In addition to your point above, I had two thoughts might be worth considering:
1. In a culture preoccupied with sexuality, which seems to preach that it is our right to have all the sex you can, with anyone you want, anyway you want, celibacy is a hard sell.
2. Perhaps those who are willing to make the commitment tend to be those who are the most serious and conservative.
It became a lot easier to be gay outside the clergy and fewer gays are becoming priests. Post ww2 something like 1/3 of priests were gay or something like that.
Yes. But that is linked to all kinds of other questions in terms of the practice of the faith. What did you think of my questions about where journalists should probe NEXT?
I think some probing in the distinction between conservative and conservationist could be fruitful, but it requires more subtlety than most major media bring to religion. What I mean is the differences between those who hold to Catholic teaching (conservative) vs. those who cling to a vision (real or imagined) of some ideal of the Catholic past.
First, you would have to do some hard work to figure out how to separate the two because I doubt it is as simple as TLM vs. Novus Ordo. Then see which group is turning out our new crops of vocations. The answer, either way, has profound implications for the rest of this century.
Listen to the podcast and see if you think I stated precisely that in a way that captures your point. It's not about Latin vs. whatever. It is, however, about the beauty of tradition vs. some yearning to make modernity an acceptable standard. Please let me know what you think.
In addition to your point above, I had two thoughts might be worth considering:
1. In a culture preoccupied with sexuality, which seems to preach that it is our right to have all the sex you can, with anyone you want, anyway you want, celibacy is a hard sell.
2. Perhaps those who are willing to make the commitment tend to be those who are the most serious and conservative.
Those who believe the doctrines they are pledging to protect and teach are those who are most likely to sacrifice to do the work? Something like that?
It became a lot easier to be gay outside the clergy and fewer gays are becoming priests. Post ww2 something like 1/3 of priests were gay or something like that.
So the answer (at least in part) to the vocations crisis is to address the demographic crisis.
Yes. But that is linked to all kinds of other questions in terms of the practice of the faith. What did you think of my questions about where journalists should probe NEXT?
I think some probing in the distinction between conservative and conservationist could be fruitful, but it requires more subtlety than most major media bring to religion. What I mean is the differences between those who hold to Catholic teaching (conservative) vs. those who cling to a vision (real or imagined) of some ideal of the Catholic past.
First, you would have to do some hard work to figure out how to separate the two because I doubt it is as simple as TLM vs. Novus Ordo. Then see which group is turning out our new crops of vocations. The answer, either way, has profound implications for the rest of this century.
Listen to the podcast and see if you think I stated precisely that in a way that captures your point. It's not about Latin vs. whatever. It is, however, about the beauty of tradition vs. some yearning to make modernity an acceptable standard. Please let me know what you think.