← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc

Religious Decline in Europe?

Thread ID: 20842 | Posts: 32 | Started: 2005-11-01

Hilaire Belloc [OP]

2005-11-01 17:45 | User Profile

For once I agree with a progressive Catholic. Greeley pretty much makes the same arguments Ive made for some time(at my blog and other forums), mainly that the decline of Christianity in Europe has largely been over-blown. The situation in Europe is far more complex.

Church attendence rates maybe down, yes, but large numbers of Europeans still travel to Lourdes, Fatima, and the Vatican to find religious strength. The churches have only really declined institutionallly, largely due to clerical incompetence. Even the latest edition of First Things carried an article about how the existance of small but dynamic Christian-based movements in Western Europe have long baffled experts. By no means is Christianity dead in Europe.

[url]http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=3458&issueID=475[/url]

Religious Decline in Europe? By Andrew M. Greeley

Man bites dog is news. So is the decline of religion. Dog bites man is continuity. So too the persistence of religion. ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s not news. Thus the media are fascinated by allegations of religious decline in Europe, especially because the remnants of modernity expect, even demand, the decline of religion. When someone argues that Europe is a vast and complex place and that there are many different measures of religion, one runs the risk of being mired in qualifications. Nonetheless, religion in Europe, like most other human phenomena, is gray. It has declined in some countries (France, Britain, the Netherlands), has increased in other countries (Russia, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary), remains high and stable in yet other countries (Ireland, Poland, Switzerland, Slovakia, Cyprus, Austria), stable and diffuse in still other countries (Spain, Italy, Portugal) and stable and low in yet other countries (Scandinavia, the former East Germany, the Czech Republic).

The figures to back up these generalizations, which are too extensive to enumerate in this article, can by found in my new book, Religion in Europe at the End of the Second Millenium. The analysis of European religion found there involves 23 nations and four surveys carried out between 1980 and 1998.

Some random evidence of complexity: though Scandinavians are not a religiously devout people, nearly half of Norwegians still assert that Jesus is their savior. More residents of eastern Germany believe in divine miracles than believe in God. (Who is the God in whom they do not believe?) Belief in God increased in Russia from 48 percent to 60 percent during the 1990Ã¢â¬â¢s. Superstition is weak in regions where belief in God or atheism is strong (Ireland and regions of eastern Germany) and powerful in countries where doubt is strong (Britain and western Germany).

Such complexities should persuade those who derive their knowledge of European religion from the media to be careful. It will be said, and often has been said: look at Britain, France and the Netherlands; these are the really important countries. To which one might reply: look at Russia, Poland, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Latvia. What makes them unimportant? Indeed, in the face of the revival of religion in Russia (perhaps the most dramatic religious revival in human history), how can anyone take seriously the secularization model of religion?

The most striking finding is the dramatic rise in the belief in life after death among the youngest cohorts in all but three countries (Ireland, Cyprus and BritainÃ¢â¬âin the first two, it was already high). In the whole European sample, 56 percent of the cohorts born before 1930 believe in life after death, 50 percent of those born in the 1950Ã¢â¬â¢s, and 60 percent of those born after 1970. Grandparents and grandchildren are more likely to believe than parents. Since belief in life after death is one of the core components of Christian faith (and utterly abhorrent to the patrons of modernity), it can be asserted that Christian faith has increased in Europe as a whole. Only in Great Britain has this revival of faith not occurred. Perhaps the devastation of the war led to a decline in hope among those who were born to the survivors of the war, and then the prosperity of the postwar years influenced those born during those years.

God has not done badly in the late decades of the 20th century. Belief in God has increased in Russia and Hungary and decreased in Britain, the Netherlands, western Germany and France. Atheism is not popular save in eastern Germany (50 percent). Russia (20 percent), the Czech Republic (20 percent) and France (19 percent) are the next highest in atheism. In most European countries, moreover, the majority (77 percent) report denominational affiliation, the exception being eastern Germany and the Netherlands. Rates of nonaffiliation are almost 50 percent in France, the Czech Republic and Britain. Church affiliation has increased since 1991 in Russia (from 32 percent to 65 percent).

Church attendance figures are often cited in the media to prove that religion is in decline in Europe. It is the favorite indicator of most European sociologists and often the only indicator. One must compare current attendance rates, however, with past rates to see whether low levels today reflect change or merely continuity. In the last two decades of the 20th century, the proportion attending church services at least two or three times a month has declined in three Catholic countriesÃ¢â¬âIreland (82 percent to 71 percent), Poland (67 percent to 61 percent), and Italy (49 percent to 44 percent) and has increased in Hungary. There has been no significant change in any other countries except the Netherlands, where it has fallen from 25 percent to 18 percent. Professor Laurence Iannacone of George Mason University has developed a technique to project church attendance statistics back almost a century. While his work is as yet unpublished, I understand that it generally finds more continuity than change.

The religion-in-decline perspective is, in part, a function of the Ã¢â¬Ågood old daysÃ¢â¬Â fallacy. There was a time when Ã¢â¬Åmy grandmother went to the wee kirk and so did everyone else.Ã¢â¬Â There was a time when people were more religious than they are now. Religious leaders like this fallacy because it gives them material to rant about. Secularizers like to point to the decline as evidence that religion no longer matters. Neither approach is good sociology, even when sociologists use it.

Ã¢â¬ÅLook at France,Ã¢â¬Â IÃ¢â¬â¢m told, Ã¢â¬Åthe eldest daughter of the church!Ã¢â¬Â To which I could reply, Ã¢â¬ÅLook at Poland!Ã¢â¬Â I could add that I am not inclined to believe that France was ever a Christian country (despite all the cathedrals), but a more effective answer would be to say that the church has been on the wrong side in France for 200 years and on the right side in Poland. Look at the Netherlands! To which I say: look at Switzerland, a small, tripartite country dependent on international trade. The social consensus that supported religion in the Netherlands collapsed (with some help perhaps from the synod of the Dutch bishops); the Swiss social consensus (much older) did not. Religion in a given country is affected by history, social structure and culture; and it affects them. The result, however, is very different religious conditions and not a single, one-dimensional trend.

What about Great Britain? (Data for Northern Ireland were collected in a separate survey.) English historians recently have argued that Henry VIII was the first secularizer, that he replaced a religious society with an established church. It could be, then, that what one observes in Great Britain today is the endgame for Anglicanism. In the cohort born before 1930, the defection rate of Anglicans to Ã¢â¬Åno religionÃ¢â¬Â was 20 percent. In the cohort born after 1970, the rate rose to 70 percent. One can compare France to Poland, the Netherlands to Switzerland, but to what can one compare Britain? Is there a group that might represent a tradition older than Canterbury? The apostasy rate of Catholics for the same half century has not moved above 20 percent, whatever may be the serious problems of the Catholic Church in England.

The argument here is not that Europeans are devout. Some are; most are not. They never have been. They may have been superstitious. They still are. Yet there has been on balance some improvement since the end of the first millennium, when a wise investor would not have gone long on Christianity. In Catholicism there has been some improvement since the Reformation. The European Protestant churches have lost much of their ÃÂ©lan, except in Switzerland. M. Voltaire and his colleagues confidently predicted the quick end of religion in Europe. [u]They were wrong[/u]. A quarter millennium later, [u]their successors are still wrong[/u]. ReligionÃ¢â¬âimperfect, troubled, always changing, conflicted, always surviving, always under assaultÃ¢â¬âstill manages to hang on. Those who know more about such things than I do tell me that modernity is finished. * Rev. Andrew M. Greeley is professor of social sciences at the University of Chicago and the University of Arizona and research associate at the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.*

Gregor

2005-11-01 19:51 | User Profile

What Greeley hints at is that although the organized church has taken a beating, real christianity may have had an uptick. I've even heard good things about Britain. There is a strong undercurrent of searching among the young. They are looking past the dead state churches and other moribund ecclesiastic structures to see if Jesus is real. The denominations that spend more time preaching politics rather than the Kingdom of God are fading away. Those getting back to the Gospel will see growth, just like here.

Petr

2005-11-01 19:55 | User Profile

It was not until after the rotten "state church" of ancient Israelites had been razed down by Babylonians that the exiles could turn into national revival and repentance that the prophets had advocated...

I will not shed a tear for the collapse of such brazenly apostate institutions like, say, the Anglican Church of England.

Petr

2005-11-01 19:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gregor]What Greeley hints at is that although the organized church has taken a beating, real christianity may have had an uptick. I've even heard good things about Britain. There is a strong undercurrent of searching among the young. They are looking past the dead state churches and other moribund ecclesiastic structures to see if Jesus is real. The denominations that spend more time preaching politics rather than the Kingdom of God are fading away. Those getting back to the Gospel will see growth, just like here.[/QUOTE]

I will not shed a tear for the collapse of such brazenly apostate institutions like, say, the Anglican Church of England.

Petr

Hamilton

2005-11-01 20:07 | User Profile

[URL="http://www.christiantoday.com/news/europe/majority.of.europeans.believe.in.god.despite.declining.church.membership./454.htm"]Majority of Europeans believe in God despite declining church membership [/URL]

Hamilton

2005-11-01 20:08 | User Profile

Perun,

I appreciate your post. I've never believed for a second that European Christianity is headed for extinction. That some people present this odd belief as a fact is remarkable, but not surprising. I've seen claims that religion in general is inevitably headed for extinction. Ironically this belief is just as much an article of faith as any religious tenet. It blatantly clashes with the human experience, since religion has always been ubiquitous. Even the nominally non-religious tend to have faith in all sorts of non-rational things.

Petr

2005-11-01 20:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Hamilton]I've never believed for a second that European Christianity is headed for extinction. That some people present this odd belief as a fact is remarkable, but not surprising.[/QUOTE]

Elementary, my dear Watson: they believe in it because they hate Christianity and [I]want[/I] it to be so. It's classic [B]wishful thinking[/B].

Petr

Hamilton

2005-11-01 21:18 | User Profile

[quote=Petr]Elementary, my dear Watson: they believe in it because they hate Christianity and [I]want[/I] it to be so. It's classic [B]wishful thinking[/B].

Petr Correct. It tends to be wishful thinking by secular triumphalists, premillenialist doomsayers, or "neocon" types wanting to drive yet another wedge between America and Europe.

Gregor

2005-11-01 21:30 | User Profile

[quote=Petr]It was not until after the rotten "state church" of ancient Israelites had been razed down by Babylonians that the exiles could turn into national revival and repentance that the prophets had advocated...

I will not shed a tear for the collapse of such brazenly apostate institutions like, say, the Anglican Church of England.

So this means that Old Europe is set for an awakening, eh Pete? Maybe the threat of sharia will motivate them.

Good link, Hamilton. With church attendance in the single digits in some of those places, it makes you wonder if/how all those believers are connecting.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-01 23:57 | User Profile

Yes thats basically his argument. He continually argues that the institutional church has become corrupt and incompetent, is out of touch with reality, and failing to meet the needs of the laity. Hence why they're in such decline. I firmly agree with Greeley on this, Im very anti-clerical in my attitudes, except I argue from a more traditionalist-based perspective(while his is more progressive-orientated). However, this does not mean the end of Christianity as a whole; but rather that popular or "folk" Christianity is now beginning to emerge as the dominant form of Christian expression. Personally Ive always preferred folk Christianity to institutional christianity.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-02 00:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Hamilton]Perun,

I appreciate your post.

No problem. :)

I've never believed for a second that European Christianity is headed for extinction. That some people present this odd belief as a fact is remarkable, but not surprising. I've seen claims that religion in general is inevitably headed for extinction. Ironically this belief is just as much an article of faith as any religious tenet. It blatantly clashes with the human experience, since religion has always been ubiquitous. Even the nominally non-religious tend to have faith in all sorts of non-rational things.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Well you may want to read some threads I posted here where I addressed much of this issue in more detail.

In this thread, I argue about the close relationship between the Papacy and Europe. This was to counter all the hype in the media about the need for a Third World pope. Here I counter their usual arguemnts, including the usual one about the decline of faith in Europe. Ironically, I actually attack Greeley for his support of a Third World pope. ;) [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18170[/url]

This one is my review of Jeremy Rifkin's The European Dream, and I take aim of his use of the usual secular Europe vs. religious America paradigm. [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18169[/url]

Here's an interesting thread I started about the revival of traditional Catholicism in France: [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17980[/url]

Enjoy :)

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-02 00:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]It was not until after the rotten "state church" of ancient Israelites had been razed down by Babylonians that the exiles could turn into national revival and repentance that the prophets had advocated...

I will not shed a tear for the collapse of such brazenly apostate institutions like, say, the Anglican Church of England.

Petr[/QUOTE]

Well thats exactly the conclusions Massimo Introvigne and Rodney Stark made in their [url="http://www.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=ijrr"]sociological studies of religion in Europe[/url], and why it seems that churches in Europe are dying yet in America and the Third World they're thriving. And as they showed, its not because Europeans are less religious; its because the churches in Europe are lazy and incompetent. Since many churches enjoy state support, they have no need for an active laity to stay afloat. Yet in America and the Third World; churches need an active laity to stay alive(since they lack any state support). Plus churches in America and the Third World have to stay ahead of major competition as well.

Plus there's a lack of choice for Europeans than Americans/Third World people concerning religion. If an American or Third World person becomes disgusted with their church, they can easily go to another church(or convert to another faith, like Islam in the Third World). Yet in Europe theres less choice. If you're disgusted with the state church(and indeed there's much to be disgusted with them about), you almost have no choice but to give up all religious affiliation or stay put.

Yet as the study also shows, non-mainstream/state-supported religious groups(especially more traditionalist-based ones) are actually growing and thriving in Europe.

So yes again, Christianity is not dying in Europe, it's just the lazy, overly bureaucratic, liberal churches that are. But since these churches usually are the more mainstream religious institutions, it gives the illusion that religion is in decline.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-02 00:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Hamilton]Correct. It tends to be wishful thinking by secular triumphalists, premillenialist doomsayers, or "neocon" types wanting to drive yet another wedge between America and Europe.[/QUOTE]

Lets not forget neo-pagan fanatics who love to shove this argument of Christianity's decline in Europe as proof that they're the ones who will save it! :rolleyes:

But of course, as we're seeing now with all this information being presented, thats not even close to the truth. Europeans are rejecting corrupt Christian institutions, not Christianity or religion itself.

I honestly wished I had this information before in many previous debates. Especially this [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10039"]old debate[/url], where my opponent arrogantly asserted that "[t]here will be No Christian Renaissance in Europe nor in America no matter how much evangelizing the Pope or any other religious leader(s) may want."

HA! I also love how he proves his stupid assertion.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-02 00:28 | User Profile

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article arguing that faith is making comeback among the French. Read the entire article, you wont be dissappointed. ;)

** [url]http://www.wf-f.org/03-1-France.html[/url]

Whatever the socio-political influences may be, there is evidence that faith is making a comeback among ordinary French Catholics.

On a recent visit to the basilica at Lisieux -- the popular shrine of Saint ThÃÂ©rÃÂ¨se, the "Little Flower" -- I found that the pilgrims were predominately non-French. One might mistakenly assume that French piety was nearly extinguished. Yet blocks away, at the convent where ThÃÂ©rÃÂ¨se lived, an early Mass was jammed with French communicants.... All across France, convent and abbey guest quarters are finding more religious pilgrims at their door. Increasingly, families combine reunions and celebrations with retreats at a nearby religious house. And while France is still in grave danger of losing her soul to secularism, there are genuine signs of hope. **

Quantrill

2005-11-02 17:42 | User Profile

[quote=Hilaire Belloc]I firmly agree with Greeley on this, Im very anti-clerical in my attitudes, except I argue from a more traditionalist-based perspective(while his is more progressive-orientated). HB, You are Catholic, right? How can a traditionalist Catholic be 'anti-clerical'? Or are you just disgusted with the current state of the clergy?

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-02 18:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]HB, You are Catholic, right? How can a traditionalist Catholic be 'anti-clerical'? Or are you just disgusted with the current state of the clergy?[/QUOTE]

Yes Im disgusted with the current state of the clergy, they have degraded beyond belief! It's from their ranks that most of the BS plaguing the Church is coming from. Notice it's largely from the clergy that openly advocate for immigration, multi-culturalism, etc.? Yet from the laity you'll find attitudes more align towards our perspective(at least on some issues).

Most of the fiercest critics of immigration, multi-culturalism, and defense of national heritages I find are usually lay Catholics, not members of the clergy.

It's from the clergy that a blind support for Vatican II and its watering down of the faith comes from; while the laity are often more critical of the changes and more supportive of more traditional measures. Ive heard plenty of disgust from lay Catholics complaining about how the clergy are obsessed with liberal experiments that destroy the integrity of the faith.

Ever notice that almost anything worth reading nowadays concerning the faith are written by laymen? The clergy today are only able to rant on ad nausuem about the eucharist or stuff like that. Yes we know its the blood and body of Christ, aren't there other issues to discuss now? Indeed most of the major Christian intellectuals of past 200 years have been laymen: Chateubriand, Peguy, Chesterton, Belloc, Berdyaev, Dostovesky, Solovyev, Lewis, Mounier, Solzhenitsyn, etc.

Speaking of Chesterton and Belloc, even they had to battle the clergy of their day for failing to make tough stances on social issues.

The clergy nowadays basically just live in their own little world. Sadly this is not entirely their fault, since modernity has forced them to the margins. Yet along with it they lost their fighting spirit and instead wish to comprimise with the world.

Even William Donahue of the Catholic League noted that the clergy lack much of the back-bone to take on challenges facing the church, while it's among the laity that much of the fighting spirit is found.

So yes Im very much disgusted with the state of the clergy.

Gregor

2005-11-02 20:20 | User Profile

[quote=Hilaire Belloc]Ever notice that almost anything worth reading nowadays concerning the faith are written by laymen? The clergy today are only able to rant on ad nausuem about the eucharist or stuff like that. Yes we know its the blood and body of Christ, aren't there other issues to discuss now? Indeed most of the major Christian intellectuals of past 200 years have been laymen: Chateubriand, Peguy, Chesterton, Belloc, Berdyaev, Dostovesky, Solovyev, Lewis, Mounier, Solzhenitsyn, etc.

Speaking of Chesterton and Belloc, even they had to battle the clergy of their day for failing to make tough stances on social issues.

So yes Im very much disgusted with the state of the clergy.

Part of the problem is that our religious structures are almost designed for minister burn-out. It's always been that way. "Moses, YOU go talk to God, and come back and tell us what He says. He scares us." And then those among us who've answered the call are stupid enough to accept the burden. The pressures on honest ministers are incredible. It's amazing that they're not all drunks.

Someone said, 'when you become a christian, that you become a combatant in a war. But when you become a minister, you get the bulls-eye drawn on your back.' The god of this world ain't gonna just let people rob his kingdom. And Jesus didn't call him the ruler of this world for nothing.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-02 20:48 | User Profile

I certainly am not trashing the honest priests trying to make it in the world. They deserve all the help they need! But it cant be ignored that the clergy has significantly declined from just even a few decades ago.

There's even a book out now about how Liberals are delibertly trying to keep good honest men out of the priesthood, titled Goodbye Good Men by Michael S. Rose:

[url]http://www.goodbyegoodmen.com/[/url]

How did the American Catholic priesthood go from an image of wise, strong men like Spencer Tracy in Boys Town and Bing Crosby in Going My Way, to an image of "pedophile priests"?

In Goodbye, Good Men, investigative reporter Michael S. Rose provides the shocking answer Ã¢â¬â an answer the mainstream news media has missed.

He uncovers how radical liberalism, like that found on many college campuses, has infiltrated the Catholic Church and tried to overthrow her traditional beliefs, standards, and disciplines Ã¢â¬â especially Church teachings on sexuality. In bringing the "sexual revolution" into the Church, liberals have welcomed Ã¢â¬â even preferred Ã¢â¬â radicalized active homosexuals to orthodox seminarians in the name of "diversity" and "tolerance." That "tolerance" has now been exposed as a toleration of criminal acts.

Here, in stunning detail, is the story behind the headlines Ã¢â¬â the story that made those very headlines possible. As Dr. Alice von Hildebrand says, Goodbye, Good Men "holds the key to a phenomenon which, to many, is also an enigma: Why are so many seminaries empty? Michael S. Rose has the courage Ã¢â¬â a courage that many Church leaders lack Ã¢â¬â of giving us the fearful but uncontestable answer: because vice has penetrated into many of them, and those who do not condone vice are excluded."

A riveting work of extraordinary reporting, Michael S. Rose shows how the very institutions charged with inculcating Catholic theology and discipline have come to prefer gay priests to straight ones, pop psychology to religious devotion, and Playboy to the pope.

* MICHAEL S. ROSE was born in 1969 in Chicopee, Mass. Educated at Brown University and the University of Cincinnati, he is the author of four books, including the NY Times bestseller Goodbye, Good Men. He is executive editor of cruxnews.com and a contributing editor of New Oxford Review. His articles and editorials have appeared in venues such as The Wall Street Journal, NY Newsday, The American Conservative and The Catholic World Report. He lives in Cincinnati with his wife Barbara and their four children.*

Quantrill

2005-11-02 20:53 | User Profile

HB, Have you seen the film [I]On the Waterfront[/I]? I just saw it for the first time about two months ago, and I was amazed at the portrayal of the priest- not only because it was so positive, but because it was so masculine. They don't make them like that anymore.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-02 20:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]HB, Have you seen the film [I]On the Waterfront[/I]? I just saw it for the first time about two months ago, and I was amazed at the portrayal of the priest- not only because it was so positive, but because it was so masculine. They don't make them like that anymore.[/QUOTE]

No I havent had much time to watch movies. I'll try to find some time though to watch it, if its as good as you said.

Alot of the corruption in the clergy actually convinced me not to become a priest. Of course one friend of mine is constanty arguing how I should. :blush:

Hamilton

2005-11-03 01:20 | User Profile

[quote=Hilaire Belloc]Exactly. Well you may want to read some threads I posted here where I addressed much of this issue in more detail.

Thanks, I'll read the links, and I bookmarked your Third Position blog.

Lets not forget neo-pagan fanatics who love to shove this argument of Christianity's decline in Europe as proof that they're the ones who will save it!

How could I forget that? Anytime I open Skadi or Nordish Portal or VNN those arguments are all over the place.

But of course, as we're seeing now with all this information being presented, thats not even close to the truth. Europeans are rejecting corrupt Christian institutions, not Christianity or religion itself.

If I recall right, ironically Nicholas Goodrick Clarke in [I]Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of Identity[/I] points out that neopagan neonazis are mostly an [B]American[/B] phenomenon! [I]Islam[/I] is more likely to make big gains in Europe than neopaganism (though IMO, it will eventually be driven out by a militant Christian revival). For the most part, Europeans just don't take neopaganism very seriously. Like the "Church of Satan," there's something really cheesy and phony about it.

I honestly wished I had this information before in many previous debates. Especially this [URL="http://showthread.php?t=10039"]old debate[/URL], where my opponent arrogantly asserted that [B]"[t]here will be No Christian Renaissance in Europe nor in America no matter how much evangelizing the Pope or any other religious leader(s) may want."[/B] HA! I also love how he proves his stupid assertion.

So let's grant for the sake of argument that a Christian Renaissance is unlikely. I'll submit that a Pagan Renaissance is a thousand times less likely!

Gregor

2005-11-03 04:56 | User Profile

It's way past time for the RCC to break down and let those boys marry. I had one friend of mine in the priesthood tell me about the sexual politics, GAY sexual politics, that his bishop was pulling on the priests in his diocese. He said it wasn't unusual. He thought maybe 25-35% of the priests he knew were gay. Almost NONE celibate. Of the rest, half of the heteros had babes on the side. In different cities of course. The bishops used this knowledge against them.

When you talk about the perception of molester priests, the figure I heard was 3%. It would be impossible to know. The sickening part is the way the hierarchy knew about this 'problem' with some of their priests and just moved them around. In some cases, counseling was mandated. Really only in the last decade did they let some of the worst offenders be hung out to dry. They should have led the way in turning some of those monsters over for prosecution.

Celebate ministers may have had a place back in the middle ages. (I still can't feature it) But with modern day realities, (meaning after the sexual revolution) I think Paul's "let them marry" trumps, "I would that they remain as I am."

Quantrill

2005-11-03 16:41 | User Profile

Priestly celibacy is a matter of church discipline, and not of dogma, so it is definitely possible to change the policy. Indeed, the Vatican has allowed married Anglican priests to convert, and it allows Byzantine Rite Catholic priests to be married. I think it deserves consideration. Many virtuous, committed men are not able to keep celibate in our hyper-sexualized culture, so they stay away from the priesthood instead of taking a vow they know that will break.

Walter Yannis

2005-11-05 18:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Priestly celibacy is a matter of church discipline, and not of dogma, so it is definitely possible to change the policy. Indeed, the Vatican has allowed married Anglican priests to convert, and it allows Byzantine Rite Catholic priests to be married. I think it deserves consideration. Many virtuous, committed men are not able to keep celibate in our hyper-sexualized culture, so they stay away from the priesthood instead of taking a vow they know that will break.[/QUOTE]

I think that scuttling priestly celibacy is the only viable management response to the priestly faggot problem. One must assume all Catholic priests to be queer, at least in the States. No decent mother or father could ever allow their son to be alone with a Catholic priest. Faggotry is so rife in our clergy that the presumption must be that every priest is a sodomite pervert who wants to molest your kids.

This is terribly unfair to the many good men who sacrificed the comforts of family for the Lord, but then again the clergy, as a group, have none to blame but themselves for the problem. How many priests or bishops spoke out against the faggot takeover our our seminaries? How many of them spoke in favor of sodomy from the pulpits? How many of them were active faggots themselves?

It's sad, but it's true. I've known a lot of Catholic priests, and they were almost without exception queer as three dollar bills.

The problem of a faggot clergy is so deep and the damage inflicted by faggot priests on our Catholic boys by decades of episcopal corruption is so horrific that the only management decision that makes any sense is to (1) laicize immediately all priests who are or were during their priestly lives active homosexuals, and (2) require that all new ordinations be exclusively of married men (excluding monastic orders, who truly are monastic and don't work directly with the laity, especially with children).

I personally am withholding all support of any Catholic diocese until the USCCB makes some sort of realistic response to the crisis, and I actively encourage others to do the same. We must pull the plug on these sick men before they completely destroy all that generations of hardworking American Catholics built.

Not that I'm holding my breath.

PaleoBear

2005-11-07 18:12 | User Profile

[quote=Hilaire Belloc]Yes thats basically his argument. He continually argues that the institutional church has become corrupt and incompetent, is out of touch with reality, and failing to meet the needs of the laity. Hence why they're in such decline. I firmly agree with Greeley on this, Im very anti-clerical in my attitudes, except I argue from a more traditionalist-based perspective(while his is more progressive-orientated). However, this does not mean the end of Christianity as a whole; but rather that popular or "folk" Christianity is now beginning to emerge as the dominant form of Christian expression. Personally Ive always preferred folk Christianity to institutional christianity.

I find it perplexing how all these traditionalists, from the Latin Mass enthusiasts to sedevacantists, can have a problem with the leaders (bishops, even the Pope). What, is your Christian faith centered around those things Vatican II cleared off the table, peripheral things such as Latin language and devotions which began with lowered appreciation for the center, source and summit of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist and Mass? Most of the devotions pre-Vatican II Catholics appreciate began in the middle ages (perhaps the oldest, Eucharistic Adoration, began in the 14th century to refocus attention on the Reality of the Real Presence [certainly a worthy goal], and the Rosary from St. Dominic)-- some like devotion to the Sacred Heart began in the 17th century. All these devotions are well and good in that they prepare and dispose believers for reception of grace from the sacraments, but the central focus of Catholic Christians must be the person of Jesus Christ. We Catholics actually receive Christ's actual body and blood each Sunday at Mass. What do Protestants make of John 6? But alas, when I think of Protestantism I am reminded of Chesterton's line, "A falsehood is never so false as when it is nearly true." This is what makes heresy so insidious.

PaleoBear

2005-11-07 18:30 | User Profile

[quote=Hilaire Belloc]I certainly am not trashing the honest priests trying to make it in the world. They deserve all the help they need! But it cant be ignored that the clergy has significantly declined from just even a few decades ago.

There's even a book out now about how Liberals are delibertly trying to keep good honest men out of the priesthood, titled [I]Goodbye Good Men[/I] by Michael S. Rose:

[URL="http://www.goodbyegoodmen.com/"]http://www.goodbyegoodmen.com/[/URL]

How did the American Catholic priesthood go from an image of wise, strong men like Spencer Tracy in Boys Town and Bing Crosby in Going My Way, to an image of "pedophile priests"?

In [I]Goodbye, Good Men[/I], investigative reporter Michael S. Rose provides the shocking answer Ã¢â¬â an answer the mainstream news media has missed.

[I]MICHAEL S. ROSE was born in 1969 in Chicopee, Mass. Educated at Brown University and the University of Cincinnati, he is the author of four books, including the NY Times bestseller Goodbye, Good Men. He is executive editor of cruxnews.com and a contributing editor of New Oxford Review. His articles and editorials have appeared in venues such as The Wall Street Journal, NY Newsday, The American Conservative and The Catholic World Report. He lives in Cincinnati with his wife Barbara and their four children.[/I]

I am beginning to question the goals of the traditionalists lately. Reading about the horrible case of the youngish, Latin-loving, traditionalist priest Fr. Ryan Erikson in Hurley Wisconsin, who apparently killed two men at a funeral home and then hanged himself on the fire escape of the rectory (all because of a secret lifestyle one of the murdered men confronted him about that included child porn, child molestation, fascination w/ horror films, alcohol, guns,...). When I reviewed a few traditionalist forums some people were suggesting that the "pink mafia" set this priest up and then had him killed. Now, if these people are so disconnected with reality they can suggest such a scenario, what does this say about the rest of what they hold so near and dear to them? It's funny, alot of these traditionalist types promote those things which aim to build personal piety (devotions), yet you never hear them champion those things which aim to build up the Body of Christ, including the source and summit of the Catholic faith, the Sunday Mass and Eucharist. Personal devotions are fine, but I think the reason Vatican II cleared them off the table was because they often led to individualism and personal piety, which runs counter to the building of the Body of Christ.

Also, I find it curious that these under-35 Catholics would advance those things they were not exposed to as part of their faith growing up, from Rosaries to Novenas. Again, these things are great and good if they somehow help in the worship of the Mass and Eucharist, but not apart from this. I heard a priest on EWTN at a Marian conference saying Catholics nowadays are minimalists because they simply go to Mass on Sunday and that's it. I would say that any Catholic who has cleared the table and focused on simply the person of Jesus Christ, His death and resurrection, our salvation through Him and receiving his actual body and blood in the Eucharist in Sunday Mass, is a maximalist!

Petr

2005-11-07 18:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=PaleoBear]What do Protestants make of John 6?[/QUOTE]

Something like this?

[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Navy"]Third. John chapter six has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, which was instituted only later at the very end of Christ's earthly ministry. The RC Church and other groups which appeal to that passage to try to establish that Christ is physically present in the bread and the wine at His Supper, err greatly. For John 6:9-13 is not sacramental. Nor is it an account of transubstantiating bread and fishes into Himself, but rather a description of His miraculous multiplication of five loaves and two small fishes into many more [B]untransubstantiated[/B] loaves and fishes sufficient to feed about five thousand mature men and perhaps also their womenfolk and their children. John 6:10 cf. Matt. 14:14-21 & Mark 6:36-44 & Luke 9:14-17.

Fourth. From John 6:26 onward, Jesus said to the folk: "Truly I tell you, you seek Me ...because you ate of the[B] loaves[/B] and were filled." Then, in 6:32, Jesus implied that He Himself is the bread from heaven. He did not anabaptistically bring His flesh with Him from heaven-but only His [U]Own Person[/U], and indeed in a[B] Spirit[/B]-ual way. He took upon Himself flesh for the first time not in or from heaven, but only from and within the womb of Mary as His earthly mother.

Fifth. In 6:33, He says that the bread of heaven is not His earthly flesh but He Who [personally and now incarnately] came down to give life to the world. When in 6:34, the believers said to Him Lord, give us [B]this[/B] bread evermore!'- Jesus did [B]not [/B]pick up a piece of earthly bread and turn it into Himself. Instead, in 6:35, He said to themI[B] am[/B] the bread of life' [and not I will [B]become [/B]the bread of life']; he who comes to Me [and [B]not [/B]he who comes to a piece of earthly bread that I will turn into Myself] shall never be [U]hue[/U]." Yet the [U]latter[/U] indeed [B]does [/B]happen, between Masses, to those that from time to time come and receive the RC Mass.

Sixth. In John 6:48f, Jesus added: "I [B]am [/B]that bread of life." He did [B]not [/B]say: Earthly bread will [B]become [/B]Me.' Of[B] Himself[/B] He then said: "[B]This [/B]is the bread that comes down from heaven [[B]not [/B]that earthly bread[B] will become[/B] Me just whenever an earthly priest so alleges']. If[B] any [/B]man eat of [B]this [/B]bread, he[B] shall [/B]live for ever [[B]not [/B]even if any man eats the Mass on earth, he might still end up in hell']. And the bread that I will give [[B]not[/B]the bread which an earthly priest may give'], is My flesh which I will give for the life of the world."

Seventh. In John 6:52-58, "the [unbelieving] Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"' This shows that they had a carnal, cannibalistic, materialistic, andlocalized presence' misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying.

Eighth. In 6:53, "Jesus said to them,Very truly I tell you, unless you keep on eating the flesh of the Son of man and keep on drinking His blood [[B]not [/B]unless you from time to time keep coming to Mass'], you have no life in yourselves. Whoever keeps on eating My flesh and keeps on drinking My blood, has [B]everlasting[/B] life. "' That cannot truthfully be asserted of[B] all [/B]who are merely regular communicants. "For My [then and there [B]untransubstantiated[/B]!] flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who keeps on eating My flesh and keeps on drinking My blood [rather than keeps on having the dark-red wine withheld from him by a creaturely earthly priest], keeps on dwelling in Me [not physically but spiritually!], And I in him [not physically but spiritually!] ....

Ninth. Jesus then insisted: "He who keeps on feeding on [U][B]Me[/B][/U] [and [B]not[/B]he who from time to time consumes transubstantiated bread and wine'], even he shall keep on living by Me [[B]not [/B]by the Mass']. [U][B]This [/B][/U]is that bread which came down [B]from heaven [/B][and [B]not[/B]you must physically eat my flesh which came forth from Mary!'] .... He who keeps on eating of[B][U] this[/U][/B] bread [namely the Christ [B]from heaven[/B]], shall continue living for ever [and [B]not[/B] `might end up in heaven after a reasonable term in purgatory, yet could possibly still end up in hell for ever']!"

Tenth. In John 6:61f, when even His disciples kept on murmuring about this, Jesus said to them [altogether Proto-Calvinistically and totally untransubstantiatingly]: "[U][B]It is the Spirit[/B][/U] Who keeps on enlivening! The flesh profits not at all! The [U][B]words[/B][/U] which I have spoken (or keep speaking) to you, they are [B]Spirit[/B] and[B] they[/B] are[B] life[/B]! But there are some of you who do not believe" [such as Judas Iscariot whom Rome would have us believe nevertheless physically ate and drank the Divinity and also the very flesh and blood of Christ]. Compare John 6:64-71. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[url]http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/nontrans.htm[/url]

[QUOTE=PaleoBear]But alas, when I think of Protestantism I am reminded of Chesterton's line, "A falsehood is never so false as when it is nearly true." This is what makes heresy so insidious.[/QUOTE]

That principle could be thrown right back at Catholicism and its readiness to make [I]de facto [/I]compromises with paganism (like with Virgin of Guadalupe).

Petr

PaleoBear

2005-11-07 18:56 | User Profile

[quote=Petr]Something like this?

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=navy]Third. John chapter six has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, which was instituted only later at the very end of Christ's earthly ministry. The RC Church and other groups which appeal to that passage to try to establish that Christ is physically present in the bread and the wine at His Supper, err greatly. For John 6:9-13 is not sacramental. Nor is it an account of transubstantiating bread and fishes into Himself, but rather a description of His miraculous multiplication of five loaves and two small fishes into many more [B]untransubstantiated[/B] loaves and fishes sufficient to feed about five thousand mature men and perhaps also their womenfolk and their children. John 6:10 cf. Matt. 14:14-21 & Mark 6:36-44 & Luke 9:14-17.

[URL="http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/nontrans.htm"]http://www.spiritone.com/~wing/nontrans.htm[/URL]

That principle could be thrown right back at Catholicism and its readiness to make [I]de facto [/I]compromises with paganism (like with Virgin of Guadalupe).

Petr

When Harvard professor (and MIT-educated mathematician) Roy Schoeman realized that Christianity was true and he had to become a Christian, the decision about which church/denomination to join was easy in that there is only one church that can trace its roots back to Jesus Christ. And it certainly wasn't the one founded by a constipated German Augustianian priest who talked about having dinner with the devil and advocating murder and fornication to prove fidelity to sola fide. And it wasn't the one started by a French lawyer. Or any of the other 50,000+ subsequent to these.

John 6 says what it says.

PaleoBear

2005-11-07 19:10 | User Profile

[quote=Walter Yannis]I think that scuttling priestly celibacy is the only viable management response to the priestly faggot problem. One must assume all Catholic priests to be queer, at least in the States. No decent mother or father could ever allow their son to be alone with a Catholic priest. Faggotry is so rife in our clergy that the presumption must be that every priest is a sodomite pervert who wants to molest your kids.

It's sad, but it's true. I've known a lot of Catholic priests, and they were almost without exception queer as three dollar bills.

Not that I'm holding my breath.

I found a copy of a book "Dance of the Fallen Monk" (1995?) at a book sale recently. It was written by a former Trappist priest that gave up the faith completely (became an agnostic Buddhist?). It was clear this guy was trying to denigrate the Catholic Church whenever he could. But one thing he wrote struck me. He talked about all the rumors his relatives suggested about priests being homosexual or engaging in immoral sex acts, etc. But he wrote that he had heard confessions of fellow priests for decades and but for one or two exceptions they had all been completely faithful to their vows and promises-- though they struggled mightily at times in certain circumstances. Reading this reminded me that most priests are moral and faithful.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-07 20:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=PaleoBear]I find it perplexing how all these traditionalists, from the Latin Mass enthusiasts to sedevacantists, can have a problem with the leaders (bishops, even the Pope).

It's not too hard when you really think about it.

What, is your Christian faith centered around those things Vatican II cleared off the table, peripheral things such as Latin language and devotions which began with lowered appreciation for the center, source and summit of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist and Mass?

This is a straw-man if addressed to me. First off, Im not a Roman Catholic, but a Byzantine Catholic. Latin has little if any significance to us, since we celebrate the mass in the vernacular and have always done so. And no my faith is not based on just things Vatican II got rid of. Plenty of times I have spoke fondly of many aspects of Vatican II, not least of which it ended Latinization and encouraged us Eastern Catholics to reclaim our heritage.

What I am concerned about is how Vatican II destroyed centuries old traditions, and gave steady room for liberals and other dissidents to further pervert the Catholic faith.

Hilaire Belloc

2005-11-07 20:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=PaleoBear] Also, I find it curious that these under-35 Catholics would advance those things they were not exposed to as part of their faith growing up, from Rosaries to Novenas.[/QUOTE]

It goes to show that we're not motivated by mere nostalgia, but defend traditionalism out of principle.

Petr

2005-11-07 23:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=PaleoBear]When Harvard professor (and MIT-educated mathematician) Roy Schoeman realized that Christianity was true and he had to become a Christian, the decision about which church/denomination to join was easy in that there is only one church that can trace its roots back to Jesus Christ.[/QUOTE]

But can it really do so?

[QUOTE=][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]According to the First Vatican Council and other authoritative Catholic sources, a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed and been "ever understood" by the Christian church since the time of Peter ([url]http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/jasonte1.htm)[/url]. However, the following five facts of history make this claim of the Catholic Church untenable:

[B]There are no explicit references to a papacy in the earliest centuries of Christianity. [/B]Catholic apologists often suggest that a papacy is alluded to in Matthew 16, John 21, First Clement, Against Heresies, and other early documents, but all of these documents can reasonably be interpreted in non-papal ways. There are explicit references to the church offices of bishop and deacon, as well as doctrines such as Christ's deity, the Trinity, and the eucharist, but there aren't any explicit references to a papacy.
[B]Many of the words and actions of the earliest Christians contradict the concept of a papacy.[/B] The disciples repeatedly argued about who was the greatest among them, even after the words of Matthew 16:18-19 were spoken (Luke 22:24). The disciples don't seem to have had any concept of Peter having been established as their ruler. Paul wrote about apostles (plural), not a Pope, being the highest order in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also wrote that, in terms of apostolic authority, he was in no way inferior to any other apostle (2 Corinthians 12:11). Many events in early post-apostolic church history, such as Polycarp's disagreements with the Roman bishop Anicetus and Cyprian's disagreements with the Roman bishop Stephen, also contradict the concept of a papacy ([url]http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials.htm)[/url].
[B]The earliest non-Christian sources who commented on Christianity said nothing about a papacy.[/B] Though Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Lucian, and other early non-Christian sources wrote about the eucharist, Christ's deity, and other Christian doctrines, they didn't say anything about a papacy. If one man was viewed as the ruler of all Christians on earth, the "Vicar of Christ" and "Bishop of bishops", he would have been an ideal object of criticism. None of the earliest non-Christian sources seem to have any concept of a papacy, though.
[B]The earliest interpretations of the scripture passages most often cited in favor of a papacy are all non-papal. [/B]Tertullian (On Modesty, 21) writes that Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 in the sense that he played a major role in founding the Christian church. He identifies the usage of the "keys" of Matthew 16:19 not as papal authority, but as the preaching of the gospel and the exercising of church discipline. Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 10-11) writes that everybody who confesses the faith Peter confessed in Matthew 16:18 is also a "rock". He emphasizes that Matthew 16:18 doesn't apply only to Peter, and he says nothing about this passage applying in any exclusive way to the bishops of Rome. Cyprian (Epistle 26) writes that all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, are the successors of Peter, so that Matthew 16:18 applies to all of them. The Apostolical Constitutions (6:5) refers to Luke 22:32 as a passage about the faith of all Christians, and says nothing of a papacy or of this passage referring to papal infallibility. Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and other church fathers also interpreted Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21 in non-Roman-Catholic ways. Some church fathers even applied multiple interpretations to these passages of scripture, but the earliest church fathers never applied the Roman Catholic interpretations to these passages.
[B]Men like Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata), Cyprian (On the Unity of the Church), and Augustine (Sermons) wrote entire treatises relating to church government and Christian doctrine without mentioning a papacy. [/B]Offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned over and over again, councils are discussed, and the authority of scripture is referred to again and again, yet nobody in the earliest centuries of Christianity writes about papal authority. There are treatises instructing Christians on how to interpret scripture, explaining how to view doctrines like the incarnation and the Trinity, and encouraging Christians to obey bishops and other church leaders. There are no treatises devoted to a papal office, though, nor is a papacy even mentioned. For example, the influential bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, wrote a treatise on church government and unity (On the Unity of the Church) that not only doesn't mention a papacy, but even contradicts the concept.

In light of these five realities of history, the Roman Catholic Church's claims about the papacy are historically untenable. Catholics are encouraged to believe in transubstantiation, Purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and other doctrines because of papal authority, yet that authority is without foundation.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[url]http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/five.htm[/url]

Petr