Talk:Second Vatican Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents


An event mentioned in this article is an October 11 selected anniversary.

The expansion of this article will be a continuing effort - I have moved former article end discussion to separate page on page for the instruction from the Congregation for the Protection of the Faith Dominus Iesus -- ClaudeMuncey

Claude, I changed your comment to reflect the document you cite. Dominus Iesus was from the CDF and by Ratzinger, who at the time was the CDF Prefect. It was not an encyclical, which is a different type of document. DaveTroy

Any ideas on addressing the numerous recent anonymous changes by 205.188.209.11 would be greatly appreciated. For example (I'm taking this very slowly!), way too many "interpretations" in second paragraph, seems to me a shallowly disguised POVification in the works... Harris7 04:02, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Statistical correlations pertaining to USA moved here. Oddly, the Second Vatican Council was not about the USA. - Zotz


Kenneth C. Jones's "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II" cites the following statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council:

Priests in USA:
1930-1965 doubled to 58,000
since 1965: 45,000
Projection: by 2020: 31,000, half over 70

Priestless parishes:
1965: 1%
2002: 15%


Ordinations in USA:
1965: 1,575
2002: 450


Seminarians:
1965: 49,000
2002: 4,700 ( -90%)


Seminaries:
1965: 600
2002: 200


Sisters:
1965: 180,000
2002: 75,000, average age 68


Teaching nuns:
1965: 104,000
2002: 8,200 ( -94%)


Jesuits:
1965: 3,559
2000: 389


Christian Brothers seminarians:
1965: 912
2000: 7


Franciscans:
1965: 3,379
2000: 84


Catholic High Schools: -50%

Catholic Parochial Schools: -4,000

Catholic marriages: -33%

Annulments:
1968: 338
2002: 50,000


Mass attendance:
1958: 3 out of 4
2002: 1 out of 4

Lay religious teachers who agree with:
contraception: 90%
abortion: 53%
divorce and remarriage: 65%
missing Mass: 77%


Catholics aged 18-44 who don't believe in transubstantiation: 70%


Dang, you and I are "talking over each other" at the same time (Mom? Is that you? LOL)

Seriously, I put the stats back, noted your "corellation means causation" argument, and provided a response to the latter. No, VII was not about the United States (thought the Potomac flowed into the Tiber in the early 60s, big time), but Dr. Lothian's stats for Great Britain say the same thing, and measurable indices such as these are all I'm aware of that would be relevant to the topic of "Vatican II Aftermath". May providing stats for non-Western nations, using Protestantism as a control as Dr. Lothian does, might be the thing to do. Do you know where we can get some?


Well, no, it's not MY correllation/causation argument, it was in the article before you removed it. MY point was that assessing the impact of the Second Vatican Council by its effect in the USA is like assessing the impact of a tidal wave from its effect in Iowa: possibly germane, but hardly the whole picture, and rather distorting. And no, I don't know where you would get world-wide figures, though I agree with you that they, unlike these, belong here. - Zotz
I'll strengthen the correlation/causation argument in the article. These statistics shout out "I am advocating a position" and in fact I'd prefer to summarize them, and move the details to a separate article. Without more statistics and analysis, they are meaningless. Did the trend begin before Vatican II? Did it accelerate halfway between Vatican II and today? Who knows?

Hi La Minturnesa, back to the statistics discussion... Regarding the last statement (Traditional Catholics, citing research conducted by Fordham University's Dr. James Lothian which compared the above sorts of statistics with those relevant to Protestantism, argue that no such decline has occured in Protestant faith communities of the same time period.), I have read the cited article by Dr. Lothian, and it strikes me that nearly all of the listed statistics have no equivalent in the protestant world. Seminarians? Yes, protestants have seminarians, but they are not preparing themselves for the priesthood. Marriages? Hm, maybe. Annulments? Nope. Only category that has a fairly direct equivalent in the protestant world is that of parochial schools, but even that is hardly a fair comparison: any of the thousands of flavors of protestant denominations can form a parochial school, easily outnumbering the "One Flavor" of Catholic school in any particular US community 10-to-1! So while the one Catholic elementary school in a small American town closes, the 10 protestant Christian schools continue, often in new clothes/denominations.

So Dr. Lothian compares just the statistics for "church attendance" - but, again, can "church attendance" be compared to participating in Mass? I think not. One is a worship meeting, the other is a sacrament. Apples and oranges. It's been years since I took Statistics 101, but Dr. Lothian's statistical analyses look rather contrived to me. More later... Harris7 19:16, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"So Dr. Lothian compares just the statistics for "church attendance" - but, again, can "church attendance" be compared to participating in Mass? I think not. One is a worship meeting, the other is a sacrament. Apples and oranges."

What are you inferring here?

Also, the statistics in Europe are ten times more dire then these. Even these statistics don't tell the whole story, "priestless parishes" doesn't inform of how many smaller parishes were consolidated under one priest, nor how many priests were previously assigned to that one parish, nor the workload of said priests. Also a statistic like Catholics who don't believe in Transubstantiation means, in theory at least, that those people are heretics and no longer Catholics. In fact a paralell like this doesn't really occour in protestantism, as any one issue of belief differing from the group can be dismissed by "private interpretation". Besides the overall numerical decline in practicing Catholics, there is a far far steeper decline in clergy, which leads to a problem similar to peak oil.

As an atheist/lapsed Protestant, I wanted to say that this was a really helpful, interesting and informative article. Good job. jengod 21:32, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

The US Jesuit Conference says "as of January 1, 2003, there are 3,382 Jesuits in the U.S. That includes 2,481 priests, 200 brothers, 250 scholastics and 91 novices." I would say that I'm sure this number is much closer than the 389 cited on the page. If there are only 389 Jesuit priests in the US, then I personally know over 10% of the Jesuit priests in the US! I am not sure what the 389 refers to but it seems way off base to me. Ruy Lopez 01:59, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

There may be some confusion over the statistics. I am not getting a clear picture of the facts, and I don't have the Jones book handy. Here is the Jesuit information user Ruy Lopez is referring to: [1] A web page at CatholicTradition.org apparently quotes Jones, and states "For example, [in the United States] in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians." The Second Vatican Council entry states simply:

Jesuits
1965: 3,559
2000: 389

The facts aren't clear from this picture. Trc | [msg] 03:07, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I commented out the Jesuits statistics data, and the new sentence wondering about the accuracy of the statistics in connection with those listed for the Jesuits, because it is likely that there is a mis-reading of a chart somewhere: someone with access to the Jones book (or other sources) should fact-check the Jesuits statistics and verify the accuracy of the chart. It seems likely to me that there is an error in the page, and that the statistics will register some decline, when we know what the stats are. Trc | [msg] 04:37, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Here is an article that discusses Mass attendance statistics, addressing causation/correlation questions. [2] Trc | [msg] 14:57, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It is quite clear that the number of practicing catholics, priests, attendant to church et al. have sharply declined since 1965. I live in Quebec, a society once devoutly catholic that was mass-secularized in the 1960s. I don't have the figures handy, but they certainly are much more dire than in the US. However, such figures don't belong in an article. Vatican II probably made some catholics angry / lose faith (the fact that people are linking the council with the decline in Catholicism here is proof enough). But there are other possible causes: the growth of New Age religions, conversions to forms of protestantism (esp. in the US), rise of Atheism, materialism, rock and roll & satanic values, etc.

Therefore, I think the wording should be "Some (or conservative catholics) argue that Vatican II and the associated changes in the Catholic church are the cause for the decline in catholic faith observed since 1965.

That article (it could be named otherwise) should then include the statistics, and the different causes (Vatican II and others, but not necessarily the ones I mentioned). Céçaquiéça 04:19, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No vote from me: Many scholars and researchers have drawn a connection between VII and the decline, many have identified many aspects in which the reforms were defective and problematic, in design and imposition. It is a subject that naturally occurs here. Moving it is probably a disguised attempt at marginalizing the subject. Information about effects in other countries can be provided as well. Trc | [msg] 11:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see your point & agree. What I think now is that the subhead "Effects of the council in the United States" should be a subsection of "Effects of the council". In the original version, it was used to exemplify the effects of the council. But in its own subsection, it looks like the council is the only reason for the decline of the numbers. 14:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced though that the council can be blamed for all of the ills of the church today. The acts of church officals before, during and after the council helped contribute to some of the problems the church is having today.

Take for example the abuse crisis. It turned out that the man who was the celebrant at my grandparent's marriage in 1947 (almost 15 years before the Second Vatican Council) had been abusing children long before the first session of the council. Abuse was going on long before the council was opened, but some catholics blame the council for the abuse crisis.

Paul had done the exact opposite of what the council recommended when it came to birth control even during marriage. Then John Paul II effectively shut down any further debate during his lifetime on priestly celibacy, or on ordaining women to the priesthood. It will be up to future Popes to decide that issue. I had thought of the priesthood as a vocation, and had even contacted a vocation director who thought I had the potential to be a good priest, but I want a family much more that I want to be a priest. So that door has pretty much been slammed in my face.

JesseG 04:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, the whole article has got a negative point of view about the council, doesn't it? "Henri de Lubac" ignored the warnings of the past... "John XXIII ignored the warnings..." and then lots of statistics about how bad it was. It is a legitimate opinion, certainly, but far from a neutral point of view. Mpolo 20:42, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
I take back what I say above. The article is actually pretty nicely balanced, once I read the whole thing. I did remove the "ignored the warnings" for John XXIII. I also caught a typo or two, cleaned up after Guanabot, and added two paragraphs about Lumen Gentium. -- Mpolo 15:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
At times it appears to me that in some quarters Vatican II is blamed for everything from sunspots to bad hair days.
JesseG 21:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing I changed this evening was the line "Many view the Second Vatican Council as an event..." to "Some of the more conservative Catholics view the Second Vatican Council as an event..." I did this because I am not convinced that to say "Many view" is not an accurate description. Many what? Many members of the church, many clergy, many tradtionalists? How would whoever wrote the term "Many view" define many? I think it is more accurate to say "Some of the more conservative Catholics..."

JesseG 02:24, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Conciliar Catholic Life in the United States of America

Kenneth C. Jones's "Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II" cites many statistics comparing measurable aspects of Catholic life in the United States before and after the Second Vatican Council. One of the most important is the following:
Catholics aged 18–44 who don't believe in transubstantiation: 70%

This makes no sense. I assume that this statistic is from the present day (or whenever Jones's index was compiled), but whether it's from today or from the time of the Council, it's not a comparison, and therefore can't be one of the most important comparisons in Jones's index. Only including both the percentage in 1963 & the percentage today can make it a comparison; until then, it's irrelevant. Binabik80 04:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Googling suggests it's a single New York Times/CBS poll from within the last five years, without a comparator. It's just an opportunity for handwringing - there's no hard evidence I can find that the figure is lower than fifty years ago. Rd232 18:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Someone stuck these back in again. Once again deleted.ClaudeMuncey 13:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

This thing needs a redirect from "Vatican II". I don't know how they things are done.

There already is a redirect; see here. If you hit the "edit this page" link on that page, you'll see how the redirect is done. —HorsePunchKid→龜 01:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excerpt from Buchanan's book

A chunk of this article consists of statistics on the decline of Catholic belief from a book on the church by Pat Buchanan. I object to this section on the grounds that:

  1. It does not explain how or why Vatican II led to the changes mentioned.
  2. It does not put the figures into a context. Is the change in traditional religious views and dedication unique to Catholicism?
  3. The source is hardly authoritative.

I feel the section should be omitted. Mwalcoff 00:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homily on Feast of the Immaculate Conception

The Homily today has been touted as teaching about the real interpretations of Vatican II. I started a paragraph. The Criticism section needs work. Dominick (TALK) 17:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate Lima's reasons. Let me quote it here:

In 2005 at the Mass for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception Pope Benedict XVI is excepted to deliver his Homily on the Vatican II council, and discuss the proper interpretation of it in light of Catholic Tradition. The homily is expected to continue a theme by Monsignor Walter Brandmuller that criticize the popular notion that Vatican II was a totally new beginning in the Church.

Thanks Dominick (TALK) 18:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better introduction needed!

The current introduction reads: "The Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, or Vatican II, was an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church opened under Pope John XXIII in 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI in 1965."

This does absolutely nothing to explain why it was called, or what it accomplished. It is most certainly lacking in information. Surgo 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not just that - the first paragraph of 'Background' is horrible. I'm still not sure what the first sentence of that paragraph means because I got lost after the fourth preposition. I'll have a crack at rewriting the first paragraph once I know a bit more about the council itself. - ddlamb 06:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The "Commentary" section appears to be little more than a collection of offsite forks. Opposition is discussed in the article, do we really need a link to every single group shouting "and another thing!" after the argument is over? To say nothing of two links to the same compuserve user homepage. It seems to me that authoritative commentaries by substantial groups are possibly defensible if their criticisms are not covered in the (quite extensive) criticism section, but this lot looks like vanispamcruft.

Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I merely wish to say thankyou to the editors of this article; it is clear, concise and well-written and has been a huge help in my schoolwork. Keep up the good work. :D -- Sarsaparilla39 01:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not have to be a catholic

I have seen several references to that the second vatican council came to the conclusion that one does not have to be a Catholic to receive access to God’s grace. I think it is an important point, so I tried to find it in this article but unfortunately must have missed it. Is it in here?DanielDemaret 04:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC) One such reference is in here http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church.DanielDemaret 04:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Extract from the article Roman Catholic Church:

"The Catholic Church maintains that, through the graces Jesus won for humanity by sacrificing himself on the cross, salvation is possible even for those outside the visible boundaries of the Church, whether non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians, if in life they respond positively to the grace and truth that God reveals to them. This may sometimes include awareness of an obligation to become part of the Catholic Church. In such cases, "they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it" (Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14).

Lima 05:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, the original intention of this article was to be an overview of Vatican II as a historical event which does invovle some discussion of the various documents and their contents. But the range of topics covered over the four years is enormous and you really should hit the discussions of the individual documents and the links there -- in particular Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium, and Unitatis_Redintegratio.

ClaudeMuncey 16:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of Article

Four years ago, in an early era of Wikipedia, I found that the only content for this topic was somebody's disagreement with a much more recent document. It took me a while, but I got the article basically as it is today, but there has been a lot of great work done by others to make it much better, including pictures, cleaning things up, and keeping an eye on it to keep it on topic. I have always been glad that some people found it helpful, and I'm still surprised that it is still one of the few general survey articles on the Council as a historical event and apparently gets a bit of traffic.

Well, Wikipedia has moved on and developed, and I think this article has to follow. It's time to take care of a few things which will make this an even better article. The main one is to add references, which I am working up now for most of this. And we need to work on the linked articles for the conciliar documents.

In addition, to get this talk page down to fighting weight, I propose archiving the discussion of criticism of VatII to its own sub talk page. --ClaudeMuncey 17:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Baby steps -- I just added the references to the New Catholic Encyclopedia articles I worked from in putting together the history of the sessions. These will be revised and amended as this continiues. --ClaudeMuncey 13:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rhine Bishops"

This is a term used for the Dutch and German bishops seen as leaders of the so-called "liberal wing" at Vatican II, mostly in negative depictions of the work of the Council, and in conspiracy theories about it. It is definitely POV and has been removed. --ClaudeMuncey 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wthin wider ongoing revision of this article I would suggest that the section 'Criticicism within the Catholic Church' should be expanded and entitled 'Reception of Vatican II'. It should include at least 4 subsections,i.e: 1)Varying approaches to implementation of the Council's recommendations; 2)Criticism of the Council within the Catholic Church; 3}Criticism by other Christians; 4)Criticism from wider afield- this would cover other religions;politicians,sociologists and economists;secular viewpoints. A moot point might be whether to include Judaism in 3}. Criticism is not necessarily hostile----Clive Sweeting

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/c/Talk%7ESecond_Vatican_Council_9643.html"