"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts

Creative Minority Reader

Polls Show Apostasy - Is The Remedy More of the Same?

If you determined in advance what polling in the age of the great apostasy might look like, I think this would be a rough approximation.

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 20, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A worldwide poll of self-described Catholics shows significant disagreement with Catholic doctrine among many Church members.
In a poll commissioned by the Spanish television station Univision, majorities of 12,038 Catholics in 12 countries expressed beliefs against Catholic doctrine on issues like abortion, same-sex “marriage,” and contraceptive use. The Church opposes all three. 
According to the poll, while Pope Francis received 87 percent approval, 57 percent of Catholics thought abortion should be legal “in some cases,” with nine percent declaring support any time. Seventy-eight percent of respondents support contraception use, 66 percent back same-sex “marriage,” and 51 percent believe women should be priests.
Thirty-eight percent of respondents believe divorce and remarriage outside of the Church means a person is living in sin, and 47 percent believe priests should be allowed to marry.
The poll was taken in nine languages and on five continents. Univision says the 12 countries in which those polled live “represent 61% of the world’s Catholic population.”
The only realistic answer to the cause of this generalized apostasy is the complete failure of the Bishops to teach firmly on these subjects, choosing instead a more pastoral approach.

But the remedy is obvious.  Let's call a special meeting of all the same people who caused the problem to find a pastoral approach to fixing it.

Yup.  That ought to do it.


Your Ad Here


Michael said...

"The definition of insanity is...."

Chris-2-4 said...

More people "back same sex marriage" than support women priests? (66% to 51%) So, at least 15% of those folks think that Marriage can be between any 2 people, but draw the line at letting women become priests? Can they not at least be CONSISTENT in their heresy? Otherwise, it almost seems like they're just making it up as they go...

ANNE said...

" The only realistic answer to the cause of this generalized apostasy is the complete failure of the Bishops to teach firmly on these subjects, choosing instead a more pastoral approach."
This says it all. I hope the Pope and Bishops understand ther seriousness of their lack of teaching (which is their first responsibility) -
Hosea 4:6 " My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge,I reject you from being a priest to me."
Bishops need to change their ways, or I would not want to be in their shoes on their judgement day.
Regardless of most US Bishops lack of teaching - my dear friends, at HOME please read a Catholic Bible and the "Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition".
Learn your Faith, teach your children and grandchildren accurately.

ANNE said...

Bishops also need to correct public SCANDLE by 'Catholic' politicians and others.
Most Bishops seem to completely ignore the mortal sin of scandal,, and allow sacrilege against the Body and Blood of our Lord.
My dear Bishops - what do you really believe?
Enforce Canons 915 and 1399 as a form of teaching and correcting.
By their example and lack of example most Bishops aid and abet in these mortal sins.

CCC: 1868 Sin is a personal act . Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
- by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
- by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
- by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
- by protecting evil-doers."

Also in the CCC see "Scandal" #2284, 2285, 2286, & 2326.

Bornacatholic said...

Dear Mr. Archbold. Actually, Pastoral Theology is precisely what is needed.

What is not needed is the soi disant traditionalist ignorance about and slighting of what Pastoral Theology is:


wkndbeachcomber said...

My girlfriend is converting to Catholicism. She made her first confession last week. Right afterward, she seemed a bit let down by it. Yesterday, shared with me why she was so disappointed. She told me that something that the priest told her in confession sounded very wrong. I won't go into it except to say he said something was not a sin that she believed was totally and intrinsically sinful.

After we discussed it, we looked it up in the Catechism and other sources, and she was completely right in what her gut was telling her. Then she said something that struck me to the bone: "You know, I understand now why a lot of people after hearing what I heard would leave the Church."

There you have it. The reason why Catholics no longer believe what the Church teaches is because THE CHURCH DOES NOT TEACH WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES.

wkndbeachcomber said...

@Bornacatholic, as if Pat doesn't know the definition of pastoral theology.

It's the implementation of pastoral theology over the past 50 years that has failed miserably. Somehow you mange to turn this into traditionalists being the problem. Honestly, one has to have a horribly mal-formed philosophy to even make this assertion; the people keeping the faith are the reason no one is keeping the faith. Just stop it. The cat's been out of the back for two decades now.

ANNE said...

Bornacatholic, Pastoral Theology must never replace the teachings of Jesus and His Church.
People should never be confirmed in Mortal Sin by any Bishop or Priest.
It is not pastoral to aid and abet in the committing Mortal Sins.
It is not pastoral to send Souls to Hell.

elm said...

When you refuse to attend weekly Mass, it doesn't matter what kind of Catholic you call yourself. Too bad these surveys weren't done as people exited the Church on Sunday mornings.

Bornacatholic said...

Dear ...beachcomber. I don't know if he knew what it meant or not; I do know many soi disant traditionalists do not know what it means; and that can be substantiated by noting how often a soid disant traditionalist claims he can refuse to accept Vatican Two because it was just Pastoral.

Patrick Archbold said...


I am not a soi disant or otherwise proclaimed traditionalist. Perhaps pastoral theology is needed, but what has passed for pastoral the last 40 years is clearly not getting it done.

Irenaeus of New York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gail Finke said...

12,000 people supposedly represent more than billion? Yeah, sounds legit...

Bornacatholic said...

Mark Shea's Broad Brush

Mark Shea has an article on InsideCatholic.com in which he takes on "Those Angry Traditionalists." In this article Mark portrays "traditionalists"as unchristian wild-eyed conspiracy nuts who in their enthusiasm for the Latin Mass think that clown masses are the rule and that Novus Ordo is akin to a satanic black mass.

Here is the thing, I am a traditionalist (by my own definition) and a rather run of the mill one at that, I guess.

Dear Mr. Archbold. I was just going on what you had written previously.

As to the problems with a Pastoral approach (That is, the approach within Ecclesiastical tradition) I too think it could have been better but when an assessment of such an approach is simply dismissive without even mentioning the coarsening, corrupting, and baleful influence of the ubiquitous media, then it prolly ain't all that helpful.

It is possible that a poll conducted based a true attempt to assess the beliefs of faithful Catholics could, possibly, show 100% agreement with the Church for to be in full communion with Holy Mother Church one must maintain the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine, and Authority.

Many Polls are more about polemics and propaganda than they are about an innocent attempt to gather basic information.

Bornacatholic said...

Re a pastoral approach;

This is worth reading and considering by those panicking this Pope will ruin everything; consider he may be just what Holy Mother Church needs at this time in history:


Donna M said...

Praise be to our Lord, Jesus!
It cannot be said, those of us here are indifferent!
We dare to share, because we care! Not too beat down or intimidated to express a view, to proclaim praise and thanksgiving to heaven!
May I make a praise and prayer request to the remnant army?

Please, pray for the Divine Will of Jesus be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Let us make this an acceptable practice throughout the rest of our life. I alone can do nothing, but with Jesus "nothing" is impossible. All of humanity is encompased in the Divine Mercy Chaplet.
Thank You :)

Aged parent said...

One of the commenters above who trots out the very tiresome cliches against people he would term "traditionalists" has failed to see the realities that have surrounded us for well nigh on 150 years. This commenter thinks in days, months and possibly decades. Those who keep a keener eye on history think in centuries, even millenia.

Some people date the age of the Church to be about 47 years old. Ergo, we must approach Catholicism in a "BC" (Before the Council) or "AC" (After the Council) mindset. "The Council" being, of course, Vatican 2. None of the other 20-odd Councils are to be considered, apparently. So when a so-called "traditionalist" merely points out that The Council seems to contradict a few other Councils he is described as a "soi-distant Traditionalist", instead of a simple Catholic who finds it rather difficult to jettison what he has been taught all his life. The soi-distant Ones also understand the rather important distinction between a Council that defines solemnly and infallibly versus a Council that merely gives suggestions, important as those suggestions may be. And they understand that if there is a conflict between a suggestion and a direct order, so to to speak, that it behooves them to go with the direct order.

But since a very large grouping of brilliant, eminent and thoroughly Catholic men, clerics, intellectuals and theologians have stated clearly that there have been problems with the Second Vatican Council I believe the so-called "traditionalists" can rest easy in the assumption that great minds (e.g. Salleron, Madiran, Amerio, Gamber, Ratzinger, deLassus, etc,) have concluded that they may have a case. And if anyone would be so foolhardy as to describe any of those men as "against the Pope" let them have at it and make asses of themselves.

Bornacatholic said...

Dear aged parent. The last Pope (Pope Benedict XV) to address the matter of Christian Catholics applying identifying labels to themselves that differentiate them from all other Christian Catholics proscribed such actions.


24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

+++++++ end Encyclical quote+++++++++

But, that, apparently, does not apply to soi disant traditionalists for some reason, but one would think a soi disant traditionalist would be able to cite some later Encyclical, Motu Proprio, Wednesday Audience, Allocution, etc voiding that proscription; O well, I am sure they are diligently searching so as to be in compliance with that which came before Vatican Two given their propensity to accuse Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Religious, and Laity for being out-of-step with that which came before Vatican Two.

The Council seems to contradict a few other Councils he is described as a "soi-distant Traditionalist", instead of a simple Catholic who finds it rather difficult to jettison what he has been taught all his life. The soi-distant Ones also understand the rather important distinction between a Council that defines solemnly and infallibly versus a Council that merely gives suggestions, important as those suggestions may be

Dear aged parent. Vatican Two merely gave suggestions?

Do you know that, among other things, Vatican Two settled questions (Lumen Gentium) that prior to Vatican Two had been the object of tehological debate but since Vatican Two are no longer debatable?

O, and the CDF issued a clarification/teaching re that decision taken during Council?

One problem with far too many soi disant traditionalists is that think they know far more than they actually do know while not realising that much of what they do know is inaccurate owing to the polemical propaganda pouring forth since the Rise of the Online Trad Machine.

If you think Vatican Two taught in opposition to prior Councils you have lost the Faith.

Do you even realise that?

Prolly not.

In ,"The Ratzinger Report," Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger stated that one does not have the liberty to reject Vatican Two anymore than a liberal may reject Trent for the same authority upholds both; pages 28-29

Donna M said...

Concerned about the back and forth.

Reflecting on our response to heaven's appealls, of which the greater balance have been largely ignored and left unanswered by us. Natural laws may be suspended through conversion and prayer. But the apathy and indifference continues. You don't have to look any farther than your own impending death! It is unbelievable the number of people that haven't reconciled death, even as they lay there, in the bed, actively dying! And doing it "alone"! The lack of preparation for heaven is astonishing!

Appreciate this time, reconcile with lost family, make the attempt, love your children. For the nonsense and incoherent times are here. No one could believe, there could be the stalins, hitlers and maos, but they did exist. Their anti-spirits haven't gone away. They still exist, dwelling amongst us, in plain sight.
Address that nonsense!
We had more abortions of black children, than live birth, in New York. And we just yawned! I'm ashamed! Still gonna' post indignation and some major outrage! Judge that!

Nate C said...

I remember confession with one of the associate pastors at my parish when I was in my early 20's. I remember confessing something I knew to be sinful (even possibly mortally sinful because I believed it to be) and he kindly told me that my sin was not a sin. I'm trying to remember but I'm pretty sure that the sin I was confessing was either masturbation or sexual behavior with my girlfriend at the time. I remember being caught off guard by the priest's friendly rejection of my sin - really trying to convince me to admit that what I did was not a sin... I get that if I didnt realize it was sinful or that it was a mortal sin that I might not be culpable.. but this priest never asked me whether or not I presumed forgiveness or whether or not it was habitual, or whether or not I considered it a mortal sin, etc. I left feeling like the priest's goal was to eliminate my concern regarding these sins.. so that I wouldn't even confess them next time (even if venial - to gain the aid of the sacrament). I was more than put off by his reaction and words. I also remember thinking that many Catholics would likely leave the faith after such an encounter. I rejected the priest's denial of my sin and confessed it again later to a priest who apparently did not share the same views. Mind you this priest acted like an openly gay man at the pulpit.. no doubt he likely was. I'll never forget that priest... he was only around for about 6 months before they bounced him to another parish.

Josh Hinchie said...

1. I just remembered why I never read the comments on this blog. A polite debate is a good thing. But some of these comments don't qualify as polite debate. This kind of hostility is the sort of thing that drives people away from true doctrine. In other words, some of you are causing the very situation this article is describing.

2. I sympathize with several of the commenters' Confession problems. I too have had to debate with priests in the confessional as to whether my sins were actually sins.

3. Mr. Archbold: I realize you posted this to draw attention to the negative side of this poll. The negative angle is indeed indisputable, but if you look closely at the data, there's a pretty clear glimmer of hope in it as well. Check out the distribution of age groups in the "Socio-Demographic Profiles" section of the poll (http://www.univision.com/interactivos/openpage/2014-02-06/la-voz-del-pueblo-matriz-1). On average, the 18-34 group (the youngest group polled) is about 6% more likely to agree with Church teaching than the older groups. Really, I see this as the most important part of the poll, because it's pointing out not just where the Church is now (which is pretty dour), but where it is going (which appears to be much more positive).

Post a Comment