It is very true that Catholicism in general is suffering here in the United States, but this is not true across the board. There are parishes around the U.S. with loaded pews, generous collections, and even full/or near-full seminaries. Dioceses that come readily to mind are the Archdiocese of Denver and Atlanta.
Read some of Nat Hentoff’s articles. He’s a pro-life atheist. Maybe a member of a small minority to be sure, but there are moral atheists out there.
I agree. Some are dying, some “exploding.”
Atlanta surprises me. Are there enough Catholics in Georgia, a state I’ve always seen as Bible-Belt?
The reason is worth discovering.
I have not had a chance to read his work, but from my experience, atheism can’t explain the “ought” in morality. Something moral is something that “ought” to be done, in that it is a task/purpose inherent within our being. If the whole of the cosmos is a random fluke, void of purpose as defined by the existence of higher being, then human beings themselves are flukes and void of purpose. Granted, one can define a “purpose” for themselves, but this is arbitrary and meaningless because ultimately, I did not bring myself into being. I had no say in how I was to be created and therefore I have no definitive say on what I was created for.
Actually, I live in the Bible-belt (north Florida/south Georgia area) and from experience we’ve found that its *much *easier to convert a Bible-thumping Protestant to the Catholic Church than it is to convert a luke-warm, craddle Catholic to full communion with the Catholic faith. The reason being is that, ironically, Catholicism really is the most “Biblical” denomination out there - just ask Scott Hahn
Part of the reason (not to exclude other reasons) is the sheer novelty of Catholicism/Orthodoxy in the South. After centuries of having to suffer through Baptist, Methodist, and other similarly liturgically-challenged churches, Southerners at last are rediscovering the richness of Christian tradition coupled with scripture.
Be careful the company you keep.
Yeah. These “some individuals” just happen to be in control of all the decision makers on the left. When are you, as an orthodox Catholic, going to mandate that change? You must be writing letters to your representatives constantly.
No such thing as a moral atheist. Oxymoron.
You must live in a pretty bad area to have such a lack of hope for our ever strengthening Church. I am sorry that you are not able to witness this awesome and very popular return to orthodoxy in our country. In my college, only 5 years ago you’d be lucky to see 10 students go to daily mass. As of today, we have about 100 or more students going to mass. Our philosophy and theology departments are booming, so much so that it is extremely difficult to get into classes of these departments. On a more wider perspective, we see more unapologetically Catholic colleges popping up all over the place, as well as solid religious orders bursting at the seams in their convents.
There are moral atheists whether you accept the fact or not. Read what they write.
How do you define the word moral? In the case of an atheist it would be hit or miss when it comes to acting in a moral way.
No, in Little Rock, a good orthodox diocese, which was one of the dioceses that did not even have a single incident of priestly abuse.
If it’s awesome, there must be a lot of it. But, your claim is thin on the ground with substantiation…
Heretical Catholics aren’t Catholics. What do you mean by a morally liberal parish?
In fifty years I’ll be dead, and you’ll be an old woman. But, better late than never, eh?
Maybe demography is destiny, but you assume that your children are going to grow up to be just like you.
40 years? Gosh, people change from one generation to the next. You’re right about not being able to make set assumptions about what one’s children will be like when they’re adults.
Hey Penny, nice to see you again!
Charity, please.
I don’t think that secularists don’t value children. They do so, but in smaller numbers. This accomodation to a “better” lifestyle, however, has its long-term consequences.
A bit pessimistic, no? Don’t forget our Baby Boom of half a century ago. A change of attitude could produce another one, even in countries with low or even negative population growth
Not so long - 9 months in the making, and two decades in the raising.
And presumably most Catholics produce Catholic children, so we’re going to win, right?
The sentence “It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch” followed a discussion of Eugenicists. Christ condemned proud unrepentant sinners such as Pharisees. How can I not follow his example and condemn promotors of abortion?
In what way is it “a better lifestyle” if it leads to extinction for that group? “Better lifestyle” reminds me of that phrase “Wanted children”. Is that what you meant?
No pessimism involved! Orthodox Christians are having children in more than sufficient numbers. Europeans are in trouble because they have too few orthodox Christians or Jews, and their immigrants are from a culture historically (and in the modern day) hostile to their own.
Not so long, if they chose to have them. They don’t, and show no sign of changing. As the Chinese proverb goes, “If you don’t change the road you’re on, you get to where it’s going.”
“They talk of free love when they mean something quite different, better defined as free lust. But being sentimentalists they feel bound to simper and coo over the word “love.” They insist on talking about Birth Control when they mean less birth and no control. We could smash them to atoms, if we could be as indecent in our language as they are immoral in their conclusions.” (G.K. Chesterton in “Obstinate Orthodoxy” from The Thing)And, I don’t think that the rate of planting has gone down at all - it’s just being planted on deliberately unfertile ground.
My observations are backed up by studies of birthrates over the last 40 years. Richard, these figures are not under dispute by any reputable demographer.