Many of the graduates struggle because of several reasons.
1 – They have a difficult time finding a community that is as strong as ours. We have many dedicated, like-minded Catholic young adults on fire for Christ. I don’t know of many parishes that can say the same. So, many yearn for such a community.

2 – Several young adults find themselves lost in the “real world” when they meet responsibility in the work place and then don’t have the kind of support we offer them. Also, a generation of what we call “hover parents” don’t help this.

3 – Others struggle because they don’t have anyone to socialize with or hold them accountable.

4 – Others struggle with dealing with non-peers in parishes that are generally not made up of single young adults.

5 – Other reasons for struggles include a lack of Catholic identity in some parishes, lack of solid faith formation, and few parishes use young adult’s gifts well – when they are some of the best to tap into because of time and talent.

6 – A few struggle when they run into leaders who have a different style, theological leaning or who dissent from Church teachings.

I could go on for a long time – but comboxes aren’t the place to do that.

Elaborate, perhaps? What happens when they leave they graduate? Is there anything in particular you’ve seen?

The point here is, you are full of hot air on this subject and have no basis in church theology to back up your own personal opinions. I am aware that there are other forms of ordination in the church (i.e. deacons and holy orders). And regardless of your particular ordination, as I have stated previously, you sound neither Catholic nor respectful to our church, clergy, magesterium or our Holy Father.

By their fruits shall they be known…

As I have said before, we need holiness in our Church for any true reform to take place. Just as JPII and Benedict XVI have emphasized, we have a crisis of saints. We need people that are deeply in love with Christ, who then allow that love to spill out into the world. From this deep love and holiness will come true and lasting reform.

There has been a pruning in the Church, but the new growth has definitely taken off. The question is – what direction the growth will continue in? I believe it to be mission-based. In some quarters, as Amy has pointed out, we have forgotten the reason the Church exists – to evangelize. When we forget our purpose, we cannot reform properly and we cannot make saints.

When we forget our purpose, we are in an identity crisis and talk of changing the culture is going no where fast.

I propose a simple plan of action:
1 – Train Catholics in holiness and evangelization through a good formation process that focuses on prayer, Sacraments, service and proclamation of the gospel.
2 – Send these people out.
3 – Harvest the fruit.

I agree with everything you said, except that I do not “think that because they didn’t do it like you do that they were less committed or had a more superficial friendship with God.”

Let me preface this by answering your concluding question: I think we are different in some respects — and let me narrow this to the Church in America — ‘than those who came before us’ in that there are more idols/gods competing for our attention, and competing in more subtle ways, than Christians a generation before us (and behind them) had to deal with. The current American emphasis on individual license and autonomy, for instance, can easily present a significant distraction to seriously considering the question, “God, what is Your plan for me? How do You want to draw me, and through me, others, closer to You today?”

To put my point another way, I think it has become easier for Catholics (all Christians, really) to focus more on doing good things directed/powered by one’s own ideas and strength than on submitting one’s heart/life to Christ and letting Him direct one’s life.

I’m not saying we’re totally different than those who came before us. I’m suggesting that perhaps not all the laity of this day and age realize the heights of relationship & cooperation with God to which they are called.

Yeah, I know what you mean as far as it is a misperception of what the Church is. Because the Church is not primarily or essentially an institution: it’s Christ’s presence among us. As Pope Benedict said to the Brazilian bishops last year: the Church is the privileged place of encounter with Jesus. No, Pentecost wasn’t about starting an institution and that wasn’t what happened.

The language of the “Church” as an institution is Barthian or evangelical Protestant. It’s not Catholic. And it’s fine to feel the “Spirit” pour through you as long as it’s within the dynamic of the Church. It’s not a private, individual, particularistic thing as it is in Protestantism. It’s like reading Scripture: you are supposed to read it privately, but with an eye formed by the Church.

Since the beginning of Christianity all of the saints had the deepest experience with God (both those we know and the millions we’ll never know) and absolutely remained within the Church. Of course, they had an authentic friendship with God, one mediated and enriched in the Church. The notion of an absolutely private, subjective personal relationship with Jesus is one that has filtered into the American Catholic Church via evangelical Protestantism and it’s not Catholic.

The road that Catholics walk is always informed both by a personal side and a communal side and by a personal faith and one’s faith as informed by the 2,000 year tradition of the Church. As lay Catholics we’re as obligated as anyone in the clergy to respect both sides, maybe more so if we really believe we must transmit our faith to the world. And through the ages, millions of lay Catholics have done just that and I think it’s a mistake to think that because they didn’t do it like you do that they were less committed or had a more superficial friendship with God. They certainly manifested the presence of Christ in the witness of their lives.

Why do you think we are any different than those who came before us?

That is too laughible to even comment on. Show me any church teaching to support this and we can continue. Until that point, your views will be squarely your own here.

In addition, they promise not to marry, of which they are incapable….how can anyone promise something of which they are not capable?

Are you serious? Do you know how many homosexuals have married and had families throughout history? You really don’t seem to know what you are talking about here. The rest of your comments are cut from the same cloth.

I don’t know if you really are a priest, but you aren’t saying much that is in line with church teaching at all. And your tone and demeanor speak volumes here. The only other “priests” I have known who speak like you are errant dissenters who left the priesthood and whine about priests not being able to marry (although many of them still conduct ilicit sacraments). Either way, not really interested in carrying on a conversation with you on the subject since you are not adding anything of value theologically.

Your absolutism is really clouding your comments and you are losing credibility here. Andrew gave you one example above. Another not-so-nice example is the Italian community of New Orleans, which began arriving after the Civil War. For 4 (count them: FOUR) generations they were consigned to living in enclaves and “ghettos”. Then they began to leave the community to live and do business among the general population, a mass lynching resulted in 1891 to make the point. Whether or not various ethnicities sent their children to school to learn English is irrelevant, as they remained segregated (either de jure or de facto) in their enclaves. As far as living and working among the population, sometimes they did (if they were allowed) and sometimes they didn’t. Bank of America was originally Bank of Italy because American banks would not allow most immigrants (or certain ethnicities) to have bank accounts, essentially keeping them outside the population. Like Bank of Italy, many jobs, organizations and institutions were created to address the fact that these populations could NOT work outside their own community.

All of this is not to say that Catholics HAVE in many cases been a part, contributed to and even influenced general society. Neither is it to say that one scenario was the rule, while the other the exception. But both did exist and to deny this is to be dishonest or ingorant of American history, which as Andrew points out, needs to be addressed as a whole.