Christianity Isn’t Dying, But Protestantism Is

[Michie]

To be clear, all religion is suffering at least some loss of adherents in the world today. The influence of Modernism, and the ever relentless march of Marxism, has definitely had an impact. However, things aren’t necessarily as bleak as they appear. While Christianity appears to be diminishing in the West, it’s simultaneously flourishing in Africa and parts of Asia. Those two continents have never seen so many conversions to the Christian faith. So while we see the signs of what appears to be a dying faith in one part of the world, it’s growing by leaps and bounds in another. We don’t readily see the growth here in the United States, so it’s outside of our everyday perception, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s happening. Americans, like must people, have a tendency to view the entire world the way we see our immediate surroundings. They call this the kind of worldview “Amerocentric.” It’s important that we don’t let our Amerocentric view dominate our understanding of the whole world, and most certainly not the Christian faith as a whole.

While Africa and Asia are going through a period of explosive growth in Christianity, it is very true that Europe, as well as North and South America, are experiencing a decline. We’ll focus on that now. Of course, atheists are quick to point out this decline, and triumphantly declare that their non-religious worldview is prevailing. That may be true in the West, bust as I pointed out above, it’s not true worldwide. So the question that remains is: why? Why is Christianity fading in the West, but not so much in other places, like Africa and Asia?

Continued below.

Christianity Isn’t Dying, But Protestantism Is

To be clear, all religion is suffering at least some loss of adherents in the world today. The influence of Modernism, and the ever relentless march of Marxism, has definitely had an impact. Howeve…

completechristianity.blog

 

[Bob Crowley]

After reading the article, and noting that the author has been in the Catholic Church for about the same time as I have, plus an ex-Protestant I suppose we share some common ground. But I was never in an evangelical church in the sense of charismatic. I suppose my wife's Baptist Church is evangelical in that they try to evangelise and they support a number of missions.

I was also atheist for a while before becoming Christian.

I'm not quite so interested in conservative liturgy or the contraceptive issue. The world population has gone from 2.5 billion when I was born to 8 billion today, despite the availability of the contraceptive pill, abortion etc. At the same rate the world population will be 24 billion in 2093, 72 billion in 2163 and 216 billion in 2163. Want to try planning for that sort of population growth when we're already struggling with environmental and supply issues with a mere 8 billion people?

Or as my old Protestant pastor put it, "I think the contraceptive pill was God's gift, given at the very time that population growth was becoming a real problem in some parts of the world." I'm afraid I agree.

I'm afraid Pope Paul VI's decision to ban the pill is one of the reasons I have a jaundiced opinion of papal infallibility. Admittedly it wasn't a decisions which falls into that category and possibly it might be one day be reversed when the church finally realises that the planet can't support unrestrained population growth. In the meantime all it does is support the abortion industry - if you can't prevent unwanted children by contraception, then you'll have to abort them. I know which I think is the lesser of two evils.

I'll leave it at that on that issue.

On the issue of liturgy - as a Protestant convert the issue of receiving the host on hand or tongue leaves me cold. If someone wants to receive it on their tongue, fine. But I'm not interested and nor would most Protestants if they converted to the Catholic Church. They'd regard it as formalism. Christ is the center of our faith - not how we receive the Eucharist, or whether we wear a veil on our heads, or obey every single ruling of the Catholic Church!

The blogger's thoughts about music are probably correct, that is there needs to be a mix of traditional and contemporary music. What's ignored is that the older parishioners of today are also the same people of the rock and roll age - their tastes are going to have influenced by that period. So it needs to be a mixture.

On our sacramentalism - to become Catholic, we have to go through RCIA. This can be done well or badly. But to quote another poster, "Pastor Bob from the Presbyterian Church says to the new seeker, 'See you in church on Sunday!'" The seeker turns up, is made to feel welcome, and after a fairly short introduction to Christian teachings by the pastor or an elder or three, is inducted into the church.

That was pretty much my experience, and the Presbyterian Church is still fairly formal. To be honest, I don't think I would have gone from my pre-Presbyterian atheism straight into the Catholic Church. The support wouldn't have been there and there would have been too many rules for my likes. So it was necessary for me to go through a Protestant transitional stage first.

I also learnt a lot from my old Presbyterian pastor which has stood me in good stead over the years. I think God wanted me to meet him (and his family) anyway.

Finally I think I may need to get involved in a Catholic pentecostal church. If the protestant charismatic churches are growing while the mainline ones are shrinking, there's bound to be a lesson in that for us.

Meanwhile we need to start thinking beyond "Catholics coming home". There are a lot of Protestants, atheists and agnostics out there, along with adherents of other faiths. What about them?

 

[concretecamper]

Or as my old Protestant pastor put it, "I think the contraceptive pill was God's gift, given at the very time that population growth was becoming a real problem in some parts of the world." I'm afraid I agree.

I'm sure Satan is on your old protestant pastor's side. Reduce the marital act to only pleasure so eventually it doesn't matter what sex the participants are, or species for that matter.

Ugh

 

[Bob Crowley]

You can mix pleasure and ethics quite easily. We do it all the time.

When you eat your food, do you only consider the ethical side of it - is it fair for me to eat as much as I do or should I send some of it to the starving; is that food good for me; can I afford this cup of coffee or should I give it to that stranger who looks hard up?

Of do you pick foods to some extent because you enjoy the pleasurable taste?

Should I go for an unnecessary drive to avoid polluting the environment? Or do I just want a pleasant break?

Deciding on the size of your family, believe it or not, is an ethical decision.

Sex is pleasurable, no doubt about it. But as somebody I know quipped once, "Marriage gets to the stage where it's platonic anyway!"

Or as someone I else worked with once said "The novelty of sex soon wears off!"

Maybe so but the offspring of that sex is a lifelong commitment and consumes a lot of resources during his or her lifetime.

God's given us a brain and He expects us to use it - not just depend on tradition in all and every circumstance.

If you're willing for your descendants to struggle in a 216 billion population world in 210 years time, I hope you can drop them a few pointers on how to do it.

 

[Pioneer3mm]

It seems that OP/Article focus is..on the United States.
---
Interesting book to read..on Christianity in North America.
'A History of Christianity in the United States & Canada'
- Second Edition.
- Mark A. Noll
---
The book has sections/chapters on..
'1960-2018 & 2001-2018'

 

[Bob Crowley]

You're correct. The writer's focus is on the US.

Butit would also apply to the Australian Christian scene with some minor changes, and quite possibly the English speaking world. As the author states, there are other influences in Europe.

It wouldn't apply to Africa or China.

I don't know about South America where Protestantism (particularly Pentecostalism) is growing at the expense of the Catholic Church. Even Anglicanism is growing there apparently.

Religion in Latin America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The majority of Latin Americans are Christians (90%),[2] mostly Roman Catholics.[6][1] Membership in Protestant denominations is increasing, particularly in Brazil, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Puerto Rico.[7] In particular, Pentecostalism has experienced massive growth.[8][9] This movement is increasingly attracting Latin America's middle classes.[10] Anglicanism also has a long and growing presence in Latin America.

According to the detailed Pew Research Center multi-country survey in 2014, 69% of the Latin American population is Catholic and 19% is Protestant, rising to 22% in Brazil and over 40% in much of Central America. More than half of these are converts.[11][12] According to the 2014 Pew survey, the 46 countries and territories of Latin America and the Caribbean comprised, in absolute terms, the world's second-largest Christian population (24%; including U.S., British, Dutch and French territories), after the 50 countries and territories of Europe (26%; including Russia, excluding Turkey), but just before the 51 countries and territories of Sub-Saharan Africa (24%; including Mauritania, excluding Sudan).[13]

One of the ironies about the Americas is that the Catholic Church is growing in the USA in part due to Latin immigration, and the reverse is happening in South America.

You can be sure Pope Francis would be well aware of the growing Protestant influence in Latin America, and he would have his own opinions on why that is happening.

 

[narnia59]

After reading the article, and noting that the author has been in the Catholic Church for about the same time as I have, plus an ex-Protestant I suppose we share some common ground. But I was never in an evangelical church in the sense of charismatic. I suppose my wife's Baptist Church is evangelical in that they try to evangelise and they support a number of missions.

I was also atheist for a while before becoming Christian.

I'm not quite so interested in conservative liturgy or the contraceptive issue. The world population has gone from 2.5 billion when I was born to 8 billion today, despite the availability of the contraceptive pill, abortion etc. At the same rate the world population will be 24 billion in 2093, 72 billion in 2163 and 216 billion in 2163. Want to try planning for that sort of population growth when we're already struggling with environmental and supply issues with a mere 8 billion people?

Or as my old Protestant pastor put it, "I think the contraceptive pill was God's gift, given at the very time that population growth was becoming a real problem in some parts of the world." I'm afraid I agree.

I'm afraid Pope Paul VI's decision to ban the pill is one of the reasons I have a jaundiced opinion of papal infallibility. Admittedly it wasn't a decisions which falls into that category and possibly it might be one day be reversed when the church finally realises that the planet can't support unrestrained population growth. In the meantime all it does is support the abortion industry - if you can't prevent unwanted children by contraception, then you'll have to abort them. I know which I think is the lesser of two evils.

I'll leave it at that on that issue.

On the issue of liturgy - as a Protestant convert the issue of receiving the host on hand or tongue leaves me cold. If someone wants to receive it on their tongue, fine. But I'm not interested and nor would most Protestants if they converted to the Catholic Church. They'd regard it as formalism. Christ is the center of our faith - not how we receive the Eucharist, or whether we wear a veil on our heads, or obey every single ruling of the Catholic Church!

The blogger's thoughts about music are probably correct, that is there needs to be a mix of traditional and contemporary music. What's ignored is that the older parishioners of today are also the same people of the rock and roll age - their tastes are going to have influenced by that period. So it needs to be a mixture.

On our sacramentalism - to become Catholic, we have to go through RCIA. This can be done well or badly. But to quote another poster, "Pastor Bob from the Presbyterian Church says to the new seeker, 'See you in church on Sunday!'" The seeker turns up, is made to feel welcome, and after a fairly short introduction to Christian teachings by the pastor or an elder or three, is inducted into the church.

That was pretty much my experience, and the Presbyterian Church is still fairly formal. To be honest, I don't think I would have gone from my pre-Presbyterian atheism straight into the Catholic Church. The support wouldn't have been there and there would have been too many rules for my likes. So it was necessary for me to go through a Protestant transitional stage first.

I also learnt a lot from my old Presbyterian pastor which has stood me in good stead over the years. I think God wanted me to meet him (and his family) anyway.

Finally I think I may need to get involved in a Catholic pentecostal church. If the protestant charismatic churches are growing while the mainline ones are shrinking, there's bound to be a lesson in that for us.

Meanwhile we need to start thinking beyond "Catholics coming home". There are a lot of Protestants, atheists and agnostics out there, along with adherents of other faiths. What about them?

The Overpopulation Myth - Population Research Institute

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about overpopulation, but the idea that it is a real threat has been around for centuries.

www.pop.org

 

[Pioneer3mm]

South America where Protestantism particularly Pentecostalism is growing

Good point.
---
I was in Brazil..years ago.
- on the mission trip.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The Overpopulation Myth - Population Research Institute

There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about overpopulation, but the idea that it is a real threat has been around for centuries.

www.pop.org

In line with my old pastor's comment about the pill being "God's gift at the very time population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world", when does it appear?

It appears around 1960 just as the population graph takes off like a rocket.

PS - The UN declared 22 November 2022 as the day of 8 billion.

If the following link is correct, the world population is growing by 215,000 people per day.

The World Counts

www.theworldcounts.com

That means that in the 77 days since 22 November another 16.5 million people have been added to the statistic. Give it another 40 days and that's another Australian population to be fed, housed, watered, sewered, transported, educated, and cared for in the medical sense.

That's another Australia in 116 days, another US in 4.22 years, and another China in about 18 years. But it's exponential and so the next billion is expected to be here by about 2037 (14 years), then 2056 (19 years). I won't be here then so it won't be my problem. I'd be 102 then and pushing up daisies, but it means that if the forecasts are correct, the population will have quadrupled in the century after my birth.

Give it another century that's 40 billion; add another century it will be 160 billion etc.

If population growth does stabilise, you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be because everybody is use NFP. They'll be using contraceptives, and all too often, abortion.

 

[narnia59]

View attachment 327640

In line with my old pastor's comment about the pill being "God's gift at the very time population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world", when does it appear?

It appears around 1960 just as the population graph takes off like a rocket.

PS - The UN declared 22 November 2022 as the day of 8 billion.

If the following link is correct, the world population is growing by 215,000 people per day.

The World Counts

www.theworldcounts.com

That means that in the 77 days since 22 November another 16.5 million people have been added to the statistic. Give it another 40 days and that's another Australian population to be fed, housed, watered, sewered, transported, educated, and cared for in the medical sense.

That's another Australia in 116 days, another US in 4.22 years, and another China in about 18 years. But it's exponential and so the next billion is expected to be here by about 2037 (14 years), then 2056 (19 years). I won't be here then so it won't be my problem. I'd be 102 then and pushing up daisies, but it means that if the forecasts are correct, the population will have quadrupled in the century after my birth.

Give it another century that's 40 billion; add another century it will be 160 billion etc.

If population growth does stabilise, you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be because everybody is use NFP. They'll be using contraceptives, and all too often, abortion.

The primary reason the population growth has accelerated over the last half century is because medical technology is allowing people to live longer, not because the birth rate is exploding. At some point that is going to level out. The curve you see is not a valid long term projection.

But because people have bought into the myth that the only way for people to prosper is for there to be fewer of us, we are now facing a looming crisis of too many old people and not enough younger people to support the aging population. Hence you're going to see the call of euthansia to help balance that out. Great, we've figured out how to let you live longer but because we've bought into the lie about the doom of overpopulation we don't have enough of a young working force to support you, so we're going to kill you anyway once your life is deemed to not have value, meaning you're poor and old.

The problem has never been not enough resources on the earth to sustain its population; the problem has always been that the great majority of those resources are used by a relatively small portion of the population. It's why there were poor in the time of Jesus -- not because of too many people but because of sin. It's no different now.

The advent of the birth control pill (which can be an abortifacient) has brought about the objectification of the sex act and human persons, the dissolution of the family unit as people seek self over others, and a pollution of our waters with hormones that impact our wildlife as well as humanity as a whole. Here's the other thing. We are above all an adaptable and evolving group of beings. What do you think the consequence is going to be of generations of teaching our bodies via usage of the birth control pill that women's fertility is a bad thing that should be suppressed? Women's bodies are eventually going to adapt to that pressure from the environment they live in and at some point we won't need a pill, we'll be wondering why we can hardly reproduce at all. That's MY prediction for the future.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The business about contraceptives being an abortifacient is a furphy. There are more failures of embryos when no birth control is used.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=cedar_ethics_online#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20strong%20scientific,use%20(Trussell%2C%202008).

If 75% of the eggs were fertilized in the two groups, that would create 9,750 embryos and 12 embryos, respectively. It has already been noted that embryos naturally have a 40% failure rate for implantation. This would make the number of failed implantations with no birth control 3,900. Even if contraceptives led to a 100% failure of implantation rate, this would only be 12 failed implantations. In other words, 325% more embryos are destroyed when contraceptives are not used than when they are used.

What really annoys me about this issue is that Pope John XXIII set up a committee to advise on the contraceptive pill. He died before he could make a decision on their findings. Pope Pius VI expanded the committee which included theologians, physicians, women, and an executive committee of 16 bishops and 7 cardinals.

Their decision -

Majority report[edit]​

The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[1][page range too broad][4][page needed][5] This report was approved by 64 of the 69 members voting.[6] According to this majority report, use of contraceptives should be regarded as an extension of the already accepted cycle method:

Establishment by John XXIII[edit]
With the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960, dissenters in the church argued for a reconsideration of the church positions. In 1963 Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and population.[1][page range too broad][2][page needed] Neither John XXIII nor Paul VI wanted the almost three thousand bishops and other clerics then in Rome for the Second Vatican Council to address the birth control issue even though many of these bishops expressed their desire to bring this pressing pastoral issue before the council.[3]

Role of Paul VI[edit]​

After John XXIII's death in 1963, Pope Paul VI added theologians to the commission and over three years expanded it to 72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and 5 women without medical credentials, with an executive committee of 16 bishops, including 7 cardinals.)[1][page range too broad][2][page needed]

Against this was a minority report with one theologian and three other theologian priests. And what was their justification?

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 [when Casti connubii was promulgated] and in 1951.

In other words those dastardly Protestants couldn't possibly be guided by the Holy Spirit in their decision and they didn't have a theological brain between them!!

Minority report[edit]​

One commission member, American Jesuit theologian John Ford (with the assistance of American theologian Germain Grisez) drafted a minority report working paper that was signed by Ford and three other theologian priests on the commission, stating that the church should not and could not change its long-standing teaching.[1][page range too broad][4][page needed][5] Even though intended for the Pope only, the commission's report and two working papers (the minority report and the majority's rebuttal to it) were leaked to the press in 1967, raising public expectations of liberalization.[5][9]

The rationale for issuing the minority report was spelled out:

If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 [when Casti connubii was promulgated] and in 1951. It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half a century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which Popes and Bishops have either condemned, or at least not approved.[10]

I don't admire Pope Pius VI's decision! Not in the least!

 

[narnia59]

The business about contraceptives being an abortifacient is a furphy. There are more failures of embryos when no birth control is used.

The fact that people miscarry does not justify abortion.

It is a well known fact that if the birth control pill fails to prevent conception, it then thins the lining of the uterine wall to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. When that happens and conception occurs but the uterus is made hostile to the new life implanting, then that is an abortion, not the prevention of a conception.

What really annoys me about this issue is that Pope John XXIII set up a committee to advise on the contraceptive pill. He died before he could make a decision on their findings. Pope Pius VI expanded the committee which included theologians, physicians, women, and an executive committee of 16 bishops and 7 cardinals.

Their decision -




Against this was a minority report with one theologian and three other theologian priests. And what was their justification?


In other words those dastardly Protestants couldn't possibly be guided by the Holy Spirit in their decision and they didn't have a theological brain between them!!


I don't admire Pope Pius VI's decision! Not in the least!

What really annoys me is when people somehow think the Catholic Church should be run by committee or majority rule.

When the pill came on the scene people thought that since there was not "outward" appearance of interfering with the possible conception of a new life during the marital act that it would be seen as being okay. The couple could "pretend" they weren't putting up a barrier to their fertility because it was hidden away and not present during the marital act. Paul VI was smart enough to realize that hiding the barrier was still a barrier and contrary to what the Church had taught for the last 2000 years and no committee could change that fact.

 

[chevyontheriver]

View attachment 327640

In line with my old pastor's comment about the pill being "God's gift at the very time population pressures were becoming a real problem in some parts of the world", when does it appear?

It appears around 1960 just as the population graph takes off like a rocket.

PS - The UN declared 22 November 2022 as the day of 8 billion.

If the following link is correct, the world population is growing by 215,000 people per day.

The World Counts

www.theworldcounts.com

That means that in the 77 days since 22 November another 16.5 million people have been added to the statistic. Give it another 40 days and that's another Australian population to be fed, housed, watered, sewered, transported, educated, and cared for in the medical sense.

That's another Australia in 116 days, another US in 4.22 years, and another China in about 18 years. But it's exponential and so the next billion is expected to be here by about 2037 (14 years), then 2056 (19 years). I won't be here then so it won't be my problem. I'd be 102 then and pushing up daisies, but it means that if the forecasts are correct, the population will have quadrupled in the century after my birth.

Give it another century that's 40 billion; add another century it will be 160 billion etc.

If population growth does stabilise, you can bet your bottom dollar it won't be because everybody is use NFP. They'll be using contraceptives, and all too often, abortion.

When we look at your graph, sure, we can get scared. But when we look at the number of children per woman of childbearing age there is something else going on. Many countries are WAY below replacement rates. Which means in those countries the population will go down. Overall, population IS stabilizing, although haphazardly. We have likely reached an asymptote, and while population will continue to grow for a few decades it will either go steady or start to decline. If it declines sharply enough the real question will be extinction rather than overpopulation. It is quite possible that we will have so many old people per worker that massive euthanasia will be promoted. Anyhow, max human population looks like it will never reach 20 billion.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't admire Pope Pius VI's decision! Not in the least!

Sorry. I do. It was one of the few really good things he did as pope. Even if he explained it poorly. It took pope John Paul II to provide a better explanation using the 'Theology of the Body' he developed.

 

[chevyontheriver]

To be clear, all religion is suffering at least some loss of adherents in the world today. The influence of Modernism, and the ever relentless march of Marxism, has definitely had an impact. However, things aren’t necessarily as bleak as they appear. While Christianity appears to be diminishing in the West, it’s simultaneously flourishing in Africa and parts of Asia. Those two continents have never seen so many conversions to the Christian faith. So while we see the signs of what appears to be a dying faith in one part of the world, it’s growing by leaps and bounds in another. We don’t readily see the growth here in the United States, so it’s outside of our everyday perception, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s happening. Americans, like must people, have a tendency to view the entire world the way we see our immediate surroundings. They call this the kind of worldview “Amerocentric.” It’s important that we don’t let our Amerocentric view dominate our understanding of the whole world, and most certainly not the Christian faith as a whole.

While Africa and Asia are going through a period of explosive growth in Christianity, it is very true that Europe, as well as North and South America, are experiencing a decline. We’ll focus on that now. Of course, atheists are quick to point out this decline, and triumphantly declare that their non-religious worldview is prevailing. That may be true in the West, bust as I pointed out above, it’s not true worldwide. So the question that remains is: why? Why is Christianity fading in the West, but not so much in other places, like Africa and Asia?

Continued below.

Christianity Isn’t Dying, But Protestantism Is

To be clear, all religion is suffering at least some loss of adherents in the world today. The influence of Modernism, and the ever relentless march of Marxism, has definitely had an impact. Howeve…

completechristianity.blog

Catholicism IS in trouble in the USA. Liberal Protestantism is in a world of hurt in the USA but we shouldn't think there will not be a lot of hurt for the Catholic Church here. It's already started.

There have been three main episodes where we have shot ourselves in the foot. And we have only two feet to shoot.

First was the radical changes to the liturgy. And to catechesis. Starting in 1970, this pulled the rug out from underneath many faithful people. And failed to teach the faith to their children. The Church began to grow much more slowly than it did before.

Second was the clergy sex abuse problem that 'surfaced' in 2002. The seeds of it were planted earlier (an interesting story in it's own right) but they germinated in 2002. The Church grew but less than the pace of the general population.

Third was Covid and the Catholic response to Covid. Shutting down the mass, saying health was more important than faith, going all Nazi about immunizations, all of that drove people away. Many have not returned yet, either out of fear of getting Covid at church (but not at the big box store) or because they were not that interested anyhow. We are now in substantial decline. Not quite so bad as liberal Protestants, but there are a lot of unfilled spaces in the pews.

There are other things going on for sure. There has been a bit of reform or the reform to fix up the liturgy. There has been a catechetical renewal and an apologetic flourishing in terms of apologetical resources. The Latin mass has attracted many many young adults, either in novus or vetus ordo. All positive. And then the negatives. Sexual abuse continues to surface, and to be tolerated in high places. An ideological war continues and accelerates with cardinals battling cardinals. Society is in nosedive and plain Christians seem to be in the cross-hairs of the dominant woke ideologues.

We had a 'Catholic Moment' (John Richard Neuhaus') back in the 1980's and 1990's. That got blown up by the 2002 revelations of sexual abuse. That 'moment' was what kept us from going totally liberal Protestant. It also resulted in good Catholic law schools which helped provide excellent Supreme Court justices that finally overturned Roe v Wade. But I think we are way over that 'Catholic Moment' now. Do we have the seeds for another one? How will that look? Do we need to suffer more declines first? We have Benedict's 'smaller Church' which might be good if it would be intentional and missional. How do we get there. If we don't get there we go the way of liberal Protestantism.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Does anyone remember Cosmic Charlie? A most liberal Catholic who actually conceded to the problematic lower and lower birth rates occurring???

Or am I confusing the forums?

Basically, the number of people being born is lower. A lower rate.
ALSO I worked in insurance and actuaries, those paid people who do REAL CHARTS and such stated in 1996 that by 2030 we are IN DEEP doo doo because the number of replacement birth rates have drastically reduced.

IE - ya'll gonna pay out a substantial amount of taxes and or kill off anyone ready to retire.

SECONDLY - what part of the Our Father prayer does it say - our will be done?
And we're gonna block life because well, our wills be done.

SMH.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The business about contraceptives being an abortifacient is a furphy. There are more failures of embryos when no birth control is used.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=cedar_ethics_online#:~:text=There%20is%20no%20strong%20scientific,use%20(Trussell%2C%202008).

What really annoys me about this issue is that Pope John XXIII set up a committee to advise on the contraceptive pill. He died before he could make a decision on their findings. Pope Pius VI expanded the committee which included theologians, physicians, women, and an executive committee of 16 bishops and 7 cardinals.

Their decision -




Against this was a minority report with one theologian and three other theologian priests. And what was their justification?


In other words those dastardly Protestants couldn't possibly be guided by the Holy Spirit in their decision and they didn't have a theological brain between them!!


I don't admire Pope Pius VI's decision! Not in the least!

St Paul had already spoke out against abortion, but blame the Pope's who explained it for our day and age.

Nothing new under the sun, yo.

 

[concretecamper]

Wait, we should be even having this argument. Shouldn't we all be under water by now according to the liberal elites?

The same liberal elites idiots peddling over population are the same idiots that were warning that Montana would be beach front property

And now, get in line for your fake steak

 

[Erose]

Catholicism IS in trouble in the USA. Liberal Protestantism is in a world of hurt in the USA but we shouldn't think there will not be a lot of hurt for the Catholic Church here. It's already started.

I think this depends on where you are located in the US. There is no doubt that in the Northeast region of our country that Catholicism is in deep doo doo. But in the South though Catholicism is growing and fairly healthy, albeit not as heathy as it was pre-Covid. I think you really need to look at the USA regionally. U.S. Catholic population shows growth, trends southward

There have been three main episodes where we have shot ourselves in the foot. And we have only two feet to shoot.

First was the radical changes to the liturgy. And to catechesis. Starting in 1970, this pulled the rug out from underneath many faithful people. And failed to teach the faith to their children. The Church began to grow much more slowly than it did before.

I must say I completely disagree with this assessment. The growth of the Church prior to Vatican II was the result of two factors: larger families and immigration. It had nothing to do with converts coming into the Church. That event was so rare, the Church really didn't have a thing like RCIA prior to Vatican II. Converts came primarily through marriage.

The New Liturgy actually helps with converts coming into the Church IMO. In my example as a convert, I really don't know how I would have been able to do it, if I walked into a service using a language I knew nothing about. I believe I probably would have walked right back out, and never thought of Catholicism again. Latin service is fine and dandy if you were born into it, and grew up in it; but outsider coming in? Completely different story, IMO. That is definitely one of the advantages of the Novus Ordo over the Pius X Mass. The first will allow conversion the later will not.

Were children catechized better prior to Vatican II? Probably since the norm was for Catholics to send their children to Catholic schools. But after the price of private schools went up, because of the loss of Religious to run and work the schools, that all changed. Of course the Church responded with various programs at the local parish; but the attendance normally has been fairly poor. And as one of my gripes that I have, adult continuing education isn't a prevalent as it should be; and I don't think it was back then either.

Second was the clergy sex abuse problem that 'surfaced' in 2002. The seeds of it were planted earlier (an interesting story in it's own right) but they germinated in 2002. The Church grew but less than the pace of the general population.

I agree on this somewhat? I do think it has impacted the Church greater in the Northeast than in the South. Even though there has been some clergy abuse in the South, IMO it has been handled better, so I really don't think it has affected the Southern dioceses as much as it has in the Northern and Western ones.

Third was Covid and the Catholic response to Covid. Shutting down the mass, saying health was more important than faith, going all Nazi about immunizations, all of that drove people away. Many have not returned yet, either out of fear of getting Covid at church (but not at the big box store) or because they were not that interested anyhow. We are now in substantial decline. Not quite so bad as liberal Protestants, but there are a lot of unfilled spaces in the pews.

This I agree completely. In LA our state shut down all the churches, with very little pushback from religious leadership. There is no doubt that this has affected church attendance across the board no matter what denomination. I know our parish was averaging 250 in mass attendance pre-covid; but not we are at 170'ish; where not too long ago we were in the 150's.

 

[Erose]

One of the ironies about the Americas is that the Catholic Church is growing in the USA in part due to Latin immigration, and the reverse is happening in South America.

You can be sure Pope Francis would be well aware of the growing Protestant influence in Latin America, and he would have his own opinions on why that is happening.

Pentecostalism is what is replacing the Catholic Church in Latin America. And it has to do primarily with the big push of liberation theology, over the Gospel that is killing the Church there. People are not being fed by the Church so they are going somewhere else.