www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Byzan. Population Drops Significantly?

I know many examples of both cases. Many I know are not attending any Church. But many are also attending Roman parishes.

When we spend decades imitating the Romans, the subtle message to our young people was, "the Romans are superior, that is why we imitate them." "Their way is better, so let's do things the way they do."

Is not the obvious conclusion, that if their way is better, it is better simply to join them?

I agree with the administrator about that train of thought getting old and if people were to leave our church, for whatever reason, I don't see anything wrong with them going to an orthodox church, with whom they have more in common theologically, liturgically, spiritually and historically.

Others have correctly pointed out that the population of people in Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics was incorrectly reported during much of the second half of the last century. The declines occurred for many reasons and these reasons have been discussed at great length on this Forum. The reasons appear to have more to do with assimilation in the North American culture than they do with matters of faith.

Sadly, there have been statistically similar declines in all Byzantine jurisdictions � both Catholic and Orthodox.

Joe,
A change in counting schemes does not implicate "enronitis". The last time this point was discussed (starting ~pg. 6 of the linked thread), you seemed to get the point - by pg. 12 anyway.

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=002262;p=6

There was a big jump in the Van Nuys and Parma numbers 1990 vs. 1999; since then, they have dropped very little. On the other hand, in Pittsburgh and Passaic, in addition to a sudden drop between 1990 and 1999, there is a continuing rapid decline. The numbers seem too big to make much sense, taken at face value: ~50 people/parish/year in Pittsburgh and ~100 ppppy in Passiac. This weird data makes anyextrapolation dangerous, but: if I fit the overall trend to an exponetial decay with offset, it looks like we drop to ~80,000 over the next several years before leveling off.

Most migration to Latin-rite accompanies inter-marriage, and re-location to areas that have very few EC's. And sometimes for the sake of being in a larger parish with a larger menu of programs and activites. I think the Catholic first mentalily facilitated this drift. But the idea of a subtle message of Roman superiority being sent has always struck me as totally baseless.

djs,

I'm not a quick wit like you. Nor did I never claim that consistency was the issue. If the numbers were purposely inflated (~500,000+ in the early part of the 20th century per the Catholic Directory) to get our own Metropolia, then I would consider it a form of Enronitis. I never trust those who grade their own papers.

Or course you are.
By the way, it's nice to see you posting again.

John,

Thank you. :rolleyes:

Dan L

Not for long. I start schrool tomorrow. Need a few more classes to sit for the CPA. The people at the school were nice. When I applied, I got confirmation in two days on the FIRST application. When I had a question, I got prompt answers (they even called me on the phone!). When I asked for guidance, they sent me in the right direction. No misleadings. No lies. No denials. Just plain professional courtesy and integrity. I think I will like my new direction in life. A fine buch of people to hang around with, ya know. They know the meaning of fiduciary duty and responsibility. And a fine institution to look up to.

God bless,
Joe

My original post was intended to simply state a fact so the abundant speculation over the dramatic number changes could subside. Unfortunately, it seems that some have used that information to speak negatively of the leadership of the past. We, these many years later, are not in a position to judge the motives or intentions of others in making their decisions. I am positive that the previous hierarchs did what they felt to be the right thing at the time and had only the good of the church in mind. Leadership involves making decisions. Sometimes history will prove them to be good ones and sometimes not so good. But I sincerely believe that most decisions are made with a view to the good and this is what we always need to be mindful of in looking at the actions of any person in a position of leadership.

MJ,

Please forgive me, my friend, but your post reminds me of that one short-lived argument that came up immediately after the Enron scandal broke and before their stock price plummeted. Tell the former employees of Enron that previously overstated numbers was the "right thing" done by management.

But, of course, the financial world is regulated in many areas and people go to jail for cooking the books. The Church is not. Nobody immediately benefits from overstated population statistics, however useless and meaningless they are, and there is no regulatory body present overseeing such a simple technique as headcounting (the conventional method goes like this: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...). So, the Church can state whatever numbers suits its needs at the time. I only wish I can do that on my IRS tax returns. Wouldn't that be grand?

If an overstated number was used to earn a Metropolia, and this was one theory (or speculation) proposed, then good for them. It was attained. But what does that mean if Rome runs the show anyway? There is an old saying in finance: One doesn't really have to have >50% ownership to run the show; One only has to invest 1% effort in financing and/or licensing it. Owning something doesn't necessarily mean controlling it. Ever see the movie, "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" ?

If a number is 'real' or stated conservatively to avoid paying a larger cathedricum, still another theory (or speculation), then good for them. Tax loopholes existed since taxation was invented.

But we don't really know the reasons for such drastic changes in populations, do we? We just know that parishes are closing more rapidly than opening. This is unfortunate, no matter how the numbers are stated.

Joe

As opposed to members, parishes are easy to count.

1999-2003:
Pittsburgh +1 to 86; Passaic -6 to 90; Parma -1 to 38; Van Nuys, +3 to 19; overall -3 to 233.

1949-2003:
overall 156 in 1949, 202 in 1970, 219 in 1976, 241 in 1990, 233 in 2003.

djs,

Just got word in our parish bulletin on Sunday that our parish will eventually be merging with another parish down the road. This can be a good thing since it will free up pastoral ministry from running between two nearby parishes, especially when most, if not all, of the people attending the other parish belong to our parish anyway (read: they prefer the earlier liturgy at the other parish). Good things can happen when parishes merge. Call it synergy. Unlike synergy in the business world, whereby mergers mean layoffs for overlapping positions (read: cutting out redundant overhead), synergy in the church world can mean new life. Usually, the numbers decrease before mergers happen. It can mean one parish, one pastor, one people, one focus. A magnifying glass is more powerful if it is allowed to focus its rays on one spot rather than spreading it out thinly. I'm sure that many more 'living dead' parishes will be closing in the future, thus freeing up pastors to do the work of the Lord: building up the Body of Christ, not assisted suicide ministry. Our Illinois parish waw cited as a case study in the bulletin. We have excellent example to go on. Who knows, we may actually begin to grow. This all reminds me of the new wine, new wineskin story. Can't remember the ending though. Care to remind me?

Joe

We have talked about this before but I think it is worth repeating: How does one count parish membership? Those that come every week, those that come occasionally or the Christmas/Pascha onlies? Or do we adopt the method many Orthodox have adopted, dues paying adults only? Numbers are tough to count and they are almost always overstated. Have we lost people since our peak in the 50's yes obviously? Where have they gone? I tend to agree that the vast majority started attending Latin parishes do to all the reasons given: marriage, convenience, distance, schools, programs. However, I disagree that it was out of inferiority, I see it more as apathy, a Catholic is Catholic attitude. Have we lost 50% since 90 no probably not since 80. I think the biggest losses were in the 70s.

That said for what reason would overreporting occur? That is also hard to answer. To get a Metropolia doesn't make much sense as numbers don't play much of factor where Eastern Catholics are concerned. Many of the Eastern Catholic Patriachates hover around 100,000 while The Ukrainians and Syro-Malabars are stuck at Major Archepiscopate status while their membership is in the millions. Eparchies and Exarchies in North and South America are erected in some cases for a single parish. So I don't see that to be erected into a Metropolia we needed large numbers or more eparchies. A Metropolia needs only an Archeparchy and a suffragan Eparchy.

Also distance and area play a role. Take a look at Alaska for example this state has about 55,000 Latin Catholics yet a province of one archdiocese and two dioceses exists. Do we need 4 eparchies? Maybe not. Do we need more than one? I think so given area and distance.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Counting is a noble undertaking. It gets more difficult when Baptisms were recorded in the Catholic Directory. But how many Baptisms recorded in our parish registeries included non-parishioners, including disgruntled post-Vatican Latins? It looks bad when the statistics for a parish goes from 200 Baptims one year to 25 ten years later. For a mid-sized parish, albeit a mid-sized Byzantine parish, 200 Baptisms would mean a lot of babies and toddlers in the temple on Sunday. Not. It actually meant more stipends for services rendered. I think some clergy were coin-operated, no?

You may be right on the button about that Metropolia argument. I think it has more to do with the machismo need for something big. Large numbers in population can be similar to getting a larger office or desk at work (and a larger salary). Big means importance. So, if one isn't big, then one gets stuffing. How will anyone ever know?

This topic came up once back in me seminary days (early 80s). The simple answer by a number of priest was: pride. We couldn't look bad before the Latins. We listed all sorts of 'offices' and 'departments' of ministry to make it look like we were big and organized. But like the front office clerk in Empty Arms Hotel on Hee Haw, that same clerk also served in many other capacities. But what was important was that we had all those deparments. We looked impotent.

Joe