Some Of My Favorite Things

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Pregnancy and Rape

This post is mostly to preserve the related information. See also The GOP Cassandra and the August 2012 Of Pregnancy and Rape.

Exhibit 1 (August 1980, Linacre Quarterly, p. 200 ff)
One major impediment to rational discussion has been the tendency to exaggerate the frequency of pregnancy resulting from a single act of forcible rape. In a very comprehensive study, Pearl reported that a single random act of intercourse among consenting adults would be likely to result inpregnancy 0.3% of the time.2 Even this incidence of 3 pregnancies per thousand acts of intercourse, however, may be too high when estimating the expectation of pregnancy resulting from forcible rape. 
In a retrospective study, the state’s attorney from Cook County, Illinois (including Chicago), reported no pregnancies during a nine- year period of prosecutions for rape.3 Similar retrospective studies done by law enforcement agencies in Cuyahoga County, Ohio and Erie County, New York reported not a single prosecution involving pregnancy following rape over a period of 10 years in Ohio and 30 years in New York.
While not all rapes are reported to law enforcement authorities, there is no reason to believe that pregnancy is more common after unreported rape than after reported rape. In a recent prospective study of 4,000 rapes in Minnesota. no pregnancies were reported. 4 Recent studies have helped to shed light on this lower-than- expected incidence of post-rape pregnancy.
1.There is a high rate of sexual dysfunction related to sexual assault. Groth and Burgess reported that 57% of 101 rapists had erective or ejaculatory dysfunction.5 The incidence of retarded ejaculation was 180 times higher among rapists than that reported in the general population. 
2.Rape is defined legally as penetration even without ejaculation. A series of studies 6 has reported the recovery of spermatozoa from only about half of rape victims including even victims of gang rape. 7 
3.No pregnancies were reported among a group of 100 women not given anti-implantation medication after rape. Of them, over 70% were at reduced or absent risk of pregnancy because they were on oral contraceptives, had an IUD in place, were already pregnant, had had a hysterectomy, were post-menopausal, or had not yet reached menarche. 8 
4. Among fertile women raped on the day of ovulation only 10% became pregnant.9 
5. There is evidence that the acute stress reaction related to rape may affect fertility through a variety of mechanisms affecting reproductive function.
References in the original article, not currently available online.

Exhibit 2. See here also
Registrar General”Statistical Review of England and Wales for 1969.London: 1971, H.M.S.O. Cited in R.Gardner, Abortion, the Personal Dilemma(Eerdmans, 1972), p. 169.    80 pregnancies out of 54,000 rapes. 
Study cited in Jack and Barbara Willke. Handbook on Abortion. Hayes Publishing Company, 1979, p. 40. 22 pregnancies out of 86,000 rapes. C.R. Hayman, W.F. Stewart, F.R. Lewis, and M. Rant. 
Rape in the District of Columbia. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1972; 113:91(c)97. 21 pregnancies out of 914 rapes. 
R. Everett and G. Jimerson. The Rape Victim: A Review of 117 Consecutive Cases. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1977; 50:88(c)90. Zero pregnancies in 117 rapes. 
H. Fujita and W. Wagner. Referendum 20 Abortion Reform in Washington State. In J.Osofsky and D. Osofsky. The Abortion Experience: Psychological and Medical Impacts. Harper & Row, 1973. Three pregnancies in 524 rapes. 
Exhibit 3: The Louisiana Experience
The state of Louisiana requires the most comprehensive reporting on abortions in the country. Therefore, its records are the best source for determining how frequent (or infrequent) abortions for rape really are. 
In Louisiana, the abortionist must fill out a form entitled “Report of Induced Termination of Pregnancy” (Form #PHS 16-ab) for every abortion he commits. The form notes at the top that “Failure to complete and file this form is a crime.”
Item 9d on this form is entitled “Reason for Pregnancy Termination.” 
The Office of Public Health of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals compiles these statistics. Over the 14-year period 1975 to 1988, 202,135 abortions were performed in Louisiana. Of these, the reasons were listed for 115,243 of them. 
The reasons for these abortions are listed below;
JUSTIFICATION FOR LOUISIANA ABORTIONS
Mother’s mental health 114,231 (99.12%)
Mother’s physical health 863 (0.75%)
Fetal deformity 103 (0.09%)
Rape or incest 46 (0.04%)
This means that, in Louisiana, 1 out of every 2,483 abortions is performed for rape or incest. This number, which is statistically very reliable due to the large sample population, almost precisely confirms the results of the calculations described earlier in this chapter. 
The state of Missouri has noted similar ratios. In 1980, the state operated under court and Executive Orders to pay for rape and incest abortions for poor women. Not a single claim under these headings was submitted during the entire year.[7]
Exhibit 4
When a Model Penal Code abortion law was passed in Colorado in 1967, 18% of abortions performed in the first year under the semi-restrictive law were performed for the indication of pregnancy due to forcible rape. 
There was no evidence, however, that the alleged rapes had been reported or that any rapists had been prosecuted. The number of abortions performed for rape in Colorado as contrasted with the number performed under the permissive law in Czechoslovakia would lead to the dubious conclusion that, on a per-capita basis, rape was 300 times more common in Colorado than in Czechoslovakia. 
Pregnancy due to rape, in other words, became a pretext for abortion to be alleged by the cynical all out of proportion to its true occurrence. 
Keep in mind that this was exactly the fabricated case that led to Roe v. Wade.  Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the case, falsely alleged she had been raped in order to obtain an abortion. 




Monday, May 18, 2015

Part II: Is the TLM Destroying The Church?

Earlier, I calculated the effect of the Traditional Latin Mass on Catholic identity in a state. Remarkably, some people took issue with it. Go figure (as Foghorn Leghorn would say, "That's a joke, son.").

Fortunately, I have just found another way to calculate the impact of the TLM on Catholic identity and Catholic faith. Using numbers from the Nineteen-Sixty Four blog, we see a table showing the fifteen dioceses with the most converts in the United States.

The table is linked below:

Now, we identify the number of TLM parishes in each one of those dioceses using the same TLM website we previously employed. Keep in mind, the lower the number of Catholics per Convert, the better the conversion ratio is. Why? Because in a diocese with just a few Catholics per convert, each Catholic in that diocese was more effective at transmitting the Faith on a per person basis than were Catholics in other dioceses. So, with that said, here are the numbers:

Catholics per Convert (2010-2012) #TLM parishes
Steubenville (OH) 20 1
Tulsa (OK) 47 3
Owensboro (KY) 47 1
Birmingham (AL) 47 3
Jackson (MS) 48 1
Pensacola-Tallahassee (FL) 60 2
Oklahoma City (OK) 52 1
Nashville (TN) 53 2
Mobile (AL) 56 1
Lexington (KY) 58 1
Memphis (TN) 58 1
Knoxville (TN) 58 5
Reno (NV) 59 2
Wichita (KS) 61 2
Charlotte (NC) 63 6

And, we see that the correlation coefficient (r) is 0.33247286951134.
Wow, a positive correlation!

Oh, wait. That's not good. You see, in this case, a positive correlation means that the number of Catholics per convert increases (that is, Catholics become less effective at bringing people into the Catholic Faith), as the number of TLM parishes increases.  If the TLM parishes were having a positive effect on bringing people into the Church, then we should see a negative correlation - as the number of TLM parishes increase, the number of Catholics per convert should decrease. The TLM should make Catholics MORE effective at evangelizing. In fact, it is exactly the reverse.

This entirely different way of measuring TLM effectiveness, using an entirely different data set, gives us the same results that the two earlier analyses of the Pew Research poll gave us: the existence of TLM parishes correlate to a reduction of Catholic identity and conversion.

Which is exactly the opposite of what traditionalists tell us would happen.

Now, you may say correlation is not causation, and I would agree.
However, I notice that traditionalists are always nattering on about how the Faith has been hemorrhaging Catholics, Mass attendance has dropped, vocations have dropped, etc., since Vatican II. And what do the traditionalists implicitly or explicitly say? "CORRELATION IS CAUSATION!"

You see, when the news is bad and they think they can make it stick, then it's all the fault of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass. But when the news is bad and it looks like it might stick to the TLM, then it is just correlation at best (nothing to see here, move along), or outright blasphemy at worst to even have run the numbers.

The nice thing about having double standards is you can always choose which standard you like depending on the outcome you want. It's a brilliant idea. Not very Catholic, but certainly brilliant. Catholics accept the realities and try to figure out what the reality is telling them.

I can give you a hint - this is straight from the comments on a popular blog:
APX says:16 May 2015 at 8:03 AMI thought the FSSP were in Florida. Are they being asked to leave the diocese?
I used to bring my friends to the EF, but stopped after they were being driven away by mandatory payment for after Mass socials (my friends are like me, poor and barely able to pay rent and the basic necessities of life), and sermons that are over-the-top strict (ie: it is absolutely forbidden to work on Sundays. Those who do are going to Hell, which is not what the Church teaches. We are living in a time when working Sunday’s is often a condition for getting a job so you aren’t homeless). And then there’s the people who are just over the top weirdness factor with their conspiracy theories about the Church, Vatican II, Pope Francis, etc actively looking for new faces to try to “enlighten”.

That quote provides a bit of additional, unsolicited evidence outlining my own concerns. The TLM is, indeed, a beautiful Mass. The people who attend it often are not. The FSSP priests who celebrate it are extremely problematic. The numbers generated by the TLM crowd certainly do correlate with the idea that the TLM crowd is driving people away from the Faith.

You can call me a blasphemer or dismiss the results as unimportant, but that doesn't solve your problem. What is the TLM crowd going to do about this?

Friday, May 15, 2015

Is the SSPX Destroying the Faith?

After completing the analysis of the TLM on the loss of Catholic Faith reported by Pew, I decided to see how well the SSPX would stand up to the same analysis. I used the SSPX official website to determine how many chapels, priories and/or missions were in each state and ran the same analysis.


Here are the results. The TLM correlation coefficients are included in each section summary for comparison:


Region 2007 2014 Change SSPX chapels
Illinois Midwest 32 28 -4 1
Indiana Midwest 18 18 0 3
Iowa Midwest 25 18 -7 1
Kansas Midwest 23 18 -5 2
Michigan Midwest 23 18 -5 5
Minnesota Midwest 28 22 -6 7
Missouri Midwest 18 16 -2 4
Nebraska Midwest 31 23 -8 0
North Dakota Midwest    na 26    na 2
Ohio Midwest 21 18 -3 4
South Dakota Midwest    na 22    na 2
Wisconsin Midwest 29 25 -4 2
MIDWEST MIDWEST 24 21 -3 33
SSPX Midwest Correlation coefficient (r): 0.23497742473265
TLM Midwest Correlation coefficient (r): 0.16469292081087
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.76024687859368
Connecticut Northeast 43 33 -10 2
Maine Northeast 29 21 -8 0
Massachusetts Northeast 43 34 -9 1
New Hampshire Northeast 29 26 -3 0
New Jersey Northeast 42 34 -8 1
New York Northeast 39 31 -8 9
Pennsylvania Northeast 29 24 -5 4
Rhode Island Northeast    na 42    na 0
Vermont Northeast    na 22    na 0
NORTHEAST NORTHEAST 37 30 -7 17
SSPX Northeast Correlation coefficient (r): -0.10998533626601
TLM Northeast Correlation coefficient (r): -0.12370036292696
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): -0.23331413131435
Alabama South 6 7 1 0
Arkansas South 5 8 3 1
DC South    na 20    na 0
Delaware South    na 22    na 0
Florida South 26 21 -5 6
Georgia South 12 9 -3 1
Kentucky South 14 10 -4 2
Louisiana South 28 26 -2 2
Maryland South 19 15 -4 0
Mississippi South 9 4 -5 0
North Carolina South 9 9 0 3
Oklahoma South 12 8 -4 2
South Carolina South 8 10 2 1
Tennessee South 7 6 -1 2
Texas South 24 23 -1 9
Virginia South 14 12 -2 3
West Virginia South 7 6 -1 1
SOUTH SOUTH 16 15 -1 33
SSPX Southern Correlation coefficient (r): -0.10397427484838
TLM Southern Correlation coefficient (r): -0.033749189489198
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): -0.23177400592773
Alaska West 14 16 2 1
Arizona West 25 21 -4 2
California West 31 28 -3 10
Colorado West 19 16 -3 2
Hawaii West 22 20 -2 2
Idaho West 18 10 -8 3
Montana West 23 17 -6 2
Nevada West 27 25 -2 2
New Mexico West 26 34 8 2
Oregon West 14 12 -2 3
Utah West 10 5 -5 0
Washington West 16 17 1 1
Wyoming West    na 14    na 0
WEST WEST 25 23 -2 30
SSPX Western Correlation coefficient (r): -0.1303215087856
TLM Western Correlation coefficient (r): -0.014625385914181
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.6335175425702
SSPX Total Correlation coefficient (r): -0.07158996357425
TLM Total Correlation coefficient (r): -0.20800323012833
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.064769205954515


As can be seen, the SSPX data generally confirms the TLM data. In the Northeast, establishing an SSPX chapel isn't much different than establishing a TLM parish. The good news for the SSPX: in the Midwest, establishing an SSPX chapel has a somewhat more positive influence than establishing a TLM parish does in regards to retaining Catholics. But the rest of the news is terrible.


In the South, establishing an SSPX chapel generates about three times the bad will a TLM parish generates. In the West, the SSPX generates ten times the bad will that a TLM parish generates.  Overall, the SSPX has almost no influence on the Catholic composition of the nation.


In no case did the effect of the SSPX outweigh the effect of closing TLM parishes in an established Catholic diocese. Closing a TLM parish in the Midwest or South tended to drive people somewhat further away from the Faith, closing a TLM parish in the Midwest or the West was overwhelmingly a positive move for the Faith.

Apparently, the Midwest initially likes the idea of the TLM (positive correlation with the presence of a TLM or SSPX Mass), but once they are actually exposed to it, the appeal palls and the removal of the TLM is greeted with superabundant joy. [Editor's note: I am from the Midwest, and that describes my reaction to a "T".]

Conversely, neither the Northeast nor the South are initially fond of the idea of the TLM, but once they have it, they like it enough to become disgusted and leave the Faith when the TLM is removed.

The West can't stand it.
At all.


So, there you have it.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Amtrak - Another Homosexual Suicide Attempt?

The pilot who crashed the Germanwings flight into a mountain, committing suicide by taking an entire planeful of innocent people with him, was an active homosexual.

Brandon Bostian, the engineer who was in charge of an Amtrak train whose manually disabled speed governor allowed it to travel at twice the posted speed limit (106 mph in a 50 mph section of track), was also a homosexual activist.

He survived the crash, immediately lawyered up and insisted he had no memory of the accident.
He refuses to allow police to interview him.

Best guess at the moment?
Copycat suicide attempt.

Pope Francis and the Communists

Some people insist Pope Francis is a communist. These same people apparently have never read the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. They betray a basic ignorance of both Christianity and communism. If you want to know what Christianity teaches about wealth and poverty, read:
Now, this is a good start, but this only tells you what Christianity teaches. It doesn't tell you what Marxism, socialism or communism teaches. Many people think wealth redistribution is the hallmark of leftism. That is false. Atheism is the hallmark of leftism.

Here are some salient differences between Christianity and modern "social justice" systems.

Marxism, socialism, communism tries to build a paradise on earth.
Christianity DENIES that a paradise can be built on earth.

Marxism says the poor should rise up and violently overthrow the rich.
Christianity says the rich should imitate God by CHOOSING to assist the poor.

Marxism says only class members are brothers, other classes are enemies.
Christianity says ALL men are brothers, regardless of class.

Marxism says you help each other in order to make life easier for yourself.
Christianity says you help each other because you are an image of God and so is every person you help.

Marxism says only economic poverty matters.
Christianity says the greatest poverty is ignorance of the Gospel.

Marxism says the elimination of economic poverty is the solution to human misery.
Christianity says the remediation of economic poverty is how we open people's eyes to the riches of grace, and the reception of grace is the only real solution to human misery.

Only people who know nothing of either philosophy can equate the two.

As for Catholic "social justice", the Jesuit, Luigi Taperelli, who coined the term "social justice" was applying the Catholic principle of subsidiarity to the interaction between government and private organizations. Originally, "social justice" meant that the government should not do what private organizations were capable of doing.

Social justice was about the proper hierarchy of institutions. It had nothing to do with taking care of the poor per se. It had nothing at all to say about wealth redistribution. Thus, when the Pope refers to "social justice" he is NOT referring to the Marxist definition of that term, but to the original Jesuit definition of that term. The original Jesuit teaching was completely in-line with both Thomistic philosophy and the principle of subsidiarity, which is the basis of Catholic philosophy and theology.

"Help the poor", according to the original Jesuit version of social justice theory, most certainly does NOT translate into "raise taxes" or "soak the rich." Nor has any Pope, including this one, ever said it did.

That's all Marxist media spin. The media is Marxist. Why does anyone thinks the media will accurately characterize Catholic thought when it has the ability to pretend that the Pope is spouting Marxist thought?  It's almost like such people are the "useful idiots" that Lenin so lovingly described.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Is The TLM Destroying The Faith?

Pew Research has come out with its latest numbers on the state of the Catholic Faith (and other faiths) in the United States. The numbers are not pretty (they also may not be reliable: see here). Catholics have dropped three full percentage points between 2007 and 2014.

Now, some websites have attributed this failure to "FrancisChurch" and the "erroneous" doctrine promoted by John Paul II's New Evangelization. But, there is another way to look at this data.

After all, Summorum Pontificum, the letter which made clear that priests were free to use the Roman Missal to celebrate Mass, was released in July, 2007 and became effective on the Triumph of the Cross, September 14, 2007.  So, the Pew numbers are actually tailor-made to take a quick look at how well the Traditional Latin Mass has helped bring people into the Church.

This is especially true given that not every area of the country lost Catholics. Two states, Indiana and North Carolina, experienced no net change in Catholic population (highlighted in yellow in the chart below). Five states, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, New Mexico and Washington, actually had net gains in Catholic population percentages since 2007 (highlighted in green in the chart below).

So, if the TLM was changing hearts and minds, if it was bringing people to the Faith or to deeper Faith, we would expect to see states with high numbers of TLM parishes experiencing a renewal of Faith, while those states with few or no TLM parishes experiencing net losses in Catholic population percentages.

Sadly, the Pew data doesn't break down the Catholic population changes on a diocesan level, but merely on a state level. Still, that should be granular enough to show at least some effect. I used a popular TLM website to determine how many TLM parishes were in each state. The site indicated that some of the parishes listed no longer offered the TLM, but did not indicate in what year the TLM ended.

As a result, I used the most conservative measure I could to favor the TLM parishes - even if a parish discontinued the use of the TLM (and many did), I counted it as being active during the full seven-year period of this study.

Why? Well, due to the inherently attractive nature of the TLM, I assumed no TLM parish would have shut down due to lack of interest. Undoubtedly, the bishops who shut down the TLM Mass offerings in these parishes did so only because they couldn't stand the tremendous competition the TLM parishes offered to the spiritually inferior Novus Ordo Mass. Besides, the TLM is so powerful that even a little of that marvelous Tridentine grace should go a long way, right? Thus, we can safely assume that if the TLM was offered in the diocese for even a short time, that glow would continue to reverberate through the diocese for a while after (whether SSPX parishes have this effect would constitute a separate study).

So, that having been said, let's look at the numbers. The 2007, 2014 and Change columns are expressed in percentages, the # of TLM Parishes/State is the raw number of parishes offering the Latin Mass in each state.

The correlation coefficient at the end of each section is a number between 0 and 1 (or -1) that expresses the effect the TLM has on the state.

A positive number indicates the presence of the TLM correlates with more people being attracted to the Catholic Faith in the region, a negative number indicates the presence of the TLM correlates with people being driven away from the Faith in that region. The bigger the number, the bigger the effect. Negative numbers are given in red.

Region 2007 2014 Change # TLM
/State
# of TLM Ended % TLM ended
Illinois Midwest 32 28 -4 25 3 12
Indiana Midwest 18 18 0 9 2 22
Iowa Midwest 25 18 -7 7 0 0
Kansas Midwest 23 18 -5 7 0 0
Michigan Midwest 23 18 -5 22 1 5
Minnesota Midwest 28 22 -6 18 1 6
Missouri Midwest 18 16 -2 10 1 10
Nebraska Midwest 31 23 -8 3 0 0
North Dakota Midwest    na 26    na 3 1 33
Ohio Midwest 21 18 -3 14 0 0
South Dakota Midwest    na 22    na 5 0 0
Wisconsin Midwest 29 25 -4 20 1 5
MIDWEST MIDWEST 24 21 -3 143 10 7
Midwest Correlation coefficient (r): 0.16469292081087
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.76024687859368
Connecticut Northeast 43 33 -10 12 1 8
Maine Northeast 29 21 -8 2 0 0
Massachusetts Northeast 43 34 -9 20 4 20
New Hampshire Northeast 29 26 -3 5 0 0
New Jersey Northeast 42 34 -8 18 1 6
New York Northeast 39 31 -8 38 4 11
Pennsylvania Northeast 29 24 -5 28 5 18
Rhode Island Northeast    na 42    na 6 1 17
Vermont Northeast    na 22    na 2 1 50
NORTHEAST NORTHEAST 37 30 -7 131 17 13
Northeast Correlation coefficient (r): -0.12370036292696
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): -0.23331413131435
Maryland South 19 15 -4 5 1 20
Delaware South    na 22    na 3 0 0
Alabama South 6 7 1 4 0 0
Arkansas South 5 8 3 6 0 0
DC South    na 20    na 1 0 0
Florida South 26 21 -5 19 1 5
Georgia South 12 9 -3 3 0 0
Kentucky South 14 10 -4 7 0 0
Louisiana South 28 26 -2 17 2 12
Mississippi South 9 4 -5 1 1 100
North Carolina South 9 9 0 12 1 8
Oklahoma South 12 8 -4 4 0 0
South Carolina South 8 10 2 5 2 40
Tennessee South 7 6 -1 8 0 0
Texas South 24 23 -1 24 1 4
Virginia South 14 12 -2 19 0 0
West Virginia South 7 6 -1 6 1 17
SOUTH SOUTH 16 15 -1 144 10 7
Southern Correlation coefficient (r): -0.033749189489198
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): -0.23177400592773
Alaska West 14 16 2 3 0 0
Arizona West 25 21 -4 7 0 0
California West 31 28 -3 55 8 15
Colorado West 19 16 -3 6 0 0
Hawaii West 22 20 -2 3 0 0
Idaho West 18 10 -8 1 0 0
Montana West 23 17 -6 2 0 0
Nevada West 27 25 -2 3 0 0
New Mexico West 26 34 8 4 1 25
Oregon West 14 12 -2 6 0 0
Utah West 10 5 -5 2 0 0
Washington West 16 17 1 11 0 0
Wyoming West    na 14    na 3 0 0
WEST WEST 25 23 -2 106 9 8
Western Correlation coefficient (r): -0.014625385914181
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.6335175425702
TOTAL US TOTAL US 24 21 -3
Total Correlation coefficient (r): -0.20800323012833
TLM Close Correlation coefficient (r): 0.064769205954515


Results

Well, that's rather disappointing, isn't it? Only the Midwest region showed the TLM having a positive impact. In every other region, the TLM actually seems to correlate to a negative impact on the Catholic Faith. For the nation as a whole, the use of the TLM is associated with the loss of Catholic Faith.

The correspondence is actually worse than the numbers indicate because New Mexico has an outlier condition which is not reflected in the chart. New Mexico is home to the Las Cruces diocese, which had absolutely no TLM recorded as being offered in the diocese at all. That's right - one-third of the state was apparently completely lacking in Latin Masses during the survey period. Yet that same state experienced an 8 percentage point increase in Catholic population, the largest increase in the nation.

Similarly, North Dakota's Bismarck diocese had nothing in it, and Mississippi's only diocese closed down the only Traditional Latin Mass it had. We don't have a 2007 for North Dakota, so we don't know how that closure affected the state's Catholics, but Mississippi experienced a 5% loss in that seven year interval. Was Mississippi's loss due to the opening or the closing of the TLM Mass?

Well, again, look at the correlation coefficients.

In the Midwest, closing a TLM parish actually increased the probability that the percentage of Catholics would increase, and by quite a large margin. 0.76 is a great correlation.

In the Northeast, opening TLM parishes dropped the Faith, but closing the TLM parish dropped it twice as much. This is the only area that shows withdrawing the TLM as having a worse effect than making it available.

In the South, the opening a TLM parish was bad, but closing it was seven times worse.
In the West, opening a TLM parish dropped the percentage of Catholics, while closing the TLM parishes actually increased the probability that Catholics would retain their Faith.

For the nation as a whole, there is very little positive or negative effect created by closing a TLM parish.

So, can we conclude that the use of the TLM is a net positive for American Catholics?
Well, further, more granular study could certainly be done. But given the numbers in this first pass through the Pew data, it's hard to see how that conclusion could be drawn.


UPDATE:
I did a similar analysis of SSPX parishes which tends to confirm the effects found with the TLM parishes. Interestingly, from a national perspective, the existence or absence of an SSPX parish has essentially no effect on overall Catholic identity - an absence that would be expected, given that the dioceses are likely to at least report somewhat favorably on a TLM in communion with the local bishop, but would remain totally silent about TLMs not offered in communion with the bishop.

UPDATE II:
For those who wish to argue that the TLM is producing vocations, don't forget this article or this one. And why might the TLM be destroying the Faith? How dare you ask?