07-30-2025, 09:21 AM
Opinion:
Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile [slightly adapted] | Jul 30, 2025
Every time a traditional Catholic points out the correlation between Vatican II and the catastrophic collapse of the Church, some smirking Novus Ordo apologist jumps in with a smug little Latin phrase: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
After this, therefore because of this.
“Just because Vatican II happened and then the Church collapsed,” they say, “doesn’t mean Vatican II caused the collapse. Correlation is not causation!”
Well, no. Correlation isn’t always causation. But sometimes? It is. That’s literally how evidence works. You observe cause and effect, test for confounding variables, rule out alternatives, and reach a conclusion. And that’s exactly what two very different studies, one from Harvard economists in 2025, and one from a Catholic layman in 2003, have done.
Together, they confirm what anyone with eyes to see already knows: Vatican II didn’t “renew” the Church. It decimated it. And the collapse wasn’t accidental. It followed directly from the very reforms the Council enacted.
Let’s walk through the proof.
The Harvard Study: Vatican II Caused a Global Catholic Collapse
In July 2025, three economists, Robert Barro (Harvard), Edgard Dewitte (Oxford), and Laurence Iannaccone (Chapman), published a monumental working paper through the National Bureau of Economic Research titled “Looking Backward: Long-Term Religious Service Attendance in 66 Countries.”
Using retrospective survey data from over 200,000 people across four decades, they reconstructed religious attendance rates going back to the 1920s in 66 countries. It is the most ambitious dataset on religious behavior ever created.
And what did they find?
Yes, you read that right. Not “correlated with.” Not “followed by.” Triggered.
The economists applied an event-study design, a method used in economics to test the causal effects of discrete historical events, and confirmed that religious attendance in Catholic countries plummeted after Vatican II, while Protestant and Orthodox countries did not show the same pattern. Nor did Communist suppression have the same global effect. In fact, religious practice in some post-Communist countries rebounded.
But Vatican II? It was uniquely destructive.
Barro et al. write:
In other words, they ruled out “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” They showed that Catholic decline wasn’t part of a general secularization trend. It was uniquely Catholic. It began right after Vatican II. And it didn’t stop.
They even considered other historical shocks, like the collapse of Communism and the effects of war or depression, and found none had such a consistent, negative impact on religious practice as Vatican II did.
The Layman’s Indictment: A Church in Freefall
In 2003, Catholic author Kenneth C. Jones published The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, collecting decades of raw Church statistics. In a devastating section titled “Vatican II Renewal: Myth or Reality?” he demolishes the lie that the Church was in crisis before the Council or that Vatican II sparked any sort of authentic renewal.
Here are the facts Jones assembled:
In 1960, the U.S. Church had:
It was the largest, most robust Catholic system in the world. And it was growing. Between 1955 and 1960, the number of priests increased by 7,000. New seminaries were being built to meet demand.
And then came the Council.
By 2002:
And the trend has not reversed. Jones cited Ratzinger’s 1984 admission that Vatican II’s effects were not what anyone hoped:
Even Ratzinger called it. And yet the myth persists.
The Stupidest Argument in Catholic History
There are people who look at all of this, statistical collapse in every measurable category of Catholic life, and say, “But that doesn’t mean Vatican II caused it.”
They will actually admit that the seminaries emptied, the convents died, the Mass was abandoned, the catechism vanished, the faith was lost, but Vatican II wasn’t the cause.
Why not?
Because saying so would make you guilty of the “post hoc” fallacy.
Except it’s not a fallacy when the event is temporally proximate, globally consistent, uniquely Catholic in its devastation, and empirically verified using control groups. That’s called a causal link.
And let’s be honest, if any other event had preceded such a collapse (say, a papal bull banning the Novus Ordo, or a global declaration of sedevacantism), these same people would have no problem assigning blame.
The “post hoc” canard is not a serious argument. It’s a defense mechanism for those who cannot emotionally bear the possibility that Vatican II was not just a mistake, but a catastrophe.
When the Wreckage Is That Obvious…
You don’t need a PhD in economics to read the signs of the times. But now, thanks to Barro and Iannaccone, even the data confirms what tradition has always known: the Council did not renew the Church. It gutted it.
There was no “new Pentecost.” There was no “springtime.” There was only the worst collapse of faith in Church history.
The rot didn’t begin after the Council. The rot was the Council.
The Data Is In! Vatican II Devastated the Church
A Harvard economist and a Catholic layman both prove what NeoCatholic Popesplainers disingenuously told us was a “logical fallacy.”
A Harvard economist and a Catholic layman both prove what NeoCatholic Popesplainers disingenuously told us was a “logical fallacy.”
Chris Jackson via Hiraeth in Exile [slightly adapted] | Jul 30, 2025
Every time a traditional Catholic points out the correlation between Vatican II and the catastrophic collapse of the Church, some smirking Novus Ordo apologist jumps in with a smug little Latin phrase: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
After this, therefore because of this.
“Just because Vatican II happened and then the Church collapsed,” they say, “doesn’t mean Vatican II caused the collapse. Correlation is not causation!”
Well, no. Correlation isn’t always causation. But sometimes? It is. That’s literally how evidence works. You observe cause and effect, test for confounding variables, rule out alternatives, and reach a conclusion. And that’s exactly what two very different studies, one from Harvard economists in 2025, and one from a Catholic layman in 2003, have done.
Together, they confirm what anyone with eyes to see already knows: Vatican II didn’t “renew” the Church. It decimated it. And the collapse wasn’t accidental. It followed directly from the very reforms the Council enacted.
Let’s walk through the proof.
The Harvard Study: Vatican II Caused a Global Catholic Collapse
In July 2025, three economists, Robert Barro (Harvard), Edgard Dewitte (Oxford), and Laurence Iannaccone (Chapman), published a monumental working paper through the National Bureau of Economic Research titled “Looking Backward: Long-Term Religious Service Attendance in 66 Countries.”
Using retrospective survey data from over 200,000 people across four decades, they reconstructed religious attendance rates going back to the 1920s in 66 countries. It is the most ambitious dataset on religious behavior ever created.
And what did they find?
Quote:“Vatican II, in 1962–1965, triggered a decline in worldwide Catholic attendance relative to that in other denominations.”
Yes, you read that right. Not “correlated with.” Not “followed by.” Triggered.
The economists applied an event-study design, a method used in economics to test the causal effects of discrete historical events, and confirmed that religious attendance in Catholic countries plummeted after Vatican II, while Protestant and Orthodox countries did not show the same pattern. Nor did Communist suppression have the same global effect. In fact, religious practice in some post-Communist countries rebounded.
But Vatican II? It was uniquely destructive.
Barro et al. write:
Quote:“Rates of religious-service attendance in predominantly Catholic countries started to decrease relative to those of all other countries and to those of other Christian countries precisely in the aftermath of Vatican II… The Catholic relative attendance rate fell by four percentage points per decade between 1965 and 2015.”
In other words, they ruled out “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” They showed that Catholic decline wasn’t part of a general secularization trend. It was uniquely Catholic. It began right after Vatican II. And it didn’t stop.
They even considered other historical shocks, like the collapse of Communism and the effects of war or depression, and found none had such a consistent, negative impact on religious practice as Vatican II did.
The Layman’s Indictment: A Church in Freefall
In 2003, Catholic author Kenneth C. Jones published The Index of Leading Catholic Indicators, collecting decades of raw Church statistics. In a devastating section titled “Vatican II Renewal: Myth or Reality?” he demolishes the lie that the Church was in crisis before the Council or that Vatican II sparked any sort of authentic renewal.
Here are the facts Jones assembled:
In 1960, the U.S. Church had:
- 53,796 priests
- 39,896 seminarians
- 168,527 nuns
- 9,897 parochial schools
- 4.2 million Catholic school students
- 1.3 million infant baptisms
- 146,212 adult baptisms
It was the largest, most robust Catholic system in the world. And it was growing. Between 1955 and 1960, the number of priests increased by 7,000. New seminaries were being built to meet demand.
And then came the Council.
By 2002:
- Priests had dropped to 45,000
- Seminarians: 4,700 (a 90% collapse)
- Nuns: 75,000 (average age 68)
- Mass attendance: down from 75% to 25%
- Religious orders: in terminal decline
- Annulments skyrocketed from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002
- 70% of young Catholics denied the Real Presence
And the trend has not reversed. Jones cited Ratzinger’s 1984 admission that Vatican II’s effects were not what anyone hoped:
Quote:“Expected was a new Catholic unity… instead we have been exposed to dissension… Expected was a great step forward; instead… a progressive process of decadence… The net result therefore seems negative.”
Even Ratzinger called it. And yet the myth persists.
The Stupidest Argument in Catholic History
There are people who look at all of this, statistical collapse in every measurable category of Catholic life, and say, “But that doesn’t mean Vatican II caused it.”
They will actually admit that the seminaries emptied, the convents died, the Mass was abandoned, the catechism vanished, the faith was lost, but Vatican II wasn’t the cause.
Why not?
Because saying so would make you guilty of the “post hoc” fallacy.
Except it’s not a fallacy when the event is temporally proximate, globally consistent, uniquely Catholic in its devastation, and empirically verified using control groups. That’s called a causal link.
And let’s be honest, if any other event had preceded such a collapse (say, a papal bull banning the Novus Ordo, or a global declaration of sedevacantism), these same people would have no problem assigning blame.
The “post hoc” canard is not a serious argument. It’s a defense mechanism for those who cannot emotionally bear the possibility that Vatican II was not just a mistake, but a catastrophe.
When the Wreckage Is That Obvious…
You don’t need a PhD in economics to read the signs of the times. But now, thanks to Barro and Iannaccone, even the data confirms what tradition has always known: the Council did not renew the Church. It gutted it.
There was no “new Pentecost.” There was no “springtime.” There was only the worst collapse of faith in Church history.
The rot didn’t begin after the Council. The rot was the Council.
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre