From Standpoint
By Damian Thompson
‘In the US, levels of religiosity are traditionally high. But Americans aren’t somehow hard-wired to preserve their faith in a high-tech world. They are just behind the curve’
In 1959, Lou
Groen, president of the Cincinnati Restaurant Association, opened the
first branch of McDonald’s in the area. Immediately he ran into a
problem: sales of hamburgers dropped sharply every Friday. That was
because the restaurant was in Montfort Heights, a suburb full of
Catholics. Sixty years ago, no Mass-goer would have dreamt of eating
meat on Fridays. So Groen, himself a practising Catholic, approached Ray
Kroc, the control-freak founder of the McDonald’s franchise, who flew
into a rage if unused ketchup sachets were thrown away and spent his
last years spying on his local McDonald’s with a telescope.
Groen suggested that his branch should
sell a non-meat sandwich, with fish instead of beef in the middle. That
was a brave thing to do. Old Ray had an almost religious devotion to
McDonald’s hamburgers, finding “grace in the texture and softly curved
silhouette of a bun”. He didn’t want “my stores stunk up with the smell
of fish”, but he agreed to an experiment. On Good Friday, 1962, Groen
sold his fish sandwich alongside an alternative of Kroc’s own devising:
the Hula Burger, which substituted a slice of pineapple for the beef.
The Catholics of Montfort Heights chose fish over pineapple by an
enormous margin. And so the Filet-O-Fish was born, and survives
today—unlike the Hula Burger, which Kroc launched nationally and then
had to kill off quietly.
I knew nothing about the Filet-O-Fish’s Catholic origins until I read Stephen Bullivant’s Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican II.
This is an academic study of the catastrophic decline in Catholic
churchgoing on both sides of the Atlantic since the 1960s; it is full of
statistics, illustrated by tables and qualified by caveats about their
reliability. And quite right, too.
The business of sifting through the
evidence can’t be skipped, curtailed or conducted in footnotes. Mass Exodus
is the social scientific equivalent of a procedural crime novel.
Bullivant, a theologian and philosopher by training, is trying to find
out who or what has killed the faith of two out of five British and
American Catholics. His meticulous methodology is essential to the plot.
Without it, he couldn’t get away with his shocking conclusion—shocking,
that is, coming from a highly regarded young professor at the closest
thing Britain has to an official Catholic university, St Mary’s in
Twickenham (chancellor: Cardinal Vincent Nichols).
Right at the end,
Bullivant points an accusing finger at the Second Vatican Council
(1962-5), the gigantic global reform of Church teaching and liturgy that
the Catholic establishment has pretty much elevated to the status of
Fourth Person in the Holy Trinity.
He doesn’t, of course, say that
Mass-going would have been unaffected if Pope, now Saint, John XXIII
hadn’t convened the Council, most of which happened under the anxious
gaze of his successor, now St Paul VI. (These days saint-making operates
like the honours system; an ex-pope has to mess up pretty badly to miss
out on his afterlife peerage). Secularisation has eroded established
denominations throughout Europe in much the same way.
Attendance at
mainstream Protestant churches has fallen off a cliff since the 1980s.
Whether this is despite, or because of, their frantic liberalisation is
hard to say: people aren’t particularly fussy about the type of service
they stop going to.
In the United States, levels of
religiosity are traditionally high. But that doesn’t mean that Americans
are somehow hard-wired to preserve their faith in the high-tech world
they have created for us. They are just behind the curve. As the culture
of the red states withers, so will Sunday churchgoing (about which
Americans in any case have a habit of lying to researchers—try counting
the number of cars in the church parking lot rather than relying on
self-reported figures). Bullivant gives us one interesting piece of
information to support this thesis. Catholics in the different regions
of the United States “disaffiliate” (that is, consciously leave the
Church as opposed to lazily lapsing) at roughly the same levels. But in
the urban north-east, which most closely resembles Europe, ex-Catholics
are far more likely to become what he calls “nonverts”, converts to
staying in bed on Sunday mornings. In the rest of the US, by contrast,
they tend to join lively Evangelical denominations. If the secular
liberalism of New York continues to creep across the continent, as it
will, then European-style unbelief will become the norm.
Sociologists of religion such as the
late, great Peter Berger were arguing something like this back in the
1960s. But they focused disproportionately on Protestants. The Catholic
Church remained sui generis despite ditching Latin: Rome
possessed a unique structure of authority. But everything changed with
Vatican II, an Ecumenical Council that imposed four radically new
“constitutions” on Catholics, relating to the sacred liturgy, dogma,
divine revelation and relations with the world. The Church’s teaching
that its doctrine never changes, merely “develops”, became hard to
sustain, despite Paul VI’s defence of transubstantiation and his
decision to set in stone the traditional ban on artificial birth
control. All this was terribly confusing. Wiser scholars, listening to
the rhetoric from both supporters and opponents of Vatican II, suspended
judgment.
Stephen Bullivant, born two decades after
the Council began, has no such inhibitions. He understands the process
of disaffiliation from British Catholicism better than any other social
scientist. Mass Exodus draws on his own rigorous fieldwork in the
diocese of Portsmouth, made possible by Bishop Philip Egan, one of the
few bishops of England and Wales who doesn’t instantly genuflect at the
mention of Vatican II. Bullivant is also an expert in the demographics
of American Catholicism. He’s struck by the differences, but even more
by the unarguable fact that the Church in both countries is in
catastrophic decline.
In Britain, he writes, “nearly half of
all born-and-raised Catholics no longer consider themselves to be
Catholic; the vast majority of these—almost two out of every five
British cradle Catholics—claim to have ‘‘no religion’’. These leavers from
Catholicism outnumber converts to Catholicism by a ratio of ten to
one.” (Like most sociologists, he italicises compulsively.) In the US,
Pew research suggests that “two in every five born-and-raised Catholics
no longer identify as such; around half of these—i.e., one in five of
all cradle Catholics—are now religious “nones”. There is roughly one
convert for every seven who leave.” Why? Bullivant does not play down
the sex scandals, but disaffiliation was already thriving before the
headlines hit. His basic thesis is rooted in the fundamentals of the
sociology of religion.
I found it entirely satisfying, and not
just intellectually. Finally a British scholar has used statistics to
determine the scale of the wreckage of the Catholic Church in the West
since Vatican II. Ironically, the Catholic establishment, appreciating
the non-polemical tone of Mass Exodus, have welcomed the book. I
can only assume that they didn’t make it as far as the Epilogue,
entitled “Did the Council fail?” Bullivant doesn’t spell it out, but
even a cursory reading between the lines, well within the capabilities
of the dimmest English bishop, reveals a one-word answer: yes.
Let’s go back to the Filet-O-Fish,
described by one food writer as “that strange but satisfying snack”.
McDonald’s was forced to introduce it in 1962, the year the Council
began, because Catholics everywhere lived in what Peter Berger called a
“plausibility structure”. This is shorthand for the network of people,
institutions and practices that make it easy for individuals to “believe
as many as six impossible things before breakfast”. That was literally
true for Catholics, who were forbidden to eat until after Sunday Mass.
After Vatican II that ban was swept away, along with meatless Fridays.
Indeed, a whole spiritual universe of traditional devotions was put out
of reach by “reforming” bishops.
Bullivant nails it when he says that
Catholic devotionalism was pitted against “authentic liturgical
participation” in a kind of zero-sum game that favoured the literate
middle class: “More physical and material ways of practising one’s
faith, such as lighting candles or (the bête noire of liturgical
progressives) praying the rosary during Mass, were increasingly replaced
by the verbal and cerebral.” Soon afterwards, Catholics stopped going
to Mass—for many reasons, but the sudden loss of strange but satisfying
traditional devotions must have been a factor. Meanwhile, another plank
of the plausibility structure disappeared. The Council did not dismantle
the authority of the Church, but it permitted its fragmentation. By the
time Humanae Vitae banned contraception in 1968, vast numbers of
bishops and priests had been emboldened by the “spirit of Vatican II”
to advise Catholics to ignore the encyclical. Which they did.
Bullivant, a convert to Catholicism,
believes that much of this damage can be repaired, but he is saving his
arguments for another book. I’ll be surprised if it convinces me, if
only because Mass Exodus is so effective at breaking bad news; it
is the finest work of religious sociology to appear in Britain since
1984, when Eileen Barker’s The Making of a Moonie killed off the
academic myth of brainwashing. The myth of Vatican II, alas, seems more
indestructible than the Catholic Church itself, which since 2013 has
acquired the extra handicap of Pope Francis, a Supreme Pontiff who is
determined to fragment every authority except his own and whose
pronouncements are about as spiritually nourishing as a Hula Burger. But
that is another story. Perhaps Stephen Bullivant will write it one day.
Mass Exodus: Catholic Disaffiliation in Britain and America since Vatican IIBy Stephen BullivantOxford, 336pp
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.