, those men are not really from Lincoln or Omaha and so vocations are not any higher there than they are in the progressive dioceses.

I hope I explained that correctly.

He also said that the number of seminarians shouldn't be a factor because so many drop out - you should look at the number of men who are actually ordained and then see where they originated from. So... his thesis is basically that men are called from all over the place but tend (at the moment) to go to seminary in the more orthodox dioceses.

Boy, I wish I could write better!

17 posted on 09/07/2003 10:19:22 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Hermann the Cherusker
While this is probably true:
He said that people widely cite Bruskewicz' diocese as one with many seminarians because it is very orthodox BUT it is because seminarians leave their own diocese to escape the progressive seminaries and attend in Lincoln or Omaha --- in other words, those men are not really from Lincoln or Omaha and so vocations are not any higher there than they are in the progressive dioceses.
Isn't is also true that these men who attend seminaries in Lincoln or Omaha become diocesian priests within Bruskewicz's diocese? In other words, regardless of where these men came from they are becoming priests and will we assigned to parishes in Nebraska. The question to ask is: would these same men have become priests if they were required to attend a seminary in their more progressive diocese? I suspect the answer is NO and, therefore, the premise that orthodox diocese lead to more vocations is still true.
18 posted on 09/07/2003 10:35:43 AM PDT by cebadams (much better than ezra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cebadams
The question to ask is: would these same men have become priests if they were required to attend a seminary in their more progressive diocese? I suspect the answer is NO and, therefore, the premise that orthodox diocese lead to more vocations is still true.

Good question. I'm thinking of a couple of Boston College grads I know who attended St. John's seminary in Boston back in the early 80s. Both left - said the seminary was like a gay bar and they were in the hetero minority. But then when I think about it, if they really had a vocation, maybe they would have persevered or switched seminaries. Look at Fr. Trigilio and Fr. Brighenti - endured a lot in their seminary back in the 70s/80s and held on until ordination.

You guys sort it out! Too many ifs, ands or buts for my limited abilities!

What I thought was sad in my area was when a guy here discerned a calling in his 30s. He was transformed by the Tridentine Mass at our Indult parish, quit his lucrative job and went into FSSP seminary in Nebraska. He came back to celebrate his first Mass at the indult parish and then went back to Nebraska because - no room at the Inn here! One indult parish (which is also an NO parish) and there is already a priest for that congregation, so they didn't need the new FSSP priest. So he left an archdiocese that has a self defined priest shortage. Makes no sense. If, as we hear all the time, the laity are demanding the Eucharist (which crosses all linguistic barriers) and there are not enough priests to distribute the Eucharist, you'd think the laity would be grateful to God to have a priest say the Mass in any language. And I suspect they would! But the chattering ordained class is deciding for the laity that the laity will only accept priests who say the NO Mass.

19 posted on 09/07/2003 10:59:22 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
It seems to me that there is a flaw in this analysis.

The progressive Dioceses are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically liberal. The orthodox Diocese are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically conservative.

For this study's conclusions to be valid, one would need to include in the study (a) progressive Dioceses located in socially and politically conservative areas and (b) orthodox Dioceses located in socially and politically liberal areas.

If such additional Dioceses cannot be found, the conclusion that might be drawn from this study would be that ordinations are greater in socially and politically conservative areas, which is a "the sky is blue" kind of conclusion. In other words, it's not a meaningful discovery.

The ultimate conclusion that one might want to draw from this study is that if progessive Dioceses were to become orthodox, ordinations in those Dioceses would increase.

However, I don't think that such an ultimate conclusion could be drawn from this study. Given the data sampled, it might well be that even if the currently progressive Dioceses were to become orthodox, ordinations in those Dioceses would not rise to the levels of ordinations in orthodox Dioceses that are located in conservative areas because the social and political climate of an area is the most predominate factor.

Therefore, I don't think this study has much validity when it comes to drawing the kind of conclusion that folks here would like to draw (i.e., bringing orthodoxy to liberal Catholic Dioceses would attract more Priests).

As I implied above, the most valid conclusion that this study might yield is that whether a Diocese is progressive or orthodox depends on whether the area in which the Diocese is located is socially and politically progressive or orthodox. But anyone with a lick of common sense surely knew that.

20 posted on 09/07/2003 11:06:21 AM PDT by Rum Tum Tugger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rum Tum Tugger
As I implied above, the most valid conclusion that this study might yield is that whether a Diocese is progressive or orthodox depends on whether the area in which the Diocese is located is socially and politically progressive or orthodox.

Oh dang! More twists and turns! My head is spinning.

I reject your conclusion! ;-)

Seriously, shouldn't Catholicism, which is neither politically progressive or conservative as taught by the Magisterium, transcend a particular political climate? If it is taught according to the catechism, tradition and Magisterium, that is.

But you have a good point because priests coming out of seminaries in liberal areas were probably taught by liberal theologians who in turn either were taught in those same seminaries or colleges that their teachers came out of. It's kind of like an endless circle or a dog chasing his tail.

In the more liberal areas, a lot of the teaching centers on the parish/Church being primarily a social justice organization (which Cardinal Ratzinger sees as the greatest danger to the Faith) and I find this over and over again in priests and particularly nuns. The focus is on love and has an almost socialistic flavor.

Which is why orthodoxy works... by adhering to the Magisterium, we are able to overcome the temptation to interject political opinion.

21 posted on 09/07/2003 11:15:47 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rum Tum Tugger
You bring up a many good points to consider. What I am constantly confounded with is that there appears to be a problem to solve (lack of vocations) and ample variance occuring (this article, for instance, can easily find dioceses where vocations are not a problem) yet there does not seem to be any concerted effort to explain the variance.
22 posted on 09/07/2003 11:17:29 AM PDT by cebadams (much better than ezra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cebadams
...yet there does not seem to be any concerted effort to explain the variance.

A "fruit" of the USCCB? To discuss this issue publicly or seriously would be pointing fingers at the dioceses that have a dearth of vocations and to give a thumbs up to a diocese that has plenty of vocations. And Bruskewicz's diocese is cited most often as having plenty of vocations... but he is perceived as a bishop who rules with an iron fist, doesn't listen to "other voices" (he's not inclusive not pc!) and who is medievel in the words of my 68 year old parish priest.

The USCCB and "unity" keeps everything at the same level by not tackling the important issues with serious and soul-searching and public discussion. And it seems (to me) that the only "mavericks" who stand out a bit are the progressive ones.

23 posted on 09/07/2003 11:28:06 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Akron Al; Alberta's Child; Aloysius; Andrew65; AniGrrl; Antoninus; As you well know...; BBarcaro; ..
Vocations PING
24 posted on 09/07/2003 12:03:36 PM PDT by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
The Annual Catholic Directory. Look for it in larger libraries, esepcially at seminaries and universities.
25 posted on 09/07/2003 1:16:07 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: american colleen; ThomasMore
What you write is correct. The Philadelphia (St. Charles Borromeo) and Baltimore (Mt. St. Michael) seminaries are full, not just with local men, and men sent from other diocese, but men who have left places like Rockville Circus to study for a real Catholic Diocese.

Orthodoxy attracts, and heterodoxy repels.

The number of vocations probably does not differ that greatly, although individual parishes can be exceptions, as ThomasMore can tell you (and I can tell you too - the two indult parishes I've belonged to - St. Boniface in Pittsburgh and Mater Ecclesiae in Berlin, NJ both have 3 or 4 men in the seminary).
26 posted on 09/07/2003 1:21:00 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cebadams; american colleen
Yes, they become Priests in the diocese they study for. No, they would not have become priests otherwise.
27 posted on 09/07/2003 1:22:07 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Rum Tum Tugger
The progressive Dioceses are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically liberal. The orthodox Diocese are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically conservative.

That's not true as a generalization. Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Atlanta are not particularly conservative, and Tuscon, San Diego, Phoenix, New Ulm, Portland, and San Bernardino are not particularly liberal. The sample is good and representative.

28 posted on 09/07/2003 1:25:12 PM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Do you have to get a dispensation or something similar from your bishop in order to attend a seminary in another diocese?

And if so, wouldn't the would be seminarian have to explain why he doesn't want to go to the local seminary and is choosing to go elsewhere?

Which might explain the underlying animosity directed at a bishop like Bruskewicz?

29 posted on 09/07/2003 1:26:48 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Yes, they become Priests in the diocese they study for.

Maybe all the more reason to consolidate seminaries (makind them less locally bound) and have them run by bishops with a proven track record.

30 posted on 09/07/2003 1:29:27 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
The bishops don't care. They are part of the problem.
31 posted on 09/07/2003 2:22:21 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

I good contrast is between Kansas City MO diocese and the Kansas City KS Archdiocese, the KC Kansas Archdiocese has a far higher vocation rate than the KO MO diocese. The difference, KC MO has a fairly liberal Bishop.
32 posted on 09/07/2003 4:30:10 PM PDT by JNB (I am a Catholic FIRST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
"....have them run by bishops with a proven track record"

If they were consolidated, I'm afraid that the USCCB would have liberals running them (into the ground) in no time at all.
Better that good orthodox bishops have control of their own seminaries.
33 posted on 09/07/2003 4:45:00 PM PDT by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cebadams
What I would like to see is whether a corelation exists between seminaries requiring their students to take Latin as required by Canon Law and ordinations.
I would bet that the heterodox dioceses with fewer ordinands do not require this aspect of Canon Law to be followed.
34 posted on 09/07/2003 4:51:16 PM PDT by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Priests Down, Seminarians Up

Seminary Springtime: Father Darrin Connall s Big Success

In Seminaries, New Ways for a New Generation

35 posted on 09/07/2003 4:51:51 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Grant us more "medievel" prelates Oh Lord, grant us many more!
36 posted on 09/07/2003 4:59:39 PM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rogator
Right. Good point. I guess we are better off keeping it the way it is rather than risk running the few good ones into the ground. This way, when a good bishop gets moved around, he can start to clean up the new seminary and leave behind an old successful seminary with good people on board.

The USCCB just goes up my keister sideways.

37 posted on 09/07/2003 5:38:33 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: narses
I agree with you, of course. But doesn't it seem like Bruskewicz in particular is sort of stuck in neutral mode right now? It seems if the bishop tones down his orthodoxy and hones his interpersonal skills (what is that Italian word "aggre...."?) then they move along and maybe have more influence - like Cardinal George. Bruskewicz just seems to tick off so many people because he says exactly what he thinks. I love that, though. You always know exactly where he stands.
38 posted on 09/07/2003 5:41:36 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
The truth often hurts. What the Church needs, what the world needs is ORTHODOXY not politically correct pap. Either the Truth resides in the Church and we believe that it does, or it is all a sad game. If the hierarchs have lost the faith, and I believe to many have, then they are enemies of the Truth. They are living a lie.
39 posted on 09/07/2003 6:30:56 PM PDT by narses ("The do-it-yourself Mass is ended. Go in peace" Francis Carindal Arinze of Nigeria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
For those of us who live in more "progressive" doiceses, where parishes are being closed and the priest shortage is widely lamented, this report might prove instructive were the bishop to see it.

Doubtful. Those bishops in dioceses with vocations "crises" know what they're doing--They have absolutely no interest in increasing vocations.
40 posted on 09/07/2003 6:36:13 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rum Tum Tugger
The orthodox Diocese are almost all, if not all, located in areas that are socially and politically conservative.

Have you been to Philadelphia lately???
41 posted on 09/07/2003 6:45:28 PM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Without affecting the validity of the conclusion, the list of dioceses is now stale. Since 1998 there have been some episcopal changes --- see, especially, Arlington. Rose concedes that some of the comments in his book are now outdated.
42 posted on 09/07/2003 6:54:02 PM PDT by Savonarola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rum Tum Tugger
In other words, it's not a meaningful discovery.

You've added complexity where it's not necessary.

The question is the orientation of the Diocese, not of the political/cultural surroundings.

While your suggestion would tend to make the study's findings 'bulletproof,' it would not necessarily change them.

Otherwise, your suggestion is that areas which are heavily 'liberal' in a cultural and political sense would not produce priests.

If that were so, Boston, Milwaukee, and Detroit would have run out of priests about 30 years ago.

43 posted on 09/07/2003 7:54:21 PM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
I have known Bishop B. for over 20 years, and not only is he NOT "iron-fisted," he is a genuinely warm, humorous, and engaging guy.

But he does not suffer fools too well, and definitely does not suffer the heterodox well at all.
44 posted on 09/07/2003 7:56:47 PM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
FWIW, the Church of St. Agnes in St. Paul produces vocations at a remarkable clip in an otherwise barren area.
45 posted on 09/07/2003 7:57:55 PM PDT by ninenot (Democrats make mistakes. RINOs don't correct them.--Chesterton (adapted by Ninenot))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
I love Bishop B. He is one of the most enjoyable people to watch on EWTN programs because he is (or seems to be) honest and open. I'm glad he doesn't suffer fools gladly, that's probably why most of us love him. But it doesn't seem to be getting him a red hat... how come?
46 posted on 09/07/2003 8:04:11 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
What a shocker! My diocese (Rockville Centre) is on the progressive list.

They are constantly squawking about not having enough seminarians. I wonder why.

Regards,
47 posted on 09/07/2003 8:06:48 PM PDT by VermiciousKnid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Cardinal Law was personally orthodox but not strong enough to withstand the direct disobedience and scathing contempt of most of the priests and theologians in his archdiocese.

For quite a few years I too believed that Cardinal Law was "conservative," but what finally convinced me to give up on him was when he led the push to get approval for the "inclusive language" lectionary. He led the committe that wrote it. Then when Rome refused to approve it, he led all the US cardinals over to Rome in a group to try to force approval. Rome turned him down flat. The lectionary had to be re-written (Deo gratias).

My later conclusions about Cardinal Law came from seeing the state of the diocese when I lived in Boston for 2 years. I thought the faith was extremely weak, even much weaker than other areas on the East Coast where I have lived. He provided no spiritual leadership. Meanwhile he was closing parishes like crazy. He especially wanted to eliminate ethnic parishes and consolidate them into bland "American" parishes. I have to agree with the poster who said that he was a "deceptive politician."

48 posted on 09/07/2003 8:51:27 PM PDT by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Thanks Max, for your $.02.

I found this:
December 13, 1996:

In a move unique in the history of the Catholic Church of the United States, the seven active Cardinals went to Rome to ask Vatican officials to conclude the process for confirming the proposed new English-language lectionary based on the NAB; this action was taken at the request of the NCCB Administrative Committee. Cardinal Law stated that "We were unanimous in our recognition of the need for horizontal inclusive language where it does not do violence to the sacred text or to the faith of the Church." Agreement was reached that a working group, including several bishops from the United States and representatives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments, would make a final review early in 1997 and that this "concentrated work" would be concluded as soon as possible. The U.S. Cardinals who participated in the meeting are Bernard F. Law (Boston), John J. O'Connor (New York), James a Hickey (Washington), Roger M. Mahoney (Los Angeles), Anthony J. Bevilacqua (Philadelphia), William H. Keeler (Baltimore), and Adam J. Maida (Detroit).

Which seems to bear out what you say. Look at the names... Bevilacqua and Maida - aren't they considered fairly orthodox as well? Reminds me of something that I heard Fr. Groeschel say about the crisis... it spans all "degrees" of Catholics from the orthodox to the progressives. I guess once you start "caving" on maybe a small thing (what is ever small to us orthodox Catholics ;-) ) it just gets easier and easier to give in to bigger and bigger things. And us orthodox Catholics groan but the progressives give all those nice dinners and perks.

I couldn't figure out Cardinal Law at all... he was sort of inscrutable. But I do remember that after the scandals broke I went to the St. Patrick's Day Mass at the Cathedral so that I could look into his eyes... and what I saw was a sad and sorry man. I think he tried to make everyone happy and succeeded in making no one happy.

The inclusive language is a chick thing. There is a list of demands that were made by feminists to the bishops back in the late 80s. It is quite a long list of "demands." I read them a short time ago (last month) and I was amazed that virtually each demand has been accomodated - and long ago. So steathily that it has been hard to notice, really. Maybe I'll type it up and post it later this week when I have time.

Regarding the parish closings by Cardinal Law. I plead ignorance. Until maybe 3 years ago, I paid little attention to all but the biggest religion stories. And of course as I live here in Boston and attend parishes only on the east coast, I have no idea how things might be different elsewhere. Seems like there are more heretical religious groups around here - that I do notice!

49 posted on 09/07/2003 9:14:39 PM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
This means more trads and less modernists.

THANK GOD!
50 posted on 09/07/2003 9:31:58 PM PDT by Thorondir (The Catholic heart breaks in these vile times, and Satan rejoices.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson