The Reason Christianity is Dying in the West

[margaret42]

The Church has really nothing to lose by teaching and reminding people about “dogma”. It needs to be said and explained. Maybe that’s what people are looking for. And Church dogmas allow for Christian exceptions so you can follow them.

 

[commenter]

When society abandons fixed Traditional Dogmas, including those related to the Natural Law, you do not get an absence of dogmas, at least not for long. Something else arises to fill the vacuum, always with modern dogmas. In Germany it was Nazism, with many countries it was Communism. While you are going through the tyranny, few recognize how bad those modern man-made dogmas are; only after the fact the Germans could see how evil Nazism"s dogmas are, and the Russians could see how bad the Communist dogmas are. But not many could see it when those dogmas were strong.

Right now secular humanist dogmas are displacing Judeo Christian dogmas in the West. But now (when secular humanists are in power) most can’t see how bad those humanist dogmas are. In the future, they will look back and recognize them as evil.

 

[PetraG]

Both World Wars and the Soviet Union were trials that were too strong for many Europeans.

I think a lot of American young men also came home to “glory” and didn’t know how to carry the horrible things they really went through during war for the rest of their lives. They also came home to a nation whose social fabric had changed drastically in their absence. It wasn’t that so many things were blown up, as it was in Europe, or the class system was as turned-upside-down as there, but still nothing was the same anymore, for better and for worse.
More difficult yet, the rate of change in the West was dizzying in the whole 20th century. The thing most certain was uncertainty: unforeseeable and uncontrolled change brought about by a bewildering rate of technological innovation. No one knew which old maxims would survive; some thought none would, that human nature was changing. (It wasn’t.)
Think of how many things we have now that were not dreamt of in 1918.
I think the rate of change made tradition seem irrelevant and the life knowledge of older people seem irrelevant. New grandmothers were told that no, you don’t put baby on his belly to sleep, no you don’t give them those remedies you gave us, no, they cannot drink out of a hose or ride without a seat belt. And so on.
It is no wonder that Christianity in the change-worshiping and change-jaded West came out a bit beaten up.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It is no wonder that Christianity in the change-worshiping and change-jaded West came out a bit beaten up.

In the USA, we also had about two decades (1960s and 1970s) where we had, simultaneously,

• Major changes in Catholic practices and attitudes created by Vatican II
• Major changes in the country’s law and attitude towards civil rights/ racial equality
• Major changes in the country’s law and attitude towards gender equality and sexual behavior, including an increased availability and social acceptance of birth control and abortion
• An unpopular and morally questionable war (Vietnam) that caused many younger people to seriously question the values and traditions of older generations

This was just a huge amount of social change at once. It had far-reaching effects, both good and bad, on US society. Those in USA seeking a modern Church often felt that even the post-Vatican II church wasn’t relevant enough for them or wasn’t keeping up enough with the changes they wanted to see. Those in USA seeking a more traditional Church often found it unavailable at least up through about the 2000s, when some of the more traditional attitudes, practices and devotions began to come back.

I was in the generation for whom major social change, riots, marches, upheaval in society and the Church etc seemed normal because I don’t have any memories or firsthand knowledge of an earlier time when that stuff wasn’t going on in a big way. Let’s just say this stuff didn’t exactly foster confidence in society, tradition, or the Church. if you didn’t have a parent or other trusted older adult conveying Catholic teachings and setting a good Catholic example while still respecting human dignity (in other words, not being a bigot or hypocrite and not having their own life in a shambles) you were probably pretty adrift.

Regarding the Church, humorist Erma Bombeck had a joke in the 1970s about going to Confession and discovering that the priest she is confessing to just witnessed a murder, hasn’t made his Easter duty in years, and wants to talk about his mixed marriage. While that is exaggerated for humor purposes, there were indeed a large number of off-the-wall priests running around during my formative years, many of whom later dropped out of the priesthood. This was later compounded by all the sexual abuse scandals involving priests in the 80s, 90s and 00s, resulting in even more priests being removed from their duties.

The Church simply wasn’t that reliable as an institution for a couple decades. Those of us who hung in there were blessed with strong faith and/or some strong role models, such as good Catholic parents, or committed priests who avoided scandal.

 

[TK421]

The reasons for the decline and rise of Christianity in nations are multi-dimensional, but his explanation among others is pretty widely accepted.

With respect to the FSSP: you would need to analyze its growth and determine where it is coming from. If it is by absorbing devout Catholics from surrounding parishes into a concentrated environment, then that isn’t actual growth. It’s just redistributing Catholics. If it is inspiring conversions: that’s a positive sign. If it is attracting people to the priestly vocation: also hard to argue that isn’t a positive, though that still bears the question if those men wouldn’t become priests either way.

Peace.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

With respect to the FSSP: you would need to analyze its growth and determine where it is coming from. If it is by absorbing devout Catholics from surrounding parishes into a concentrated environment, then that isn’t actual growth. It’s just redistributing Catholics.

Even if the FSSP isn’t significantly helping with growth, it may well be helping with retention of Catholics who would otherwise be defecting to something like the SSPX or one of the other “old Catholic” churches in schism, or quitting Catholicism altogether for something like high-church Anglicanism.

 

[exnihilo]

If it is attracting people to the priestly vocation: also hard to argue that isn’t a positive, though that still bears the question if those men wouldn’t become priests either way.

I know of one case where it saved a vocation. Many of the seminaries were awful for a time. Some seminaries drove men from the priesthood.

If it is by absorbing devout Catholics from surrounding parishes into a concentrated environment, then that isn’t actual growth. It’s just redistributing Catholics. If it is inspiring conversions: that’s a positive sign

Regarding measuring growth we also have to keep in mind not everyone can attend a FSSP parish. There isn’t one in my area. If there was I might consider joining it. The only hesitation I have is that one thing I thought awful as a Protestant was how many churches I drove by in the way to mine. I don’t want to do that again.

Conversions are good but conversion to what is an important question. Also, I can’t judge souls but I am sure there are some people who are not very committed in their conversion. That could make it hard to ever really measure these things accurately.

 

[commenter]

Even if the FSSP isn’t significantly helping with growth, it may well be helping with retention of Catholics who would otherwise be defecting to something like the SSPX or one of the other “old Catholic” churches in schism, or quitting Catholicism altogether for something like high-church Anglicanism

In the 1970s and early 1980s things were pretty fluid regarding sspx. Today the boundary line is pretty solid between the local chapel and “traditional” Catholics. We have no tlm parish but Sunday Mass. The chapel appears to have a permanent, very separate group.

 

[bobperk]

I think the reason Christianity is faltering in the West is because of its embrace of a modern, secular, amoral system: capitalism. It, like communism, was the fruit of the Enlightenment.

You mention a very important point. Many Catholics in the US elevate American-style capitalism to a dogma itself. Roger Buck and Thomas Storck address this issue well in their writings.

 

[anon10271182]

Almost all of the churches that call themselves “Old Catholic” trace their apostolic succession through Utrecht and embrace ordaining “priestesses” and celebrating same sex “marriage,” so they’re definitely not an option for someone looking for tradition.

 

[commenter]

QContinuum:

I think the reason Christianity is faltering in the West is because of its embrace of a modern, secular, amoral system: capitalism. It, like communism, was the fruit of the Enlightenment.

You mention a very important point. Many Catholics in the US elevate American-style capitalism to a dogma itself. Roger Buck and Thomas Storck address this issue well in their writings.

The irony is that Catholics already have an extensive heritage available of social teaching, based on distributism, that they are unfamiliar with. G. K. Chesterton wrote extensively about economic freedom and empowering the family against both capitalists and socialists. Sadly, this has not been taught. Instead we were taught the peace and justice movement, which mostly repeats whatever the secular media is pushing.

 

[QContinuum]

The irony is that Catholics already have an extensive heritage available of social teaching, based on distributism, that they are unfamiliar with. G. K. Chesterton wrote extensively about economic freedom and empowering the family against both capitalists and socialists. Sadly, this has not been taught. Instead we were taught the peace and justice movement, which mostly repeats whatever the secular media is pushing.

I have gone on the record that when the CC goes back to condemning usury as an absolute evil, and rejects its progeny, capitalism, with the same fervor it does communism, I will convert.

I fully support distributionism, and I feel that Western society would return to its Christian roots were we to stop selling ourselves out. So long as we preach the Kingdom of God, but practice a lifestyle which is derived from distilled materialism, we will be (rightfully) ignored as idiots and hypocrites.

 

[steve-b]

commenter:

The irony is that Catholics already have an extensive heritage available of social teaching, based on distributism, that they are unfamiliar with. G. K. Chesterton wrote extensively about economic freedom and empowering the family against both capitalists and socialists. Sadly, this has not been taught. Instead we were taught the peace and justice movement, which mostly repeats whatever the secular media is pushing.

I have gone on the record that when the CC goes back to condemning usury as an absolute evil, and rejects its progeny, capitalism, with the same fervor it does communism, I will convert.

I fully support distributionism, and I feel that Western society would return to its Christian roots were we to stop selling ourselves out. So long as we preach the Kingdom of God, but practice a lifestyle which is derived from distilled materialism, we will be (rightfully) ignored as idiots and hypocrites.

Re: stance on usury

 

[deMontfort]

Usury seems to be a catch-all term that basically encompasses whatever someone doesn’t like

 

[steve-b]

Usury seems to be a catch-all term that basically encompasses whatever someone doesn’t like

Jesus even gives 2 examples
Talents

Then there is
interest

 

[QContinuum]

I am aware of how the change in doctrine is being spun as “development.”

From your own article:
“In other words, Catholic teaching still holds that usury is morally impermissible, but it does not follow from this (and the Church never did teach) that any charge above principle on a loan is always wrong.”

This is splitting hairs. Classically, usury is charging interest. What changed is how the Church defines usury.

Then theologians attempt to say it always held the same understanding. And caps it off with the appeal to “development of doctrine” to cover their duplicitous logic.

Call a spade a spade.

 

[steve-b]

I am aware of how the change in doctrine is being spun as “development.”

From your own article:
“In other words, Catholic teaching still holds that usury is morally impermissible, but it does not follow from this (and the Church never did teach) that any charge above principle on a loan is always wrong.”

This is splitting hairs. Classically, usury is charging interest. What changed is how the Church defines usury.

My wife and I just set aside our burial plot. We will pay it off over time. No interest is charged.

QContinuum:

Then theologians attempt to say it always held the same understanding. And caps it off with the appeal to “development of doctrine” to cover their duplicitous logic.

Call a spade a spade.

I just showed in my previous entry, that the Church doesn’t charge us interest.

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

I was reading a thread on a large, UK based parenting website earlier, on which a number of Catholics were opining about what was a sin and what wasn’t, wrt the Eucharist. Some were converts, some were cradles, nearly all were completely inaccurate and I don’t think anyone referenced actual Church teaching, though someone made a snide comment about ‘if Jesus didn’t say it in the Bible, I don’t worry’.
It was really quite eye-opening in terms of people living as Catholics with next to no understanding of what that meant bar a vague religiosity and a general ‘good person’ vibe.

I see it with my husband’s evangelical Anglican church too - the gradual fuzzing up of the clarity and breadth of Christian belief, like a load of limescale in a kettle, so that people can just barely articulate what it means to be a Christian beyond ‘Loving people’.

One of my daughters has pretty much rejected faith because the teaching she has been part of at her church has been completely inadequate in convincing her that there is anything distinct or challenging in Christianity. “I can love people and feel fulfilled by other things that mean I don’t have to do anything on Sunday morning” she says. It’s hard to counter because that really is the entirety of the ‘doctrine’ her church teaches.

The heart of Christianity and Catholicism is the love of God. But that is as far from a simple, lowest common denominator message as you can get. Humans can see through a facile, dumbed-down message pretty easily. We are complex beings and it makes perfect sense that removing the complexity from Christianity would make it totally unsatisfying. There’s a reason why no one exists on candy floss rather than proper nutrition.

 

[Crusader13]

I have gone on the record that when the CC goes back to condemning usury as an absolute evil, and rejects its progeny, capitalism, with the same fervor it does communism, I will convert.

I fully support distributionism, and I feel that Western society would return to its Christian roots were we to stop selling ourselves out. So long as we preach the Kingdom of God, but practice a lifestyle which is derived from distilled materialism, we will be (rightfully) ignored as idiots and hypocrites.

Your simplistic view and disdain for capitalism is sorely misplaced. Capitalism has done more good in the world than any other economical or political form of governance. It can be abused by those who have a love of wealth and material attachment, and it is by no means perfect, but it is far better than what is is being practiced in the world today by other socialist countries. Money isn’t the root of evil, but the love of money is.

The loss of catholic identity and faith isn’t directly attributed to merely monetary issues. It’s been a combination of dozens of issues which, by themselves wouldn’t have nearly the same effect. However, when combined with years of poor catechesis, scandals galore and a clergy that seems more focused on social justice and ecumenism, its no wonder people are leaving.

There is a problem in the church today and to ignore it, is to invite more disaster. I don’t understand when people say “God is in control”; “God will protect the church from error” or the often quoted Mathew 16:18 “…the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

This attitude is why the church is in the state it is today.

I’m sure the Pharisees and many of the Jewish faithful thought God was in control and nothing outside of their faith was going to destroy them or the household of the Lord as well, prior to 70AD.

Do I believe that God will allow Satan to destroy the Church? No… but I do believe that God will allow the Church to be reduced to a small mustard seed again in order to save it from the likes of error and corruption.

And I do believe that process will not be pleasant.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I have gone on the record that when the CC goes back to condemning usury as an absolute evil, and rejects its progeny, capitalism, with the same fervor it does communism, I will convert.

You denying yourself the fullness of truth based on some political or economic point is only harming yourself.
Good luck with that.