Ageing and declining Europe can no longer be the main focus of the Church

Eramen

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-ageing-and-declining-europe-can-no-longer-be-the-main-focus-of-a-church-with-gods-work-to-do-29131892.html

wrote:

So at one level it is testament to the growth of the church in the rest of the world and its decline in this part of the world. But it is also testament to the relative decline of the West itself, and especially of Europe.

Europe is simply less important to the church than it once was.

Religion may be far less central to the life of Europe than in the past, but Europe is less central to the life of the world. Maybe that is one reason US President Barack Obama seems to pay more attention to Asia than Europe.
The fact is that Europe's share of the world economy has declined sharply, and its population is ageing almost as rapidly as that of church-goers in Europe.

Meanwhile, religion is burgeoning in most of the rest of the world. What this means is that it not religion that is being left behind in the slipstream of history, it is Europe itself.

The election of a South American pontiff is merely one more sign of that.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-ageing-and-declining-europe-can-no-longer-be-the-main-focus-of-a-church-with-gods-work-to-do-29131892.html

I feel that this article is quite timely. I was musing just the other day: Is it that the Catholic church has become completely irrelevant to the modern mindset of living and mode of thinking that makes it apparently much less influential today; or is it that this seeming occurrence is simply one symptom in something greater that happening around us?

This article by D.Quinn is very similar to what I came up with.

It's in fact that this feeling of isolated irrelevance is not emanating from the Church, but from the modern European mode of life and mindset itself. Europe appears to be a civilization that seems to have lost confidence in itself culturally, economically, in its own ancient values, history and destiny. It's now not only irrelevant (and ignored) by the church, but increasingly also to the direction in which the whole world is moving.

Many Europeans are in their own little reality, calling for the church to recognize abortions, admit gay people to be members, and to accept women in all of it orders (rather than to the orders dedicated to them atm). All of this is done out of a fraudulent sense of 'equality', a baseless assumption, unsupported by any evidence, that everyone is equal. Wtf! indeed.

Yet, the rest of the world (barring much of NA) thinks otherwise. If the church actually were to carry out the wishes of utilitarian-relativistic, ailing Europe it would lose it's 75% of members on all of the other continents, while at the same time never appeasing delusional Europeans even if they tried.

Europe is at the end of it's cultural cycle is seems. Europeans are the most dissociative and dysfunctional people in the world. They can't even agree on anything, share no common values and thus have no common future. They can't even bare the 'affliction' of conceiving and rising kids. It's an utterly pathetic state of being. The fact that Europe is slowly becoming an overtly Islamic continent might even be a comforting thought to some.

The collective feeling of some Europeans that the church is no longer feasible may just be the disappearance of their own relevance and cultural isolation - much less metaphysical ignorance. A percentage of white Europeans and their 'ideas' have rendered Europe completely backward. Who knew?

And no, I'm no Catholic, I just see moral-relativist, pseudo-liberal, politically-incompetent, spiritually-inept, old-ass Europe for what is really is. An abject failure.

Enjoy the decline!

Fr_Dougal

:mad:

Matt_Trakker

If the RCC is a (fat)rat jumpin off a sinkin ship then I'm taking my chances with driftwood.

Czarcasm

I think OP you confused yourself with all your lofty talk.

Your post is all very self-contradictory in numerous places.

Kintarō Hattori

I could go on a big rant replying to your points one by one. But- the post just comes across as incredibly bitter. You really don't like Europe or us Europeans so eh, what's that all about? It's pretty silly to tar a whole whopping great big continent with one brush.

I'm pro-European, I feel that we're becoming closer culturally, economically and geographically. You're right about one thing however and that's the church. Among educated, enlightened independent people it has no major role in modern society so it can fup off to anywhere silly enough to accept its influence.

ColeTrain

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31162436.jpg

krudler

"no longer the focus"- meaning the church has realised westernised countries are truly sick and tired of their nonsense so are moving their efforts to poorer countries where lack of education and money means religion will thrive.

Pushtrak

Eramen wrote: »

Many Europeans are in their own little reality, calling for the church to recognize abortions, admit gay people to be members, and to accept women in all of it orders (rather than to the orders dedicated to them atm). All of this is done out of a fraudulent sense of 'equality', a baseless assumption, unsupported by any evidence, that everyone is equal. Wtf! indeed.

The church to recognise abortions? If by that you mean them not trying to alter the laws of the land on the basis of religious ideology not adhered to by all, then ok. People don't want a theocracy thank you very much. Things shouldn't need the approval of any church to become political policy.

I don't care what the church does with its members, who it allows to be priests or any of that. They have the right to be backwards. They don't have the right to make their backwards ways, such as gay marriage, et cetera impermissible.

You don't understand equality, do you? It isn't saying everyone is equal, it is saying we have to respect everybody equally and to allow people to have the same rights. I'm straight, but I should no more be allowed to marry than a gay couple, for instance.

Yet, the rest of the world (barring much of NA) thinks otherwise. If the church actually were to carry out the wishes of utilitarian-relativistic, ailing Europe it would lose it's 75% of members on all of the other continents, while at the same time never appeasing delusional Europeans even if they tried.

How could the church appease people who don't believe in a deity? By keeping its policies directed to those who are adherents of the faith would be a very good way. Except churches can't be happy with that, they have to go further.

And no, I'm no Catholic, I just see moral-relativist, pseudo-liberal, politically-incompetent, spiritually-inept, old-ass Europe for what is really is. An abject failure.

Not a Catholic, but a peddler of nonsense nonetheless.

Eramen

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I could go on a big rant replying to your points one by one. But- the post just comes across as incredibly bitter. You really don't like Europe or us Europeans so eh, what's that all about? It's pretty silly to tar a whole whopping great big continent with one brush.

Nah, I'm just a bit sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek about it - and using my brain. It scares me a little how Europeans still think that we are the center of the world and how Westerners in general think that their value-system is the 'accepted' one (or should be), for the world or otherwise.

The fact is that Europe is increasingly ignored in the States, will only be a fraction of the world economy in a couple of decades, is no longer a producer of culture or economic means, and is no longer self-sustaining in people or resources. I'm pointing out that this is pretty damning. It's silly to me to believe nothings the matter.

It's contradictory to say that we are 'progressing'. We're not.

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I'm pro-European, I feel that we're becoming closer culturally, economical and geographically. You're right about one thing however and that's the church. Among educated, enlightened independent people it has no major role in modern society so it can fup off to anywhere silly enough to accept its influence.

I'm pro-European too, that's why I posted this.

I'm right in that a lot of Europeans abandoned the RCC for other laughable superstitions - mass-equality, male and female are the 'same', one world culture through Americanization, accepting people/countries as economic entities to be treated as workers, taxpayers & consumers instead of human ones, with family, culture, sex, race, customs, common beliefs and values etc, all cultures and values are relative.

Europeans never overcame their superstition, that much is clear. The movement against the RCC only happened out of adherence to the above superficial understanding of reality, which the RCC doesn't accept. No more, no less.

up for anything

Ageing and declining Europe can no longer be the main focus of the Church

Good!

krudler

Eramen wrote: »

Nah, I'm just a bit sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek about it - and using my brain. It scares me a little how Europeans still think that we are the center of the world and how Westerners in general think that their value-system is the 'accepted' one (or should be), for the world or otherwise.

can't the same be said for Asia and Middle Eastern countries? I dont know a single person who thinks Europe is the centre of the world.

Eramen

krudler wrote: »

can't the same be said for Asia and Middle Eastern countries? I dont know a single person who thinks Europe is the centre of the world.

I don't know anyone who said Europe is the center of the world either, but that's because people don't say it, they act it out through their life.

They think that the mode of life in the West is the universally accepted one. Notions of 'equality is good', 'equal rights for all', 'freedom of speech and expression', are accepted and cherished so highly by everyone when in fact they aren't in other parts of the world.

In other countries social values and native culture come first. The above are seen as western values which might be good, but have been applied too far here in the west, creating negative consequences for us.

They see the social conflict here between men and women over sex politics, the loss of our traditions, customs and culture, the fact that we now live to work, not work to live, and how people in the west share nothing in common anymore!

mikom

Ageing and declining Europe can no longer be the main focus of the Church

No shit.
Any abused altar boy could tell you that.

The King of Moo

Eramen wrote: »

I don't know anyone who said Europe is the center of the world either, but that's because people don't say it, they act it out through their life.

They think that the mode of life in the West is the universally accepted one. Notions of 'equality is good', 'equal rights for all', 'freedom of speech and expression', are accepted and cherished so highly by everyone when in fact they aren't.

In other countries social values and native culture come first. The above are seen as western values which might be good, but have been applied too far here in the west, creating negative consequences for us.

They see the social conflict here between men and women over sex politics, the loss of our traditions, customs and culture, the fact that we now live to work, not work to live, and how people in the west share nothing in common anymore!

Would I be correct in assuming you don't believe in equal rights for all?

If so, can you give me a few examples of situations where some people ought not to have the same rights as others?

Zebra3

They rape your kids, cover it up, take your money, give you no say in how it's run, and then they wonder why people don't give a toss any more.

Pushtrak

The King of Moo wrote: »

Would I be correct in assuming you don't believe in equal rights for all?

If so, can you give me a few examples of situations where some people ought not to have the same rights as others?

Well, in his OP, he seems to be against equality in terms of gay rights. And womens rights in terms of abortion.

Grayson

Eramen wrote: »

I don't know anyone who said Europe is the center of the world either, but that's because people don't say it, they act it out through their life.

They think that the mode of life in the West is the universally accepted one. Notions of 'equality is good', 'equal rights for all', 'freedom of speech and expression', are accepted and cherished so highly by everyone when in fact they aren't in other parts of the world.

In other countries social values and native culture come first. The above are seen as western values which might be good, but have been applied too far here in the west, creating negative consequences for us.

They see the social conflict here between men and women over sex politics, the loss of our traditions, customs and culture, the fact that we now live to work, not work to live, and how people in the west share nothing in common anymore!

There's nothing worse than an idiot who's read a book.

Seriously, how can you tout relativism and yet at the same time...

And no, I'm no Catholic, I just see moral-relativist, pseudo-liberal, politically-incompetent, spiritually-inept, old-ass Europe for what is really is. An abject failure.

Eramen

The King of Moo wrote: »

Would I be correct in assuming you don't believe in equal rights for all?

If so, can you give me a few examples of situations where some people ought not to have the same rights as others?

No, I don't believe anything that not supported by evidence, in which case equal rights falls into this category. There is simply no evidence to hand that insinuates that everyone is indeed equal.

Only people of equal ability can have the same duties. Duties; from which rights should ideally come from. If people aspire and retain the duties than equal rights may be possible. But at we can see in reality this is not possible, there is a multitude of duties, so equal right would not be beneficial. It's simply to large an issue to legislate.

Equal rights, based on political ideology, is little more than a popular superstition at this point. It's entirely unfounded. But aren't all superstitions popular, that is until they are stripped of political protection and eventually collapse?

I think natural rights only is the way we should go in terms of rights.

heartseeker

Pushtrak wrote: »

Well, in his OP, he seems to be against equality in terms of gay rights. And womens rights in terms of abortion.

So just out of curiosity what percentage of the population do you think should be gay ...?what target to you think is plausible....

The King of Moo

Eramen wrote: »

No, I don't believe anything that not supported by evidence, in which case equal rights falls into this category. There is simply no evidence to hand that insinuates that everyone is indeed equal.

Only people of equal ability can have the same duties. Duties; from which rights should ideally come from.

Equal rights, based on political ideology, is little more than a popular superstition at this point. It's entirely unfounded. But aren't all superstitions popular, that is until they are stripped of political protection and eventually collapse?

Well avoided, lots of words and no answer, but I must point out that "equal rights for all" doesn't mean "all people are equal."

People who believe in basic human and civil rights believe that these rights are so fundamental that they're for everybody, even though everyone is different.

ScumLord

Eramen wrote: »

Europe is at the end of it's cultural cycle is seems. Europeans are the most dissociative and dysfunctional people in the world. They can't even agree on anything, share no common values and thus have no common future. They can't even bare the 'affliction' of conceiving and rising kids. It's an utterly pathetic state of being. The fact that Europe is slowly becoming an overtly Islamic continent might even be a comforting thought to some.

That flies in the face of the facts though, Europe agreed on a common currency, agricultural policy, we have standards for safety the list is endless. African countries can't even agree on who should be running he governments.

Europe is still the centre of creation and design. We come up with the products and get other countries to make them cheaply for us. European engineers are still shipped throughout the world to run major infrastructure projects.

The only reason the church is focusing on 3rd world countries is because they have millions of uneducated people to lure into their church. 50 years from now if these countries which want to be like Europe and the US do stabilize I suspect we'll see them abandon religion too.

Pushtrak

heartseeker wrote: »

So just out of curiosity what percentage of the population do you think should be gay ...?what target to you think is plausible....

What target of people should have blonde hair, brown hair, blue eyes, et cetera? It isn't a target, it is a function of reality. Unless you buy in to the line of being gay being a choice which it isn't. There isn't a target, as it is just what some people are, and some people are not. Ridiculous question, to be honest.

Eramen

The King of Moo wrote: »

Well avoided, lots of words and no answer, but I must point out that "equal rights for all" doesn't mean "all people are equal."

People who believe in basic human and civil rights believe that these rights are so fundamental that they're for everybody, even though everyone is different.

Well, I updated that post, in the case of rights, I think natural rights is the only workable solution, because when you give out rights via entitlement as its carried out today people end up in competition with each other for their rights. People go out in protest for 'rights others have, but not me' - it promotes a competition of one in-group, against another and also promotes great potential abuse.

When someone claims 'rights for children' for example, it can only be given at the expense of others individual rights.

'Group rights' is inherently unethical, as it presumes one group is acting as a whole and dis-includes all objections to those rights and exceptions, even of people who are part of that group who ostensibly need that right.

Therefore, individual right & natural rights is the only way to dispense rights out of a principle of fairness.

That groups should have rights is quite dangerous, as a group is simply, a fiction and not a natural concept. Also with individual right we do away with the concept of 'equal rights for all' and instead put in its place everyone is equal in their natural individual.

This is a much healthier and true to life system. At times in the past similar systems used to operate with success.

Grayson

The King of Moo wrote: »

Well avoided, lots of words and no answer, but I must point out that "equal rights for all" doesn't mean "all people are equal."

People who believe in basic human and civil rights believe that these rights are so fundamental that they're for everybody, even though everyone is different.

For example believing that two equally skilled people doing the exact same job should be paid the same. No matter what their age, race or gender is. That's equality.

The King of Moo

Eramen wrote: »

Well, I updated that post, in the case of rights, I think natural rights is the only workable solution, because when you give out rights via entitlement as its carried out today people end up in competition with each other for their rights. People go out in protest for 'rights others have, but not me' - it promotes a competition of one in-group, against another and also promotes great potential abuse.

When someone claims 'rights for children' for example, it can only be given at the expense of others individual rights.

'Group rights' is inherently unethical, as it presumes one group is acting as a whole and dis-includes all objections to those rights and exceptions, even of people who are part of that group who ostensibly need that right.

Therefore, individual right & natural rights is the only way to dispense rights out of a principle of fairness.

That groups should have rights is quite dangerous, as a group is simply, a fiction and not a natural concept. Also with individual right we do away with the concept of 'equal rights for all' and instead put in its place everyone is equal in their natural individual.

This is a much healthier and true to life system. At times in the past similar systems used to operate with success.

Just a few quick questions: Can you clarify what you mean by the granting of children's rights necessitating taking rights from others?

And can you give me an example of "group rights" wrongfully being granted to a group?

mikom

Eramen wrote: »

That groups should have rights is quite dangerous, as a group is simply, a fiction and not a natural concept.

I'm sure wheelchair users will love to read this..........

Nodin

Eramen wrote: »

............. The fact that Europe is slowly becoming an overtly Islamic continent might even be a comforting thought to some.
..........

O look - bollocks. Fancy that.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/10/why-fears-of-a-muslim-takeover-are-all-wrong.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8189231.stm

ScumLord

Eramen wrote: »

'Group rights' is inherently unethical, as it presumes one group is acting as a whole and dis-includes all objections to those rights and exceptions, even of people who are part of that group who ostensibly need that right.

Therefore, individual right & natural rights is the only way to dispense rights out of a principle of fairness.

I don't know what the difference is between group right and natural rights. But all humans have the same basic needs, you can ascribe rights based on those needs and the persons ability to satisfy those needs.

Human rights should be very, very basic, and would all be covered under the natural law of "don't be a ****".

philologos

The idea of the church having a focus to any particular people group is bizarre. Jesus came for everyone and the church should do the same. Telling the love of Christ to many will result in deaf ears but we must still love and care for others and long for their salvation.

Zebra3

ScumLord wrote: »

Europe agreed on a common currency

Nope, part of Europe has a common currency.

Mardy Bum

Lots of anger and vitriol in the OP.

Very little substance.

Quite like John Waters.

Nodin

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Lots of anger and vitriol in the OP.

Very little substance.

Quite like John Waters.

Superior writing to waters though.



Not that thats an achievement.

Ruudi_Mentari

Europe may be aging and in decline, but they can still sell out a big enough venue

though admittedly is more likely to be in a developing country such as south America due to hair metal only really making an impact there now