a catholic "megachurch" (or what happens you merge 6 parishes)
#11
(01-02-2011, 03:15 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 01:59 AM)dark lancer Wrote: I remember how many American Catholics were immigrant children working in mills and on farms and that usually the priest was often the only educated individual in their lives; then I realize that most American Catholics throughout the 20th century simply did not have the time, education, or financial resources to acquire a spiffy Catholic education enough to be aware of the problems that the Church of the 20th century had.

My social history education didn't make me any money, but it gave me the necessary lenses to consider things people often forget.

Uneducated people for centuries transmitted the Faith.  The home is the domestic Church.

The social atmosphere in terms of ability to transfer the Faith was not unique to America.  Heck, look at Europe - they've done a far worse job, too! 

And, I think most American Catholics could and did send their children to spiffy Catholic schools, because they all put their time and money in, and parish schools were (and, mostly, still are) financed by the parish, with very low tuitions.

This could not have been the case in my diocese, and I'm sure it was no different in others.  Even with a cursory examination of local conditions for the past hundred years it's quite obvious that many Catholics did not have the academic or financial resources that the well-to-do Catholics with access to Catholic education and fewer than 12 hour workdays had.  It is their fortune that most of their lives were not spent in toil for pennies that they could raise up their children as traddy Catholics.
Reply
#12
(01-02-2011, 03:28 AM)dark lancer Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 03:15 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 01:59 AM)dark lancer Wrote: I remember how many American Catholics were immigrant children working in mills and on farms and that usually the priest was often the only educated individual in their lives; then I realize that most American Catholics throughout the 20th century simply did not have the time, education, or financial resources to acquire a spiffy Catholic education enough to be aware of the problems that the Church of the 20th century had.

My social history education didn't make me any money, but it gave me the necessary lenses to consider things people often forget.

Uneducated people for centuries transmitted the Faith.  The home is the domestic Church.

The social atmosphere in terms of ability to transfer the Faith was not unique to America.  Heck, look at Europe - they've done a far worse job, too! 

And, I think most American Catholics could and did send their children to spiffy Catholic schools, because they all put their time and money in, and parish schools were (and, mostly, still are) financed by the parish, with very low tuitions.

This could not have been the case in my diocese, and I'm sure it was no different in others.  Even with a cursory examination of local conditions for the past hundred years it's quite obvious that many Catholics did not have the academic or financial resources that the well-to-do Catholics with access to Catholic education and fewer than 12 hour workdays had.  It is their fortune that most of their lives were not spent in toil for pennies that they could raise up their children as traddy Catholics.

Teaching sisters filled most of the parish teacher staff.  And, again, the parishes, when people actually gave money to the Church, financed most of the tuition, with free or little tuition charged.

This was a good book, even though the author starts to get all biased in the 1960s+ time period.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Catholic-Sinners-Americas-Powerful/dp/0679742212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293954195&sr=8-1
Reply
#13
(01-02-2011, 03:45 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 03:28 AM)dark lancer Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 03:15 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 01:59 AM)dark lancer Wrote: I remember how many American Catholics were immigrant children working in mills and on farms and that usually the priest was often the only educated individual in their lives; then I realize that most American Catholics throughout the 20th century simply did not have the time, education, or financial resources to acquire a spiffy Catholic education enough to be aware of the problems that the Church of the 20th century had.

My social history education didn't make me any money, but it gave me the necessary lenses to consider things people often forget.

Uneducated people for centuries transmitted the Faith.  The home is the domestic Church.

The social atmosphere in terms of ability to transfer the Faith was not unique to America.  Heck, look at Europe - they've done a far worse job, too! 

And, I think most American Catholics could and did send their children to spiffy Catholic schools, because they all put their time and money in, and parish schools were (and, mostly, still are) financed by the parish, with very low tuitions.

This could not have been the case in my diocese, and I'm sure it was no different in others.  Even with a cursory examination of local conditions for the past hundred years it's quite obvious that many Catholics did not have the academic or financial resources that the well-to-do Catholics with access to Catholic education and fewer than 12 hour workdays had.  It is their fortune that most of their lives were not spent in toil for pennies that they could raise up their children as traddy Catholics.

Teaching sisters filled most of the parish teacher staff.  And, again, the parishes, when people actually gave money to the Church, financed most of the tuition, with free or little tuition charged.

This was a good book, even though the author starts to get all biased in the 1960s+ time period.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Catholic-Sinners-Americas-Powerful/dp/0679742212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293954195&sr=8-1

"[Morris'] interpretation of the Church's decisions and teachings are tainted by his own prejudices. For instance, he is opposed to traditional teachings on a celibate male priesthood, so he tells us why the church is so stupid to uphold that belief. The same hold true for artificial birth control, women's ordination etc. To him the old white men in Rome are simply stupid and out of touch."
Reply
#14
(01-02-2011, 04:23 AM)dark lancer Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 03:45 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 03:28 AM)dark lancer Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 03:15 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 01:59 AM)dark lancer Wrote: I remember how many American Catholics were immigrant children working in mills and on farms and that usually the priest was often the only educated individual in their lives; then I realize that most American Catholics throughout the 20th century simply did not have the time, education, or financial resources to acquire a spiffy Catholic education enough to be aware of the problems that the Church of the 20th century had.

My social history education didn't make me any money, but it gave me the necessary lenses to consider things people often forget.

Uneducated people for centuries transmitted the Faith.  The home is the domestic Church.

The social atmosphere in terms of ability to transfer the Faith was not unique to America.  Heck, look at Europe - they've done a far worse job, too! 

And, I think most American Catholics could and did send their children to spiffy Catholic schools, because they all put their time and money in, and parish schools were (and, mostly, still are) financed by the parish, with very low tuitions.

This could not have been the case in my diocese, and I'm sure it was no different in others.  Even with a cursory examination of local conditions for the past hundred years it's quite obvious that many Catholics did not have the academic or financial resources that the well-to-do Catholics with access to Catholic education and fewer than 12 hour workdays had.  It is their fortune that most of their lives were not spent in toil for pennies that they could raise up their children as traddy Catholics.

Teaching sisters filled most of the parish teacher staff.  And, again, the parishes, when people actually gave money to the Church, financed most of the tuition, with free or little tuition charged.

This was a good book, even though the author starts to get all biased in the 1960s+ time period.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Catholic-Sinners-Americas-Powerful/dp/0679742212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293954195&sr=8-1

"[Morris'] interpretation of the Church's decisions and teachings are tainted by his own prejudices. For instance, he is opposed to traditional teachings on a celibate male priesthood, so he tells us why the church is so stupid to uphold that belief. The same hold true for artificial birth control, women's ordination etc. To him the old white men in Rome are simply stupid and out of touch."

As I said in my post, it is a good history book.  He starts to get uppity in the time period of the 1960s onward.
Reply
#15
(01-02-2011, 03:45 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: Teaching sisters filled most of the parish teacher staff.  And, again, the parishes, when people actually gave money to the Church, financed most of the tuition, with free or little tuition charged.

Get rid of the teaching sisters.

Free tuition in the United States sounds doubtful in even the best of dioceses, but I confess I'm not well-read on the history of the American parochial school system.
Reply
#16
(01-02-2011, 08:03 AM)verenaerin Wrote:She explained that your whole social life was your parish. They had dances for the teens. Father/ daughter holy communion breakfasts. Mother/ daughter lunches. Tons of groups- solidarities, pot lucks, something I think called the Catholic Youth League. And you never went to another church. She grew up in Queens, in a working class area. Nobody had lots of money, all one income, with lots of kids.

It would be nice to go back to the model of relying on one's local parish for all your needs and respecting each one's territorial boundaries (there are actually maps that demarcate this stuff). But alas, church shopping is a necessary evil.

Quote:Nuns taught her the whole way through. They were amazing. The only reason she has her faith and could pass it on to us was because of their superior teaching. (Oh wait, I thought women weren't allowed to teach- other thread). They didn't get a salary of health insurance, like it is today. There vocation was their life. It made things very cheep. The parish financed everything, because people always gave big bucks. I am sure the cost of living was less comparitively. In 12 years of education, my mother was the only kid with divorced parents. She lived with her mother, they owned a house, and never had a problem affording school.

Nothing that men couldn't do better, whether they're priests, deacons, minor orders, brothers or lay instructors. Teachers of religious education should be considered in that order before hiring wimmins. It's not absolutely forbidden for women to teach religion in all circumstances, but there's something to be said for the spirit of the law; that is, that Christianity is patriarchal. The history of employing religious sisters to teach religion, much less be the staple of a school's religious education, is relatively modern. Besides, women have a habit of turning religion in general to mush, and no amount of pre-Vatican II stories about ruler-thumping nuns will change human nature.

Quote:If I sent my daughter to Kindergarten, it would cost me 2500/year. In 2 years when the other two were in school, It would be 5000 for elementary school each and 2500 for the little one. So in one year it would cost almost 13000. That is more then a 5th of our income- not including uniforms and all the stupid fundraisers. Things were a lot different back then cost wise, it had to be.

I'm sure it was cheaper. I was just saying that "free" stretches my imagination quite a bit.
Reply
#17
On the subject of teaching sisters in particular....... a book called "The Forgotten Contribution of the Teaching Sisters: A Historiographical Essay on the Educational Work of Catholic Women Religious in the 19th and 20th Centuries" suggests that the use of teaching sisters began in France after the Napoleonic regime, to fill a gap left by the absence of male teachers. At the start, they were used primarily to teach girls of middle-class backgrounds, not both sexes.

The female teaching orders then expanded to something resembling the "Bells of St. Mary's" version at the turn of the 20th century.
Reply
#18
(01-02-2011, 02:17 AM)dark lancer Wrote: My point is not what was invested in the construction of such churches, but rather that many Catholics were more unprepared to resist the tide of Vatican II than many present-day trads would have you believe.

You make a fair point, but disregard how they became unprepared.  Because they put other things in front of Christ.  It's the root of the problem, not the result of the problem.
Reply
#19
They just had a story on the news about a Church closing in Biddeford Maine and of course it's a beautiful traditional looking Church...why is it that it's always the most beautiful, traditional looking Church's are the ones that get closed, but those ugly modern(ist) buildings are kept open.

I am with the person who said if I were one of the family members who donated windows and pews to the Church's I would want them back and I would consider suing the diocese to get it back. If more people threatened to sue the diocese over this then they could stop some of these Church's from closing.

Although, one thing I will say is in some ways I don't feel bad for them...they showed the last Mass of this Church and it was filled with people...maybe if these people had gone to Church every week and the Church was filled every week then their Church wouldn't be closed.

Reply
#20
(01-02-2011, 10:59 AM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(01-02-2011, 02:17 AM)dark lancer Wrote: My point is not what was invested in the construction of such churches, but rather that many Catholics were more unprepared to resist the tide of Vatican II than many present-day trads would have you believe.

You make a fair point, but disregard how they became unprepared.  Because they put other things in front of Christ.  It's the root of the problem, not the result of the problem.

No, you wrongly assume that every American Catholic had equal opportunity throughout the 20th century.

The typical 8th grade educated Catholic rural mill worker did not have access to formal religious education outside of Mass and CCD and likely worked 12-16 hour shifts for most or all of their week.  This was the situation in much of my part of the state which, until about 20 years ago, was a densely populated, major textile producer in a mostly rural area.  My diocese did not have Catholic schools until the 70s, when the diocese was bankrupted by the establishment of so many new Catholic schools all at once.

The thing is, most modern trads seem to assume that every diocese was established fully overnight and every Catholic immigrant community had a priest and a legion of nuns serving them, and that the people who accepted the NO were overripe hippies waiting to burst out of their shells and introduce liturgical dance and rock 'n roll music to Mass.

Considering that the popularization of social history did not start until around the time that Lefebvre was getting ready to disobey God and the papacy, it's not a surprise that the history of the Catholic masses is so quickly and conveniently forgotten by people who are [still] convinced that most Catholics were properly educated and wealthy enough to have had the necessary education but chose that they'd rather have clowns at their Masses, and got what they wanted with Vatican II.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)