Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

Voris: Catholic Wedding Bells

June 27th, 2011, Promulgated by Choir


22 Responses to “Voris: Catholic Wedding Bells”

  1. Eliza10 says:

    This is so worth listening to! He really has our diocese pinned.

  2. JLo says:

    Some have said (leaders on this blog) that they don’t always agree with Michael Voris. Hopefully we all say that about EVERYONE, because we should not be following any man/woman on earth… we all flop here and there, now and then, and Scripture warns us about that, about not pinning our hopes on any person but Christ. Having said that… I admire Michael Voris and his quest for orthodoxy. Good man, and I’m grateful to hear his voice here and there, now and then. +JMJ

  3. Irondequoit Mom says:

    This vid is spot on.

  4. Scott W, says:

    Yes, JLo. I’ve said in the past, at least 95% of what MV says is what needs to be said in exactly the tone it needs to be said. When he botches it the other 5%, he really botches it good and like my music teachers have said, they’d rather hear a colossal mistake than timid playing with “sort-of” mistakes.

  5. Choir says:

    Here is a story behind the statistics that Michael Voris uses.

  6. Everything so far that I have heard from Michael Voris, pardon for using his expression, “Hits the nail right on the head!” I admire him and his visual/audio productions.

  7. Ben Anderson says:

    All I can do is echo Scott W. I’ve criticized the 5%, but he usually nails it (as he did here) and we need his voice. I’ve read Mark Shea’s criticisms of Voris and it actually made me like Voris more and Shea much less.

  8. confused says:

    You know that going from 8.6% to 2.6% is not a drop of 300%.

  9. To Confused: A 300% decrease in marriage is accurate. That way of reporting is a basic statistic formula/tool used in research involving various sciences and other fields of study. It is used to give a more dramatic picture of the influence of a particular stimulus or condition.
    If there was no percentage increase or decrease in marriages, the rate would have remained the same and the equation would be: 8.6 ÷ 8.6 × 100 = 100 %
    By reporting a drop, 8.6 ÷ 2.6 × 100 = 300 %. A 300 % drop in marriages is the same thing as stating only 1/3 of the marriages of 1972 took place in 2010.

  10. To Confused: Actually if the statistician performed the first equation, he or she should have reached 3.8 x 100 and 3.8 would have been rounded to 4.0 x 100 = 400 % drop. Actually, less than 1/3 of the rate of weddings of 1972 took place in 2010 (.33). Only 33 % of the rate of weddings of 1972 took place in 2010).

  11. In regard to the number of weddings from 415,000 in 1972, to slightly less than 170,000 in 2010, there is nearly a 60% drop.
    In 1972, rate 8.6 out 1000 Catholics married. In 2010, rate 2.6 out of 1000 Catholics married. Michael Voris uses his statistic of over 300 % drop to demonstrate the dramatic drop in regard to the dramatic increase in Catholic population during this time period-over 17 million.

  12. Thinkling says:

    The 300% is arithmetically correct but no statistician who values his integrity would report it that way.

    A change is from something to something. When expressing a change as %, the denominator is always what was changed from. What was changed from is always the standard.

    One could invert the direction of time so as to get a real 300% change, but then the goal isn’t honesty, it is to get as sensationalistic stat as possible.

    Mr. Voris and I both argue his main point from the side of truth. But if I were uncommitted on the issue but saw this statistical disingenuity, I might write him off immediately as a partisan hack. And his point too.

    I agree with nearly everyone here that he is a great preacher to the converted. But he won’t facilitate nearly anyone’s conversion this way.

  13. Nerina says:

    I’ve read Mark Shea’s criticisms of Voris and it actually made me like Voris more and Shea much less.

    Mark Shea is tough to figure out. Sometimes I really, really like what he writes and he has been a tireless voice in confronting Catholics who support torture. I’ve even contributed to his semi-annual “tin cup rattles.” Having said that, he can adopt a tone that goes beyond snark and is rhetorically nasty. I’ve noticed it in his treatment of the Fr. Corapi case too. He definitely has strong feelings and a certain way with words. I just wish he could temper the heat and not always “go for the jugular” with his condemnations. To his credit, he has mentioned his tendency to go overboard and he has often apologized.

  14. Diane Harris says:

    Two Things: I strongly disagree with MV’s use of 300% because it is so misleading. How can anything decrease more than 100% if it can only go to zero and not below zero. (Unless, for example, a 100 ft. high hill is blasted into a crater 200 feet deep?) Reporting data from scientific experiments, or survey data, doesn’t lend itself to being presented this way. To be generous, however, someone may have fed MV these data and he may not be statistically competent (no criticism) to have questioned it.

    The info on Mark Shea is interesting. I have read some of what Jimmy Akin wrote on the Fr. Corapi matter and was disturbed by the insidious and subtle undercutting of Fr. Corapi, especially since he had a significant EWTN relationships previously. Some will interpret such remarks as a condemnation. Wish there would be room to let the facts all come out, and to speak for themselves.

  15. I have heard statistics from Michael Voris sum up what we already know to be true regarding the number of Catholic weddings since 1972. He notes that number of Catholic marriages in the United States have dropped 60% from 1972 to 2010 (in contrast to the increase of Catholic population via immigration). Additionally, we know from established statistics, that of those Catholic marriages that do take place, 1 out 2 ends in divorce. I can look around and see from my family, relatives, friends, churchgoers, and associates how high the divorce rate is of those who have gotten married within the last few decades. From what I have seen, I think the 1 out 2 divorce rate is underestimated. Those who have remarried after divorce have remarried outside of the Catholic Church in another denomination or in a civil wedding. Of those who have remarried, most of them have lived with their future spouse beforehand with benefit of sexual relations to see how things work out before making the commitment of marriage (again).
    Those heterosexual couples who live together with benefit of sexual relations without marriage have increased over the last few decades for a variety of reasons.
    1. There has less church attendance in the Catholic Church over the last four decades.
    2. Within society, the stigma associated with “living in sin” has diminished progressively since the 1970’s.
    3. The occurrence of heterosexual couples living together with benefit of sexual relations outside of marriage (“living in sin”) has increased so much since the 1970’s, that it has become commonplace and considered a social norm.
    4. Heterosexual couples are encouraged by other heterosexual couples, as well as friends and peers (sometimes family) to not commit to marriage and chance getting “burned” if it doesn’t work out or encouraged to give their relationship a “trial run” before committing to marriage. Legal proceedings to separate or divorce cost time, energy, and money.
    5. The Federal Government does not help to promote marriage as it penalizes income and benefits of married couples vs. single people. An unmarried couple in which both work and are accustomed to filing individually as a single person will take a “real hit” on their income tax after getting married. In effect, they pay a penalty in regard to what they would be getting back if still single. Due to a “hit” on benefits, many older people although committed, do not marry, or they have a marriage ceremony at a church or elsewhere, but do not obtain a marriage license.
    6. ?Finally, there is a lack of clear cut teaching on morality in regard to sexual issues taught within the Catholic Church to combat the message of promiscuity taught by the media. I have personal experience of the “new secular humanism” taught by the Catholic Church in an effort to fit in with society. I belonged to a Catholic Singles group in the early 80’s that had its retreats and days of reflection at the Cenacle Retreat House. We had the topic of Morality for one of our gatherings. One young woman asked in sincerity, “How far should we go before marriage?” She explained she wanted to know short of intercourse as there were no clear cut guidelines that had ever been given and she wanted to know. Others, both male and female, echoed her sentiments. The nun giving that teaching tried to sidestep the question, and when it was pursued, she told them she could not tell them. There was much anxiety and tension with her response and the comments and questions continued. When cornered into giving a further response, she told them that no one had the right to decide for a couple what was right for them, she said it was an individual decision between a couple. Someone questioned if she was also pertaining to sexual intercourse and she answered yes. There were exclamations of shock and comments of astonishment to the nun’s response of no established guidelines. After the day’s teaching, there were further comments conveying disappointment and anger by participants that concerns were never answered.

  16. My Bad: I was eyeballing it quickly when I said 3.8 in another post, it should have read 3.3 x 100 (which would be over 300% as M.V. reported it).

    Diane Harris: I understand your point – I also got into a debate with someone over the same point – this person was making the same argument. He was using knowledge of usual or basic Math of which he is well accomplished. I took courses of Statistics and early learning in this course relays how certain material is presented in a way to make it sound more dramatic and how people can be confused. In science, the formula is used to discover percent yield or to discover the percentage of error caused if one step or method was done over another. There are other varied uses for the formula, but it is always presented as a ratio and a percentage and it always depends on the wording of the question how to set up the ratio.

  17. Diane Harris says:

    Thank you, Christian 1954, for your input. I won’t disagree that there may be some statistical formulae to do calculations in a variety of ways, but that doesn’t dismiss what I would claim — which is what MV said is very misleading (and I greatly respect and appreciate MV). It is misleading because it does not relate to the way people would think about the result as stated. I do expert witness work on certain surveys which I’ve conducted, and truly if I ever used such a way of calculating in the courtroom, I would be totally attacked by the attorneys and expert witnesses on the other side. Judge and jury have certain expectations when a figure is stated, based on their own experience, and it is hard to even imagine trying to explain or justify otherwise.

    Anyway, for those following this thread, here are some figures based on what people generally mean in their understanding and how it would be calculated for court-type applications or to meet usual public expectations:

    If Catholic marriages have dropped from 415,000 in 1972 to 170,000 in 2010, that means that in 2010 there were only 170/415 = 41% as many Catholic marriages as there were 38 years earlier. That is a drop of 415-170 / 415 = 59%.

    However, as MV points out (and using his figures), there are 17 million more Catholics in 2010. So we can back into the actual number of Catholics in each year as being approximately an increase from 48 million Catholics to 65 million Catholics over the same time period. (415,000 / 8.6 marriages per 1000 = 48,256,000 Catholics in 1972, and 170,000 / 2.6 = 65,380,000 Catholics in 2010.) That is an increase of 65.4/48.3 or 1.35, which is a 35% increase. It is the same as 17/48.3 = 35%.

    I agree with MV that the best way to look at the decrease is to look at the rate; i.e. Catholic marriages per 1000 of Catholic population. He reports that rate has decreased over the same period of time from 8.6 per 1000 to 2.6 per 1000. The 2.6/8.6 = 30%, which is to say that the 2010 marriage rate is only 30% of what it was 38 years earlier. Thus, the decrease is 70%; i.e. 8.6-2.6 / 8.6 = 70%. This figure, 70%, logically is the decrease in the marriage rate for Catholics and is far more meaningful in the experience of the general public that the 300% that was used. For example, the average person, hearing that there is a 70% off sale, expects to pay 30% of the original list price. So, most people would say, understanding this point, that the rate of Catholic marriages has dropped 70% in 38 years.

    The reason I am going to the effort of calculating and explaining these data is so that no one has a misconception or gets caught trying to explain something that is unexplainable to most people. It seems a much fairer representation (and of course it relies on the raw data which MV supplied, and which I haven’t researched or confirmed.) However, in that same spirit of trying not to mislead anyone, I would welcome anyone (especially Christian) just rechecking my calculations, for the general context in which most folks would understand the claims. Thank you. God bless!

  18. Anonymous 84149: I agree entirely with you. See my number 6 -It’s a big point.-Lack of church teaching-from the pulpit or in group/retreat education on abstinence and sexual guidelines. This is sorely needed to combat the message of promiscuity by the media and the message from society that “everyone’s doing it.” Like the message given by the nun giving the retreat on morality in the early 80’s, many of clergy and religious are spreading a message of “secular humanism” which undoubtedly they are being taught to propagate by those who have taken spiritual direction and counseling courses with a secular basis. “Secular Humanism” tends to be the increasing general philosophy of the Church in an effort to fit in with society. There needs to teaching on sexual morality from the pulpit – A message of abstinence and chastity – and whether someone has sinned or whether someone has been a victim – all’s not lost. There is forgiveness for the sinner and chance to begin anew. There is God’s healing and consolation for the victim to cope and begin anew.

  19. Diane Harris: Someone told me the quote – “There are three categories of lies – Lies, D*mn’d Lies, and Statistics.”
    I agree with your calculations – What we were taught in the beginning of Statistics is how the same criteria can be presented in various ways to help establish the point a researcher (and other) wants to make – especially a dramatic effect. We were taught to figure out “the illusion” in certain cases – not that mathematically their claim was incorrect, but their wording and method, was misleading.
    I agree with you in how the information should have been reported.

  20. Diane Harris says:

    Hello Christian 1954,
    Thank you for taking the time to check this out and to verify it. Together, I hope we will have given some clarification of a complex situation that at least people can rely on. I appreciate your input.

  21. Talking about Wedding Bells – Did everyone see the write-up and photos of Prince Albert II Of Monaco and Charlene Whittock’s Catholic Wedding on Saturday (Friday our time)? I have heard that in many countries it is customary to have both a civil wedding and a church wedding. (The Civil Wedding comes before the Church Wedding) On Saturday, July 2nd, 2011 (Monaco time), Charlene Wittsock, a South African Olympic Swimmer married Prince Albert II of Monaco in a Catholic Wedding at Monaco Palace. They were married by Archbishop Bernard Barsi of Monaco who celebrated mass. The mass was con-celebrated by many priests.

  22. Clarification: The first and second spellings of Charlene last name did not come out correctly -it is Wittstock. Charlene Wittstock, now Princess Charlene, is a former South African Olympic Swimmer who excelled in backstroke. She retired from competition in 2007.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-