Latin mass as stumbling block?

The Latin Rite provides many older Catholics a chance to enjoy the tried and true of their youth.My father-in-law,. for example, goes about once a month. It'as not divisive; it adds to his experience as a Catholic. If anyone feels it' "divisive", they are looking to be offended.

In many dioceses, there are already masses offered in numerous languages. And as below, may be too numerous. If all those people can be so accomodated, why not those who want the Latin mass? As opposed to this Times article, the Latin mass isn't being forced down anyone's throat, as may have been the case in this church in Brooklyn-

http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/07/20/a_new_homeland_in_new

One other point-if a Catholic priest, even of recent vintage, has not been fully immersed in Latin,that says more about the weakness of such training than anything else. In my high school "seminary" 2 or 3 years of Latin was a must. I find it incomprensible that at any major seminary in America Latin is not a prerequisite course of study.

I don't necessarily agree with Andrew, but it is clear that further allowing the Tridentine move was a political one, not a religious one. It will do nothing to enhance Catholicism in the Third World. Only expats, a few elites and the clerics will attend a Tridentine mass in Kinshasa or Sao Paulo or Oaxaca. The reintroduction was to appease a bunch of noisy orthodox in the U.S. and in West Europe, who can't fathom what it means to be a Catholic outside of the axis that includes their parish and the Vatican.

he couldn't understand the appeal, inasmuch as you couldn't hear anything (indeed, it was for me like I imagine a Quaker meeting must be).

Which is exactly why I always hasten to invite people to our Latin Mass parish's High Missa Cantata (sung Mass). The low Mass is an acquired taste that after almost ten years of attending, I'm only now beginning to plumb its sublime mysteries.

In the old rite, High and Low Mass are as different as night and day.

Scurvy, there's something called the Mater Dei Latin Mass community that meets for worship in the early mornings at St. Thomas Aquinas church, in our East Dallas neighborhood. I suspect they're a low mass congregation, but I don't know for sure.

It is amazing to see all the hubbub and hullabaloo about the Latin Mass of 1962. It has always been there... it never went away... oh you had to look for it or petition for it, but it was always there. People are acting like this is divisive. It is available, if you want it. If you don't want it, don't go. I personally like to go to Mass where we sing songs accompanied by guitars. Some people don't like that so they do not go. That's okay. I would love to find a Latin High Mass with Gregorian Chant where I can sing the Mass in Latin. Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Agnus Dei. I would like that, some people wouldn't. The fact is, we have many ways to worship within the Catholic Church.... the major problem is getting off our butt and going. Dominus vobiscum... Pax vobis!

"In the same way, I think many people will go to the Tridentine Mass once, just to see what the all hoo-rah was about. Many of them won't find much reason to go back and will simply revert to attendance at the Novus Ordo--which is, for them, 'the Mass we grew up with.'"

Hunk Hondo,

This was not the case with me. I live in northern VA, and a Church about 25-30 minutes away from me has the High Latin Mass on Sunday mornings, and I went about a month ago - the first time I'd ever heard the whole mass in Latin. If the church were any closer to me, I'd go every weekend instead of to my regular church. The music was simply beautiful. I thought it was great.

And I say that I go to my "regular church" instead, but I should mention that that church is no slouch - one of the more orthodox churches in the diocese. If it adds the Latin Mass, I'd be pretty happy. I should say, I actually like the Novus Ordo - said right it can be great. The church I grew up in in NJ was (most of the time) very good, and the one I go to now is also very good, and in a beautiful church around 100 years old.

But I went down to Chapel Hill for a wedding a couple weeks ago, and went to mass at a church near my hotel (the wedding was in a Presbyterian church), and the mass was simply out of control. The entrance "hymn" was an ode to diversity and God fulfilling our "hopes and dreams." The priest was ad libbing - adding his own lines to the Mass, the collection involved someone from each row bringing a basket with that row's contribution to the basket in the front of the church to drop it in, there were about 20 Eucharistic Ministers and the pastor (the priest saying the Mass was visiting) was nowhere to be found. It was simply too much. Thats the kind of church that gets to me.

I think all the dissent in the Catholic Church is because of sex. No one has listened to the bishops since Humanae Vitae. They weren't listening before the scandal. All the scandal did was give the dissidents a reason to say that their rejection of the teaching authority was justified.

first, maybe you're looking in the mirror?

We followed Humanae Vitae, and we've never regretted it. (Well, when it comes to paying for a daughter's wedding.....forget I mentioned it!)

I left over the Scandal. I wasn't, and am not, a "dissident." I just look at trees and fruits, and I see a lot of rotten fruit on that tree. The Master instructed me to judge the institution by that measure, and by that measure it fails.

Don't be so quick to dismiss people who disagree with you. The earth does not rotate around your opinion.

Thanks, Rod. You are right that it's a low mass, held 6:30 AM Monday - Friday and 7:30 AM on Saturday. A high mass sounds more accessible.

I hope the revival of the Tridentine mass will result in the great classical mass settings being sung a lot. These include some of the most glorious music ever written. Some of these settings are within reach of decent, even if relatively small, parish choirs. I've sung an anthem whose music was part of the Gloria in Haydn's Missa Sanctae Caeciliae. Not only was it beautiful, it was easy to sing. As my old choirmaster said, Haydn just sings itself.

Thanks, David, I may take you up on that! (I need to check to make sure I don't have any scheduled duties at my church this Sunday.)

In answer to the question about "Hysterical Andrew", like all good bloggers, Rod pays attentions to people who give him traffic. Isn't that right Rod??

But how many people were at that mass in Chapel Hill? How good is the attendance and giving at that parish? Compare it to how many people would attend a Tridentine Mass in Chapel Hill?

In another post, you ask about why Pentecostals are so attractive. One of the reasons is because the service is so accessible. People are involved and on their feet rejoicing and participating, not sitting stoicly and listening to a priest. There's a reason that megachurches and emerging churches and store-front Pentecostal churches are packed to the gills while 10 people attend a morning Mass at the Catholic church down the block and the Greek Orthodox church is 4/5 empty. It's about the people and meeting them where they are, which doesn't mean behind robes and incense chanting in a language no one speaks.

Oh, sex. Hiya first! One more thought.

The priests are all over the gays, all over the divorced, all over masturbation, all over contraception, and all the time they were doing what exactly?

Raping children. That's what they were doing. And protecting men who raped children. If it's all about sex, as you claim...well....

In another post, you ask about why Pentecostals are so attractive. One of the reasons is because the service is so accessible. People are involved and on their feet rejoicing and participating, not sitting stoicly and listening to a priest.

Thank you, Daniel. If I never again have to sit and listen to a priest talk, it will be too soon.

That's interesting, Rod.

My former pastor frequently preached against abortion (devoting a whole month's worth of homilies to the subject), artificial contraception (even though people walked out of Mass!) gay marriage (eloquently explaining and defending the Church's position, I might add), and other moral issues including euthanasia.

He is a married former Episcopalian priest.

He is now the Chancellor of the Diocese where I live.

Susan, I'm not sure why you seem so hostile towards me on this point. I left the Catholic Church for much the same reason as you did! I'm not saying what they did was "OK," nor will you find Catholics on this thread who remain strongly Catholic saying it's OK. What I'm telling you is that even though the Catholic Church teaches all the things you say it does on paper, for very many Catholics you could go a lifetime barely, if ever, hearing those things taught in the parish. This, in fact, was part of the reason my family and I left -- I despaired of trying to raise children, much less grow myself in the faith, in a parish where the spiritual leadership ignored some pretty basic moral instruction. What use are the teachings if they're never incorporated into the living community?

Listen, I don't want to rehash the whole why-I-left thing. We know that story. I do want to say, though, that I think you're allowing your justified anger over the raped children and feckless clergy -- and you as a lawyer and I as a journalist have seen more details in this regard than most others, and it's a hard thing to live with -- to make sweeping, unfair generalizations about Catholics and Catholicism, comments that beg for a robust response from Erin, Cleveland and others. I'd really like to ratchet down the tone of this thread. We need more light, less heat.

Daniel, no sale. I know where you're going with this. Sure, churches in the south are well attended. Want to know why? Because there are far fewer of them than there are in the northeast and elsewhere. When I lived in NC (near Charlotte), our church was packed, but thats because people had to come from miles around. My church served the majority of the northern suburbs of Charlotte. Meanwhile, here in northern VA, from where I sit in my house, there are no fewer than 10 churches within about 5 miles of me. Probably more than are needed, to be fair, but the ones I've been to have been pretty well attended, and the Arlington Diocese is one of the more theologically conservative dioceses I've been to mass in.

Susan, I'm with Rod. The priests I've heard don't "rail" against people. They eloquently lay out the church's position on an issue, and they certainly do not "condemn without mercy" gay people. In fact, they don't even condemn them. They make it clear that God's love is for everyone, unconditionally, even if He doesn't always like what you do. But most of all, they pray for people. Rather than "rail" against abortion, the churches I've been to hold prayer vigils at abortion clinics.

My Uncle was a priest for 70 years - one of the longest serving in his diocese until he died this past April at 96. Every time I heard about misconduct by a priest, I thought of him, his love for God, his devotion to the Church, his tireless work throughout his life, and my faith in the Church was restored. His funeral was packed, and had to be rescheduled because the Archbishop was going to be out of the country and wanted to say the Funeral Mass. While I cheer on every attempt to vigorously prosecute any priest who harms children, I know from his example that there are so many good priests in the Church today.

Some great comments. I am not sure you will find that many priests throughout the country, I guess about 2 or 3 percent of them know the Latin along with the special rubrics for the mass.

It is a decision by Benedict that will pass as time goes on. . .we have always had the opportunity to celebrate the mass with the approval of the Bishop.

Good comments, Dan. Congrats to your family for having a great man doing the work of God for 70 years.

Smart, devout, ambitious Catholics — ecclesial young Republicans, home-schoolers, seminarians and other shock troops of the faith — will have their Mass. The rest of us — a lumpy assortment of cafeteria Catholics, guilty parents, peace-’n’-justice lefties, stubborn Vatican II die-hards — will have ours. We’ll have to prod our snoozing pewmates when to sit and stand; they’ll have to rein in their zealots.

K Street,

St. Catherine of Siena in Great Falls has a 10:30 Solemn High Latin Mass.

I understand St. Lawrence the Martyr in Alexandria also has one at 12:30. I found that on the Diocesan website though - can't seem to find a website for the church.

We can not have many Tridentine Masses with all the peripherals; with masses of people receiving Communion administered only by priests at Communion rails. Some parts may have to be modified.

However, I think this greater use of the Tridentine Mass will have something of a stabilizing force, especially with the general Liturgy of the Novus Ordo.

I understand much Latin but I do not think in Latin. I prefer the use of some Latin in the Novus Ordo.

However, the Tridentime Mass will be available in many places in the West and a few places in the 3rd world.

I remember services growing up. The presider prayed turned "towards the Lord" with the congregation. He read the Epistle and Gospel readings. There were no altar girls. Hymns were reverent and God-centered.

A Tridentine Mass? Nope. A worship service in a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church.

I also remember the mystic beauty of the Tridentine Mass that my Catholic Dad took me to as child. Eventually, I made his Catholic tradition my own.

Now that a Bishop's permission is not required to authorize the Tridentine Mass it will be interesting to see what happens down the road (I read somewhere that it is estimated it will take about ten years for the Tridentine to take root again). In our days of multiculturalism and exposure to other languages surely it isn't that difficult for someone to follow a Missal with side by side English and Latin? It will also be interesting to see how younger Catholics respond.

The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter has been training priests in the old Rite for some time.

Can we also stop referring to this as the "Latin Mass"? Mass can be and is celebrated in Latin all the time at many parishes. No special permission has ever been required to use Latin, because it's the "default" language for the western rite of the RC Church. The language has nothing to do with Pope Benedict's recent decision.

My parish, for example, already has a "Novus Ordo" sung Mass every Sunday which the priest celebrates ad orientem. That's unusual in practice in the US, but it's always been a perfectly legitimate way to say Mass, requiring no permissions from the bishop or anyone else.

This decree is about the 1962 Missal, to which many Catholics became attached in large part due to the incorrect and often idiotic ways in which the 1970 Missal was implemented. What the Pope is trying to achieve here isn't so much a broad revival of the 1962 Missal (to which most self-described "orthodox" or "traditional" Catholics are not especially attached), but rather two things:

(1) A more reverent celebration of the 1970 Missal by exposing more priests and lay people to the 1962 Mass (which leaves no room for liturgical silliness).

and

(2) Hammering the final nail into the coffin of "discontinuity theory" - the belief that Vatican II made some sort of definitive rupture in the history of the Church. That attitude, ironically, is shared by both the remaining gray haired dinosaurs of the ultra-left and the radical traditionalists of the Society of St. Pius X. Neither of those groups amounts to much numerically, but both punch above their weight in public discourse. The pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI have both been largely about understanding Vatican II correctly, in the context of the entire history and tradition of the Church.

The Protestant mainstream is losing far more people than the Catholic church.

Again, the only significant growth in the Catholic church is fueled by the influx of immigrants (Latino and Asian). When you take away the booming immigrant influx, the church would be seeing losses similar to those of the Mainline churches.

And the Mainline churches have seen their drops stabilize in the last few years to levels similar to losses in conservative and orthodox churches.

Daniel,Christine,

Many Catholic people are resigned to a smaller Church.

There are positives and there are negatives. One positive is a constant steady stream of "higher-end" theology minded Protestant Evangelicals entering the church, or Crossing the Tiber. A negative is many people leave for assorted reasons, family problems, divorce, attraction to Protestant Pentecostalism, megachurch, etc.

Taken from the Catholic News Service site, posted on 4/26/07:

. . .

Total membership in U.S. Christian churches continued to rise in 2005, despite ongoing declines in some of the country's largest mainline Protestant churches, according to the 2007 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches.

Because it relies on data collected by the church bodies, the 2007 yearbook covers 2005 data gathered by the churches in 2006. The yearbook reports what year the figures come from, since not all churches collect new data every year.

The Catholic Church remained the largest Christian church in the U.S. in 2005 with a reported membership of 69,135,254, or nearly 42 percent of all Christian church membership.

With an increase of 1.94 percent over its previous year's total, the Catholic Church was also among the fastest-growing of the nation's 25 largest churches, followed closely by the Assemblies of God, which recorded 1.86 percent growth, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with 1.63 percent growth.

. . .

Between the 1997 and 2007 yearbooks, the recorded change in Catholic population was from 60.3 million to 69.1 million, or an increase of 15 percent. The Assemblies of God recorded growth of nearly 19 percent in that decade, and the Latter-day Saints grew by nearly 21 percent.

Six mainline Protestant bodies among the 25 largest churches showed losses in membership in 2005. The United Church of Christ was down 3.28 percent; the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 2.84 percent; American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., 1.97 percent; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1.62 percent; Episcopal Church, 1.59 percent; and United Methodist Church, 1.36 percent.

Three of these, the Episcopalians, Presbyterians and United Church of Christ, lost more than 10 percent of their membership between 1995 and 2005.

As in other recent years, overall seminary enrollment in the United States and Canada grew, reaching 81,302 in 2005. That was only 529 more than the previous year, however - less than the average growth of about 2,000 a year over the previous seven years.

Enrollment declined slightly in Canada, from 7,036 to 6,950. In the United States it grew from 73,737 to 74,352.

Again, how much of that growth is solely attributed to immigrants. Also, there are problems with yearbook data because it is all self-reporting. The OCA, for instance, showed the same 1M membership for over a decade, only once showing a loss. That's incomprehensible that a church would have exactly 1M members for over a decade.

Daniel, again according to America at present American Catholic Church membership in the 50 states and the District of Columbia is about 31 percent Hispanic. That is a considerable number, but then the Church in America began as an immigrant church and ironically the first Christian worship service held in a permanent settlement in the current United States was a Catholic Mass celebrated in St. Augustine by Spanish Catholics. Perhaps history is repeating itself.

The article also states, in opposition to Starke and Finke's analysis, that

Current Catholic membership and sacramental participation data, however, conflict with the notion that American Catholic religious behavior resembles the patterns of mainline denominations. The Catholic population increases at about the rate that baptisms exceed funerals. Catholic families participate in first Communion at the impressive rate of 85 percent and confirmation at 59 percent. Catholic weddings recorded in the Official Catholic Directory closely parallel first marriages in the total population. Much of the Catholic Church population growth has occurred in tandem with Hispanic increases. For all of the post-Vatican II turmoil, American Catholicism still seems to present sufficient challenges to involve members in core religious activities.

So it involves more than just statistics in the yearbook.

And if Hispanics do become the majority of American Catholics it will provide some interesting sociological influences. At least at this time they still value family life (and children) very highly and by that norm alone will outnumber denominations such as the Episcopal church that have a much lower birthrate.

The main point of the America article is that Catholics are still a viable presence in the religious life of the U.S.

Since the projection for Latinos in CA is greater than 50% and Anglos at about 28% in 2050, it just might be that the Anglo Catholic population is dying out. Literally.

Dan, you say: "They eloquently lay out the church's position on an issue, and they certainly do not "condemn without mercy" gay people. In fact, they don't even condemn them."

I don't know what church you are part of, but I am used to hearing and reading "Objectively Disordered," "Gay Marriage Is Part of the Culture of Death" or
"Gay Parents Who Adopt Commit Violence Against Their Children".

As a gay Catholic of 43 who has struggled mightily with my beliefs and my faith, I find your statement very surprising. But then again, you're not gay, so you're not going to feel these cut you to the quick the way I do, so since you do not live this issue on a daily basis as I do, it cannot feel very present to you, no doubt.

What I have to say on this subject is two-fold:

(1) The Church believes that celibacy and a life alone is a gift God gives to a few of the heterosexually inclined but is mandated at the risk of hellfire for its homosexually-inclined children. The Church believes gays can lead meaningful Christian lives if they practice celibacy. Yet the Church offers NOTHING in the way of support for these children when they most need it in their teen years/young adulthood, and worse creates a climate of fear and silence that prevents all but the strongest of those children from asking for help. My story: when I was having my first erotic dreams in adolescence and would awake in horror and shame, I knew of no where to go. There was no visible ministry; all I got in confession (after a couple years of screwing up my courage to confront the issue) was "it's a phase; go find a nice girl to marry".

In 20 years, I don't think anything has really changed. Does anyone believe the Bishops would ever advertize a program like Courage (http://couragerc.org/) so that all parish teenagers knew of its existence? And if they are, I would really appreciate hearing about it.

(2) I wish every straight man who inveighs on the sanctity of marriage, smugly wishes there was more teaching on the evils of homosexuality and emphasis on traditional sexual morality, and confidently plays back the Catechism of the Church as though it is this simple matter of choice, right and wrong, ... well, I wish you could spend a day in my shoes. It is not fun being public enemy #1, let me tell you. Many of you may scoff at the dramatics there, but again, you don't live it, do you?

I'm not asking for sympathy or support or approval. But, boy, it would be nice to see a little reflection, uncertainty and empathy.

Where are the mainline churches that do that, aside from the evangelical outposts within mainline denominations

You are comparing apples and oranges. Even Truro isn't having 4-6 packed services a day--for that matter I'm not even sure McLean Bible has that many services a day--because of the economies of how Catholic parishes are organized compared to Protestants. And there are several Episcopal churches in Northern Virginia larger than the Falls Church. Even with the dissenters (which with the exception of Truro and Falls Church are primarily tiny mission churches with memberships of less than 100), they are a fraction of 1 percent of all Episcopal churches.

but their congregations are large and growing, unlike the rest of TEC.

Actually, they are the exception and not the rule. There are many TEC churches that are growing and, in general, membership is relatively stable in the TEC over the last couple of years, although long-term losses have been significant (as they have for almost all U.S. chuches outside of the Pentecostal/Evangelical world and the immigrant fueled Catholic growth). The TEC attracts disaffected Catholics and many unchurched people who are attracted to the social justice emphasis of the denomination.

Dissident churches tend to be small and fairly stagnant. Truro and the Falls Church are not at all reflective of the TEC dissident movement, which has to be funded by outsiders and non-Anglicans because most of the churches are small and poor.

Daniel, even controlling for he effect of immigrants (who are often not counted by the Catholic Church because they do not register as parishioners), it is just absurd to suggest that the Catholic Church has experienced anything remotely like the wholesale collapse of TEC and other mainline denominations.

Perhaps you are right that TEC "over the last couple of years" has been "relatively stable" (and how exactly does "relatively stable" differ from your description of orthodox/evangelical Episcopal parishes as "fairly stagnant"?). But frankly, it's hard to imagine any disinterested observer concluding that TEC in the long term is in anything other than a death spiral. It's kept afloat more by long term endowments and pension plans than by any widespread appeal of its social justice emphasis.

Susan,

I respect the fact that your anger at the Catholic Church stems from your experience and from what you've seen, as was the case with Rod. I'm sure that a journalist and a lawyer are in a position to see many things that the rest of us don't.

But while I respect the fact that your experience is your experience, many of us have a very different experience. I can honestly say -- as a lifelong Catholic, and an altar for several years when I was younger -- that I do not know anyone who, to my knowledge, was abused by a priest. No one. And I think most ordinary Catholics in the pews can say the same.

You said:

The priests are all over the gays, all over the divorced, all over masturbation, all over contraception, and all the time they were doing what exactly?

Raping children. That's what they were doing. And protecting men who raped children.

No, the priests were not doing these things. Some priests -- a relatively small number -- were doing these things. As for the complicity of so many of the bishops in covering these things up, well, I'm going to make any defense of that.

Nor do I defend the actions of some priests. But you run the risk of slandering a great many good, decent, and saintly men by your blanket assertion that the priests were doing these things.

Again, I respect the fact that your experience is what it has been. And I am certainly not defending the actions of the abusers and their enablers. And I admit that, since I do not have children I am perhaps less sensitive to these issues than others are. But please understand that for many of us, our personal experience with our priests has been very different, and we can only go with the experience we've had.

God bless you and your family!

***

ChicagoCatholic:

Rather, the reverance of the Mass is dictated by the reverance for the Mass the priest saying it has. And judging by the priests I've seen offering the Novo Ordo Mass, my guess is that if they offer the Tridentine Mass merely to please this or that constituency, it will more than likely be said in the listless way most Novo Ordo Masses are said today.

To add to what Dan said above, I don't think this will be too much of a problem. The traditional Mass is difficult to learn to say, not only because of the Latin but also because of its precise and detailed rubrics. I don't think priests will make the effort to learn to say it unless they really want do. And the rubrics deliberately undermine the individuality of the priest, and turn him into a "celebrant" performing a liturgical role, in a number of ways: a fixed text in a non-vernacular liturgical language, to discourage ad-libbing and self-satisfied bloviating; actions prescribed in specific, minute detail, again leaving little to the discretion or inventiveness of the celebrant; even the fact that the priest does not face the congregation, which further depersonalizes him. Priests who are accustomed to taking a "Hi, I'm Fr. Bob!" approach to the Mass will most likely find the traditional Mass very uncongenial.

I think that the congregations at most traditional Masses offered under the Motu Proprio will have a core of regulars who know the Mass well and will police it. In addition, the Fraternity of St. Peter and other traditional societies will be active in training priests to say it.

One parish priest of my acquaintance has already started rehearsing!

"For all it's problems, the Catholic Church hasn't experienced anything like that."

Largely because of immigrants. Were it not for Latinos and Asians, the Catholic church would be in the same boat. It would look like the Catholic church in Europe.

I agree that the Mainline denominations have had huge declines--although I think the case for the TEC is slightly overblown--and it is a major social change. My point is merely that white Catholics should pray to the Virgin of Guadalope and the Holy Martyrs of Vietnam everyday, because the Episcopal story could easily be the Catholic story were it not for immigrants. It already is in Europe.

Simon, I don't agree, but I see your point. I think you dramatically overstate the situation with the TEC and other Mainline churches and underestimate the impact on the U.S. Catholic church, but we will just have to disagree.

No, the priests were not doing these things. Some priests -- a relatively small number -- were doing these things. As for the complicity of so many of the bishops in covering these things up, well, I'm going to make any defense of that.

I'll second that.

Meanwhile, reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer this morning:

"Preacher sent to prison for raping 2 girls." A married Baptist preacher is going to jail for raping his stepdaughter and another pre-teen girl. One victim is deaf and was 12 years old at the time of the occurrence. The minister pleaded guilty to charges of rape, kidnapping and gross sexual imposition.

So, are all Baptist preachers pedophiles ? I hardly think so.

Again, regarding the Episcopal church, John Dart of The Christian Century reported in November of 2006 that the Episcopal Church has suffered precipitous declines. "The Episcopal Church, whose active membership has slipped to 2,205,376, has built-in deterrents to growth because Episcopalians have the lowest birth rate among U.S. Christians and nearly 60 percent of the people in the pews are over 50, said Kirk Hadaway, the denomination's director of research."

Rev. William Coats of the Episcopal Church also agrees that it has seen a dramatic loss of membership over the past 35 years. In 1965 the ECUSA counted a baptized membership of 3,615,000. It has since lost over 1,400,000 members.

Right up there with the United Church of Christ which has also suffered a large membership loss.

Rev. Coats also agreed that Episcopalians did not pay enough attention to the changing ethnic milieu of the U.S., especially with regards to Hispanics and Asians and got complacent that it's Anglo/Northern European base in the U.S. would replicate itself. That, obviously, didn't happen.

Please reread my post. I agreed with the poster that there is no defense for how the bishops handled the abuses. None whatsoever.

My main point, which I failed to make, was that the abuses are so often blamed on the celibacy factor in the Latin Church. The fact is, the highest percentage of abuse is committed by married men (and sadly, it seems, women -- there's been a couple of stories circulating (not rumors -- documented fact) of married female schoolteachers having relations with underage boys.)