The church will become small ...She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built [like CAF]

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarysLurker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can not confirm if this was the case for everyone in the ex- Soviet Union, but my elderly parents lived in Yugoslavia all through the roughly 30 year of Tito’s Communist rule and here they were allowed private religious practice.
I have an Architect family friend who worked on Catholic church projects in this time in communist Yugoslavia and he said they would attempt innovative design ideas to get around these problems (of not allowing procession etc).
But there were hostile attitudes from the government, yes, including that they purposely erected some taller buildings in front of his Church building so that the Church would not be visible from the seaside.

Perhaps though there were some exceptions. In Soviet Union there was more restriction on private religion. My Russian friends state they were still able to have private religion, but it was a worser situation in regards to overt persecution.

https://digitalcommons.georgefox.ed...le.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1598&context=ree
 
Last edited:
I think it has for around sixty years, as seen in Mondragon cooperatives:


if not cooperatives in general. And if you have to mention things like antitrust laws, then keep in mind that very idea of worker-owned manufacturing was also raised by Communists who do not support state control.

But the rise of secular culture does not stem from ownership of production but from increasing consumption, which is the result of industrialization, whether or not based on distributism.

In addition, increasing consumption is achievable with economies of scale, something which is not likely with small businesses.

That said, it is highly likely that secularism did not dominate in poor countries because they’re poor, and that the same grew in richer countries because of the results of industrialization, which include middle class conveniences.

In which case, in time what affected industrialized economies will also affect Africa, Asia, and South America. That is, if physical limitations of the biosphere and ecological limits will allow them. Otherwise, in the long run we might actually see the opposite, i.e., a much larger Church, but not in a way that most expect, and on a global scale.
 
But the rise of secular culture does not stem from ownership of production but from increasing consumption
I don’t think that secularization is tied to consumption because–all other things equal–increased consumption presupposes increased demand, which equals increased prices, which equals poverty. In order to move the '“Q” (quantity, i.e. consumption) on a demand-supply graph, you must also move the “D” (demand) line, which also increases “P” (price) because “S,” supply, has not been increased (and you just said production has nothing to do with it.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In other words, all other things equal, you cannot increase consumption without increasing prices and therefore causing poverty.. This is why you see high inflation or even hyperinflation in many of the countries you think of as “poor.” And many of these countries host secular socialist governments.

On the other hand, there are many non-poor countries where Christianity is strong, especially in Central and Eastern Europe.
 
Last edited:
People in ex-Yugoslavia, and in the Soviet Union were always free to worship in private.
True for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Muslims. but i am not sure about Eastern Catholics. There was some political problem which came about from Eastern Catholics allied with Germany during WWII.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t argue that production has nothing to do with it. Rather, “the rise of secular culture does not stem from ownership of production but from increasing consumption.” “Production” is not the same as “ownership of production,” which is the main point of distributism: worker-owned businesses or cooperatives, remember?

So, where does increasing consumption come from? Consider these two countries mentioned in the BBC article.

Nigeria, with an inflation rate of 15 pct:


The Philippines, with an inflation rate of 2 pct:


The U.S. has an inflation rate of around 1.4 pct.

Do you see what’s happening? The cost of living of NG is 25 pct lower than that of PH but the monthly wage is 60 pct lower. The cost of living of PH is 50 pct lower than that of the U.S. but the monthly wage is 90 pct lower.

In short, the problem isn’t just inflation or even hyperinflation but also lack of wages needed to buy more goods or pay for more services, something which is easy to achieve in industrialized countries where wages are many times higher even if the cost of living is also higher.

It’s that large amount of income plus even more available through credit that leads to not only conspicuous consumption but even pecuniary emulation which may be the real drivers of secularism. This might explain why in general there’s a connection between more wealth (which allows for more consumption) and lower levels of religious belief:


That’s why the Church is becoming smaller in richer countries but becoming larger in poorer ones, and why in time it will also become smaller when the latter advance economically.
 
That’s why the Church is becoming smaller in richer countries but becoming larger in poorer ones, and why in time it will also become smaller when the latter advance economically.
I still think this is a (well intended) oversimplification because it doesn’t explain the existence of religious wealthy countries. There used to be a lot of them. If you were to get in a time machine and go back to 1950, you would find that most of the secularized wealthy countries that exist today were religious but still wealthy. Further, the amount of per capita consumption in those countries has not meaningfully increased since then.

Rather, the decline in religiosity has been correlated with a rise in socialism and especially the Sexual Revolution.
 
Last edited:
My intention was not to talk about “the existence of religious wealthy countries” but to counter your claim that inflation is the cause of poverty.

AFAIK, this is now your third argument. To recap, you first argued that secularism caused by industrialization doesn’t have to take place thanks to distributism, but that doesn’t dominate in many countries. Next, you argued that inflation is the cause of poverty (which implies that by just lowering prices, then poor countries will be rich, too), but it turns out that that oversimplification is also questionable. Now, you’'re arguing that back in 1950, there were several “religious wealthy countries,” which means secularism doesn’t have to be tied with wealth.

But the data you presented shows otherwise. Consider, for example, factors like Church attendance, which you shared earlier. It has been on a downward trend since the 1950s while income levels increased considerably. And I’m certain that all of that income has to go somewhere, which means it is highly doubtful that per capita consumption only increased marginally. The type of middle class conveniences developed from 1950 to 2020 would have required such.
 
inflation is the cause of poverty
I didn’t claim that inflation is the cause of poverty. I said that, ceteris paribus, you cannot raise consumption without raising prices. That is Econ 1301.
Consider, for example, factors like Church attendance, which you shared earlier. It has been on a downward trend since the 1950s while income levels increased considerably.
Real income levels, meaning income levels corrected for inflation–i.e. the actual purchasing power of your money–have not increased since the 1960s. Meanwhile, as you point out, secularism has boomed.

Whoever sold you the consumption causes secularism theory owes you a refund.
 
Last edited:
But how to form a Benedict Option community?? Truly. I can’t figure out how it would work. I want to!
 
But how to form a Benedict Option community?? Truly. I can’t figure out how it would work. I want to!
Find a faithful parish, Catholic school or religious community and make it the center of your life and that of your family.

If you have children, find a faithful Catholic school or college and throw your heart into it.

If you have to move to do this, do so.

There has to be a sense of separation from the world. However it is not necessary to move to the middle of nowhere.

And… very importantly… the community must reject the sexual revolution. Completely. Totally.

Those are the basics.
 
Last edited:
I grew up in a bubble like that. Exactly as you described. The lack of preparation for living in the real world was astounding. Terrible, really. A parent’s job is to raise their babies into adults with skills for navigating the real world in which they are going to live. My parents failed on this front. Not to mention the resentment that their kids had as a result of that. Large family, and most of us ditched the religion as soon as we realized we were raised in wonderland.
 
Last edited:
grew up in a bubble like that. Exactly as you described. The lack of preparation for living in the real world was astounding. Terrible, really. A parent’s job is to raise their babies into adults with skills for navigating the real world in which they are going to live. My parents failed on this front. Not to mention the resentment that their kids had as a result of that. Large family, and most of us ditched the religion as soon as we realized we were raised in wonderland.
 
I understand the concept all too well. I think it is a bad idea, and something I definitely cannot get behind. It is weak.

Instead of taking the easy way out and living in a bubble, parents should do the hard work of teaching their kids how to be faithful while living in the world we have been given.

I realize you don’t agree. We seem to come from very different experiences.
 
Last edited:
Well none of us grew up to be worms. We are all fine people. My argument is more that is unhealthy, and leads to young adults rejecting the religion when they become adults and realize they were raised in an environment that, in no way, prepared them for surviving life outside the bubble. Personally, I felt the same as if I had been lied to all those years.
 
raised in an environment that, in no way, prepared them for surviving life outside the bubble.
Forming intentional disciples is not forming bubbles…

The whole point is to form them so that they are prepared for the real world when they are adults. Typical Catholic formation consists of Mass one day a week and CCD another. Which doesn’t work… 3 in 4 Catholic kids leave the Church by college age. This is true even if they go to a college labeled as Catholic, because most such schools are thoroughly secularized. So are many Catholic K-12 schools.

But if children are formed in a Catholic environment from cradle to college, and equipped with apologetics and vocational formation, they will be ready to deal with the “real world” because they will know how to answer its lies and kick peer pressure to the curb. Most importantly, they will be given an optimal opportunity to discern and enter their vocation (e.g. marriage) before the world can destroy it.
 
I understand the concept all too well.
Wait, you couldn’t possibly understand just because you lived it :roll_eyes:

Surely there is some subtlety you must be missing in this repackaging by a popsy conservative columnist’s second* (remember ‘crunchy cons’) attempt to explain how whichever fad he’s into at the time will save civilization.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top