Thanks ACL .
Human potential psychology of which Jung is a major element sounds a lot like the thought of Nietzsche and his predecessors like Protagoras and Antiphon, whom, advocated contra Socrates, Plato and Aristotle that the passions should rule over the intellect and reason is to be thrown out the window. A recipe for not only unhappiness but irresponsibility and a life of disvalue. But, how many Catholic colleges still teach this garbage in their psych classes, even while they maintain orthodoxy in their philosophy and theology departments.

ACL, good point. Lets not leave out the great psycho-babblers. You reminded me of a BBC video documentary about a California convent of the Immaculate Heart with an orthodox order in the early 1970's. They had a Jungian psychotherapist conduct a seminar based on Jung's thought and the human potential movement; after which, several of the nuns decided to try lesbianism, others promiscuous liaisons with local men in the area. Eventually, all the nuns lost their faith and left the convent, which was subsequently closed down.

The corrosive effects of bad psychology can be seen here

www.youtube.com/watch

Pax exitus

I would think that the both the statistics, and attitudinal changes in almost all spheres of the Church, and in the seminary educational strategies were products of the weaknesses in Pope Pius VI pontificate. Some scholars like Jean Guitton's analysis was a weakness in character; others like Romano Amerio place it in a defective plan to adapt the Church to the spirit of the age, but he does not think it was out of volition but out of circumstance. Pope Paul tended to be to passive against the liberals and progressives- who were implementing heterodox changes (in the name of the VII council) and were not put in check. Thus, according to Amerio the failure was not one of character on the part of Pius VI, but in the application of prudence and practical wisdom. In this failure of virtue riotous majority (liberals and progressives) were favored over and above the majority of obedient (orthodox) Catholics. These are the very roots of the bad fruits, which we are presently living through.

Tu_es_Petrus: Quite! I know many saecular Priests who are completely ignorant of the Latin language, Scholastic Theology, Philosophy and even an introduction to Historical Christian Theology. As Seminarians, they just read psychology, sociology, alot of Jung and his cronies with two-three terms of "theological reflection" (into which the formator/formatirx tried to shoe-horn three years of "bible study"). Twas only in their last year (5th year for many?), they did some homiletics and IF lucky, and deemed suitable for further study AFTER ordination, some Greek and Canon Law peppered with a little Patristics.

Poor fellows are now utterly ill-prepared and are failures as pastors and Roman Catholic clerics, and they know it! I really feel for them and, e.g., i try to gently make myself available to my Parish priest (who is one among this lot!). Tis pathetic that a Parish priest who was once THE educated, THE spiritually gifted man in the community is now reduced to calling a layman at 11pm on a Saturday evening to ask "what did Basil the Great mean when he wrote and taught of 'otium' ?" On the even of the feast of Basil and Gregory! OR, "Did St Cecilia sing or play an instrument?"....."Who was this pseudo-Dionysios bloke sited by Ben.XVI in his letter Dei Caritatis?"

Poor, poor, poor fellows.

Before I assign cause to this effect, I'd be interested in statistics that look a bit further back than Vatican II (perhaps 1900?). Was it already a trend in 1965 or did it begin soon after?

EDIT (I just dug this up):

1920 Priests=21019 Seminarians=8944
1930 Priests=26925 Seminarians=16300
1940 Priests=33912 Seminarians=17087
1950 Priests=42970 Seminarians=25622
1960 Priests=53796 Seminarians=39896
1975 Priests=58909 Seminarians=17802
1980 Priests=58621 Seminarians=13226
1990 Priests=53111 Seminarians=6233
2000 Priests=45713 Seminarians=4719
US Population 1965=191 million 2000=281 million

clickthrough.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl

For those who have taken me to task in regards to Vatican II, I would only reiterate the "fruits" we have observed since the Council closed from a statistcal perspective:
-in 1965 there were 58,000 priests in the US and that number has dropped to 45,000 in 2002
-in 1965 there were 1575 ordinations, in 2002 there were 450
-in 1965 there were 549 parishes without a resident priest, in 2002 there 2,928 priestless parishes
-between 1965 and 2002 the number of semenarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700
- A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics attended mass on Sunday. Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000

So, given these statistics and the timeframe provided, Vatican II has not influenced them in any way? Instead of getting bogged down in a debate about interpretation, how about thinking on the principle of cause and effect.

ACL and SB, are quite right. VII documents actually say that Latin is to be “retained” in the Latin rite. There are only ambiguities when one attempts to interpret the VII documents doctrinally. If it is viewed through the lens of Sacred Tradition and the whole Magisterium (not just the present one), the pastoral nature of the documents do not contradict doctrine or dogma. The problem is in how the strategies of pastoral care have been organized, directed, and carried out, which have been poor, mediocre and in some cases even detrimental to the faith.
But, as ACL pointed out, that is the fault of the Episcopate, and not the present pope. I would add, that Pope Paul VI, and in some cases John Paul II, for example the Assisi debacle and allowing altar girls the faith.
Benedict XVI knows this, and is presently making corrections.

I thought this article to be a very well balanced, well written piece of good Catholicism. Consider both the good and the bad, then, like our forefathers did before us, move forward with faith that God is in charge; no man can derail the Church in all that is 'visible and invisible'. DO not let your faith be shaken by the frailty of men, but cling unto the constancy of God. THIS is good Catholicism; that of all Her Saints, Doctors and holy people. We do well to keep this in mind.

Inaddition to soc and SboC: Sacrosanctvm Concilivm did NOT state that the Liturgy of the Roman Church is no longer Latin, nor does it state the the New Missal is no longer to be in the Latin language. (Be ware of the man of ONE book!!) The vernacular was offered to the world in order to benefit the faithful in missionary lands, and for unique pastoral reasons e.g. Masses to children, etc. The council Fathers, as Ben.XVI says in his Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentvm Caritatis (2007), envisioned the retention of the Latin language and Gregorian Chant. HOWEVER, the language of the concilior document was too vague and not precise. Therefore the Bishops and Abbots took advantage of this and even turned the altars around! No where in the documents of the Second Oecumenical Council of the Vatican, does it say that Mass is to be, henceforth versvs popvlvm . It DOES say that the altar is to be free-standing so that the celebrant might walk around it (incence etc..) as in the Basilicas of antiquity. YET, we have Missa versvs popvlvm!

What was the problem? The Episcopate, this was and continues to be the problem. The 'Overseers' are unfaithful and individualistic, and so have rather little time for Roman authority and the like..... Therefore, the Second Oecumenical Council of the Vatican is NOT to be blamed for the ensuing crisis in the Church. The Episcopate bears the FULL weight of the blame and will answer to God for it. We are NOT to appropriate disciplinary actions - leave them unto God!

In fine, there is NO such thing as the Latin Mass and the Novvs Ordo Mass. According to Ben.XVI in Svmmorvm Pontificvm ( 2007): ONE ROMAN RITE- TWO FORMS. The Missal of Paul VI is written in Latin and when celebrated well, is in LATIN and ad orientem with Gregorian Chant! One gets this in the monastic circles in France......

tsbw - DO, get your facts correct, DO re-read your sources in LATIN, study deeper.

@tbswv - Your quotation from the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio #1), is taken out of context. The full paragraph makes it clear that the Catholic Church has not changed its teachings. The observation that even non-Catholics long for unity is not an expression of heresy.

The document is referring to the "longing," found among many Christians who are non-Catholic, for a truly universal Church. That longing for unity is a good thing, inspired by Christ himself, although the Council notes that the longing is expressed imperfectly and "in different ways" among non-Catholics.

The Decree states plainly the Catholic faith that "Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only." It "gladly notes" that even among non-Catholics there is a longing for the unity of a visible, universal Church.

www.vatican.va/…/vat-ii_decree_1…

As Pope Paul VI has said, "the smoke of Satan" has entered into the Church... how true this is. With the priestly sexual abuses, homosexuality, trying to refuse the faithful communion because they wish to receive kneeling and on the tongue, gay priests, lesbian 'nuns'...even involved in wicca, new age and worse! Thanks be to God for priests like Fr. Rodriguez who isn't afraid to speak the truth of the evils that have followed the Vat II Council.

@tbswv - as Catholics we are not free to pick and choose from Ecumenical Councils what we like and dismiss and disparage what we don't like. Catholicism isn't a "smorgasbord" ... unfortunately or fortunately. The Second Vatican Council was the 21st Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church. Whether we like it or not, that is a fact ... and as you say this Council is "valid". As such one must accept all its decisions. If one does not accept that the 2nd Vatican Council is Ecumenical then one puts oneself with the Orthodox who only accept the first 7. As all of us know, the Orthodox are schismatics. The basic definition of an Ecumenical Council is "a meeting of all the Catholic Bishops called by the Pope". Vatican II clearly fits this definition. To be Ecumenical [i.e binding on "all the world" - all the world of believers] a Council need not be expressly dogmatic, in opposition to what some people think and argue. Naturally, the "interpretation" of the decisions of an Ecumenical Council is up to the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him. A greater understanding of these decisions may well come with time but it is best, as faithful Catholics, to leave the "interpretation" and the "further understanding" to the Holy Father and his Bishops.
Finally, look at Church History ... just about every Ecumenical Council [even several of the first 7] was followed by a period of "adjustment" and even controversy. This did NOT negate their Ecumenical status.
Christus vincit Christus regnat Christus imperat
Viva il Papa!

"The Long View" is that this Council - although valid - has done more harm than good. I've read some of the Vatican II documents and they are ambiguous, and in direct opposition to previous Church teaching.
For example, Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism. It teaches that "almost everyone longs for a truly universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the gospel, so that the world may be saved, to the Glory of God." The Roman Catholic Churchis the one true Church. Another VII document Sacrosanctum Concilium is responsible for the "Liturgical Revolution" which suppressed the Latin mass and replaced it with the Novus Ordo. The essence of this document is that the liturgy should adapt to local norms and customs and to be more simple. Since the Holy Mass is the center of Catholic Theology, these abuses have done more harm than any decree. I've provided statistics in past posts to this site on the negative consequences of Vatican II. Make no mistake: the late John Paul II and Benedict XVI are strong promoters of Vatican II. I have read many posts in regards to SSPX, accusing them of being protestants, disrespecting the Pope, that they are schismatic blah, blah.... Thank God for these men as they are truely faithful to the tradition and doctrines of Holy Mother Church, as handed down by its Church Fathers and Popes of the last centuries.