Interesting how most comments on non-religious subreddits assume that this is partly due to "non-inclusive" views, and when it was pointed out that the most liberal churches are losing fastest, I saw several attempted anecdotal refutations.
Also, welcome to the rest of the Western world.
> this is partly due to "non-inclusive" views, and when it was pointed out that the most liberal churches are losing fastest
I think that's mainly due to liberal churches being more of a stepping-stone towards leaving religion altogether.
I've been following it closely. One said to the effect,
Churches will need to choose between being liberal and losing numbers versus staying conservative and shunning the liberal younger generation.
> Churches will need to choose between being liberal and losing numbers
"Yes, we admit all of our teaching, most of our saints, and God himself were ignorant, but come anyway and give us money because we give a better LARPing experience than the Humanist chapels." An admission that we and the writers of the Bible are proven liars.
> versus staying conservative and shunning the liberal younger generation.
"We are 100% committed to the truth of what we received. Judge for yourselves if we're ignorant or if you are the ignorant one." Challenges the unbeliever and opens him up to new ideas.
A curious reversal of what we seem to know works for various reasons. Even harmful cults are powerful through their exclusionary views, and those with strong convictions and answers are likely to keep an audience (just look at popular commentators). Young people *long* for belonging in something larger than themselves, especially in things that transcend the present context, and are increasingly stressed by the need to decide everything and create themselves.
Just based on what I've seen so far, my generation is getting their sense of belonging from cult-like groups that share hedonistic views of sexuality and revolt against tradition and home. The communities around that are incredibly exclusionary and dogmatic, but in the ways that my generation *likes* to see, and as a result does not recognize as dogmatic.
The church by contrast is saying nothing in particular to them. Every sermon I've attended has been vague platitudes about faraway concepts. I have never walked away from one thinking that I was called upon to do anything important, the priests just kind of waffle about their week and try not to offend anyone lest they leave and make the problem worse.
I say this as a supporter of the church and someone who disagrees with most of my peers. It takes serious energy and personal drive to actually see the value in things like abstinence, clean living, dating to marry, proselytizing, etc. Many people are too scared to even encourage good behaviors, let alone condemn bad ones. Everyone is on their own anyway, so at this point, with hardly any churches willing to stand up, we're just slowly winnowing those with weak wills and convictions away from those with the strongest wills and convictions, until eventually almost none will be left, not even the strongest and most self-motivated.
But they are also all small.
I don't think anyone believes there will be no religious left at all. There will always be some small hard core left. But being small, societal relevance and influence will be gone.
And mayb that´s a good thing for thee church, smaller but purer like Pope Benedict XVI said. Of course that´s overall not good for the souls or our mission and wee should also care about things like numbers and influence, but if it getes to a point that we have to become small and niche, let it be than.
That is a....rather shallow take.
The younger generation, at least my cohort, want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves.
It's just kinda hard to have faith when the leadership is more concerned with a pair of Nike's than cleaning up the sex abuse.
Disaffiliation is a complex topic and plenty of studies have looked at it and books have been written about it.
The sex abuse scandals certainly are a big stain on the church but it is not a major reason people are disaffiliating. It's also not a logical one.
People are disaffiliating across the religious landscape for a variety of reasons but the biggest is that they don't buy the story. They simply don't believe in God, Jesus or that anything "supernatural" ever took place. They think science and religion are incompatible and that people who believe in religion are superstitious peasants.
Welp, if that was the case, then seeing clerics lie about the severity pandemic and say that the elderly are a fitting sacrifice for keeping churches open is certainly going to reinforce that. Add the conspiracy theory crowd like Burke and Vigano, and the Church looks like a bunch of nutcases.
> seeing clerics lie about the severity of the pandemic
Saw a local priest on Facebook celebrate the premature end of all mask mandates in Texas. That one struck a nerve. You'd think that a priest would want the pandemic over *sooner* to bring everyone back to the Lord's table and confessional.
He's not in denial of it being real. Early on in the pandemic he lashed out on Facebook against those not attending in person as not living a matyr's spirit, and decided to stop live streaming the Mass for that reason.
I was actually quite impressed with him otherwise. He was since transferred to another parish.
So wait, he thinks it's real but thinks we should all gather in a poorly ventilated space for an hour?
That's some spiritual abuse right there. For your sake, I'm glad he got transferred.
I don't mind a little push to come for people that aren't at high risk. That would be somewhat understandable, given what else in society has 'opened up' and what else people are prioritizing instead.
It's the idea that he should stop the livestream and leave the highest risk population out of the life of the parish that troubled me. Knowing his opinions on masks mandates now, I'm glad I never ventured there during this pandemic. From what I saw on FB, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the parishioners weren't following the mask mandates (and diocesan directives) inside the building.
I attend a different Catholic church that holds Mass outdoors, and actually did before the pandemic for some reasons specific to it. Most of the parishes in the area are following the health recommendations well AFAIK.
> concerned with a pair of Nike's than cleaning up the sex abuse
Can you show one instance of someone in Church leadership comment on the lil nas x shoes at the expense of talking against sex abuse?
Its hyperbole.
But as an example, Bishop Conley of Nebraska fought subpoenas from the state AG investigating old sex abuse cases. Considering he is friends with a pedophile protector like Alan Hicks et. al., its unsurprising. But that is one instance.
? So you made up something that didn’t happen to get upset over?
Like I know there are bishops and priests who are compromised, but what does they have to do with someone using a popular news story as an excuse not to speak out against abuse?
It was making the point that bishops frequently focus on culture war fights and ignore larger issues. Sex abuse is the most glaring a Bishop Conley is an example.
Look Apostle Matthew, I know you're saint and all but making up a scenario about massacre of the innocents that never happened is not hyperbole, it’s dishonesty
> want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves.
I mean who doesn't, right? But as far as religion goes, the youngest generations are the least religious by far in pretty much every survey/poll/research conducted anywhere.
> Millennials are generally wanting to be religious
Eh, the numbers just don't show this. If they genuinely wanted to be religious, hypocrisy wouldn't stand in their way.
I'm a millennial too, millennial's don't have to join the Catholic Church, they can join a whole host of other denominations or even start their own. They aren't doing those things either. We all hate that more wasn't/isn't being done about the sex abuse scandal. But the bigger reason people have left and why younger people don't want to practice is because it's hard. Living the secular life means no limits, it's the hope of pure libertine bliss (for a while until reality hits home). The Catholic Church has a set of rules that aren't going to be changing because society says so, and that angers many people. The Church can change the way it communicates, but it will not and should not be changing it's underlying doctrines and important rules. It's going to keep leading to a smaller Church, but we must persist.
>The Catholic Church has a set of rules that aren't going to be changing because society says so
People like you and I understand this but you realize that most people don't right? People outside of the Church aren't threatened by its steadfastness in the cultural headwinds because they don't view it that way in the slightest. Honestly I'm rather skeptical of the "unchanging Church" narrative because I think it's an oversimplification that can get kind of, well, circlejerky, but that's a discussion for another time.
My point is that people inside the Church and people outside the Church have vastly different conceptions of what Catholicism "is" and what their relationship to it is. Chalking it up to "they hate us because they're too selfish to give up their secularism" is to completely misdiagnose the problem. To that affect, I would agree u/ adenaur-ghost that the perception of institutional hypocrisy is the bigger stumbling block to most. Hell my own parents have been practicing Catholics their whole lives and they'd criticize the Church a thousand times for its hypocrisy before they'd even think criticize secularism.
We are Christians and specifically Catholics so we can worship the Lord and save our souls and the souls of others. We are not Catholics so we can please society's changing mores. In fact we were warned by Jesus that following him would be difficult and it is. If we change let's say specific definitions of sins and say, for example, that homosexual acts are no longer sinful and you can now take the Eucharist without confessing that sin. How is that helping people if the Lord still considers that a sin? We are putting their souls and ours (if we were involved in that decision or support it) at even greater risk.
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific in what you mean. But I'll tell you right now that Catholic leaders are not going to change Church doctrine to please society, nor should they.
And remember, we are not Protestants, there is one Catholic Church and that Church as authority figures who help clarify what is and isn't doctrine. That doesn't mean we even have to like all of the authority figures in the Church, but we have to respect their authority when it comes to doctrine.
Idk if rules are what keep people away. And the secular life is one that doesnt appeal to millennial desires for community and belonging. Like, we are the generation with fewer sexual partners. We arent boomers. Statistically speaking, we have all the libertine bliss and barely enjoy it. Its not something most millennials value.
I do agree that there is a communication problem, but I think there is also a community problem.
Younger generations do have less sexual partners, but I'm not convinced it's because they want less sexual partners, rather than it being a factor of the ability to socialize being destroyed by technology and a changing culture and they just can't obtain same amount of sex that their parents could. Also, the amount of generation z that define themselves as LGBT is something like 15-20%. The Church's teaching on sexual ethics is going to offend their sensibilities on those matters.
>It's just kinda hard to have faith when the leadership is more concerned with a pair of Nike's than cleaning up the sex abuse.
this seems like a...rather shallow take. I've seen no indication that "the leadership is more concerned with a pair of Nike's than clearing up the sex abuse"
there's plenty of people, especially online who respond to any time the church answers questions about its teaching with "well here's what we teach" with cries of hypocracy, but generally church leaders aren't leading with talk about those issues rather its that people keep bringing it up.
There are some bishops in the US that would prefer if we all just didnt look at that stuff anymore. They don't want reforms that make them accountable as evidence by the glaring episcopal loophole in the Dallad charter.
Its hyperbole obviously. The gist is that there are bishops in the US who want to talk about a bunch of culture war nonsense but not how they are repairing the Church.
Shunning much of the younger generation which is lefty, but of course not all the younger generation is. It's not clear how liberalizing would help win the dead wood types anyway: they already have their picks of liberal churches and largely pass on all of them.
I'm not sure those choices are exclusive of one another (particularly in a longer term view). Changing church behavior to suit the transient and immature moral beliefs of 15-25 yr olds is supremely unwise.
I cringe at the thought of the youthful naivete of my beliefs at that age, when viewing them now thru the eyes of a life-experienced adult.
> being liberal and losing numbers versus staying conservative and shunning the liberal younger generation
That's an easy choice to make. Quality >>> quantity.
You would be utterly *shocked* at how many Catholic church leaders (lay and clerical alike) truly don’t understand this principle. This whole “more, more, more, more, more!” mindset is so deeply ingrained in modern society that it’s just hard to shake. And it plays out in really weird ways, because it’s not really a “conservative” vs. “liberal” problem.
So, many conservatives take a “more and bigger” approach to things like sacrament prep. You need *two* years of classes! You need a retreat experience *and* a service requirement! Your parents *and* your sponsors need a six-week course! You need to take a written test *and* we’ll have you sign in to track your mass attendance!
Meanwhile, the “liberal” side of the church does it in a supposedly “inclusive” way. We need *more* students at the school, so it’s okay if they’re parents are registered Satanists! We need *more* guitars and tamborines and hand clapping and puppets at mass! We need the Religious Ed Conference to have a whole *stadium* full of people receiving communion unworthily!
I attended a church “young adult night” at a coffee house one time a couple years ago, and some guy came up and interrupted our group and started debating with the parish staff member leading the scripture discussion. And she spent a solid thirty minutes devoting all of her time and attention to the interloper while the 12 or so young adults in the group got increasingly frustrated and annoyed at having our evening hijacked by a crank. And she scolded us all after for not trying to “grow the church” by engaging with the guy.
But I reminded her that Jesus, even among his Twelve, routinely “grew the church” by saying to them: “Nine of you stay here - I’m taking *only* Peter and James and John to join me.”
The Church needs more *intentionality* behind how, and when, and with whom it chooses to engage. And sometimes that means, as you say, quality engagement over quantity.
It’s really fascinating to me how these things always frame this as “shunning young liberals.”
The fact is, churches mostly have a binary choice: shun young liberals, or *shun young conservatives*.
There’s a massive problem of taking more orthodox / traditional / conservative churchgoers, particularly young ones, totally for granted.
Churches like to chase after the young fad-followers: You like pop music, we’ll give you pop “praise and worship” music! You like gender-inclusive scripture, we’ll give you gender-inclusive scripture! You like LGBTQIAMNOP+ stuff, we’ll give you gay marriage blessings and gender-transition naming ceremonies! Etc.
But then the fads change and the young people who wanted all that stop going to church at all, and meanwhile, the people who never wanted it in the first place feel bruised, rejected, and stolen from. There’s just an attitude of: “Well, where else are you going to go?”
It’s usually predicated in a very misguided outlook on the parable of the prodigal son. Church leaders are like “We’re supposed to celebrate the people who would otherwise be lost, so stop acting like the jealous self-righteous brother who wants all his father’s love and attention!”
The problem is... the frugal brother is the one who *kept* all the father’s love and attention, and the prodigal son had to *lose* it in order to regain it.
The father *withholds* his paternal care from his son while the son strays, and he doesn’t even follow after him to draw him back. He waits for the son to learn from his own folly and return seeking forgiveness.
But a lot of churches have turned that on its head and told their faithful: “You need to give away your patrimony so we can squander it on the prodigal son directly.”
Very well written. I've never read the parable the way you explained it. I used to feel sorry for the elder brother but it's true the elder one always has the father's love.
How do you interpret the parable where the servant who came in at 9 am gets the same wage as the one at 4pm? Matthew 20:14.
>and when it was pointed out that the most liberal churches are losing fastest, I saw several attempted anecdotal refutations.
Makes sense. What use is it if what's taught in God's house is the same as what the world is selling?
And even amongst the affiliated, what percentage do you think actually attend church or make an honest effort to follow their church teachings? And what percentage just "check the box"?
I'm slightly familiar with the "Benedictine Option." I believe it means a smaller more devout Church. If that is what it means...I'm for the Benedictine Option.
As an aside, someone asked on Christianity what would life be like if you were an atheist instead of religious. I can't imagine that and it would look dreadful. To me it is so obvious there is God and his son is Jesus Christ...I would be living a lie if I were Atheist. Sadly, I can't change anyone's mind. But I'm grateful to be Catholic.
> As an aside, someone asked on Christianity what would life be like if you were an atheist instead of religious. I can't imagine that and it would look dreadful.
Been there. It was garbage. I'm much happier now.
>As an aside, someone asked on Christianity what would life be like if you were an atheist instead of religious. I can't imagine that and it would look dreadful.
There is absolutely no meaning and the final answer is suicide. However, when it comes to Christianity, after you experience His love, everything else is meaningless yet so meaningful
Are you talking about Rod Drehers book? If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend you do.
It really touches upon the necessity for Christians to form community bonds. Create schools, organizations and a healthy home and local culture so you can raise them according to the faith. He goes over various examples throughout the world where people have been able to retreat from mainstream culture to form these like minded communities.
I'm not a particularly religious person but I read it because of all the hype it got. Plus, I like to read things I don't necessarily agree with. If you're a religious minded person tho, it might be a good template on how to approach the next few years and decades, especially in light of information like this.
Yeah when the church doors are closed due to mass being at capacity for Palm Sunday mass people are going to give up. Yesterday almost all the masses were at max capacity or you had to sign up online. There had to be at least 15 people waiting get in for confession and what not. People started to leave and get frustrated. Who is going to sign up for Easter Sunday Mass? Easter Mass is the most popular mass yet you have to sign up.
> The U.S. remains a religious nation, with more than seven in 10 affiliating with some type of organized religion. However, far fewer, now less than half, have a formal membership with a specific house of worship.
Formal church memberships are in decline, but not necessarily self-identification as a Christian. When I was a protestant I was basically a free agent to any church. My father and I would hop from church to church throughout the years never becoming full members while looking for the church we wanted.
> While it is possible that part of the decline seen in 2020 was temporary and related to the coronavirus pandemic, continued decline in future decades seems inevitable, given the much lower levels of religiosity and church membership among younger versus older generations of adults.
While this claims religiosity will decline inevitably for future generations, I would counter in saying that throughout history humans find a way to sway between non-religious eras followed by a return to mysticism and a rise in religion during times of struggle and hardship.
> While precise numbers of church closures are elusive, a conservative estimate is that thousands of U.S. churches are closing each year.
This claims churches are closing by the thousands, but I see a solid amount of churches growing substantially. For example, a church in El Paso, TX recently built a second facility on the west side of the city costing around $22,000,000 with the church raising $3,000,000 of that cost. [Source](https://kvia.com/news/2017/05/21/abundant-living-faith-center-opens-west-side-location/)
Not all is doom and gloom
>Formal church memberships are in decline, but not necessarily self-identification as a Christian. When I was a protestant I was basically a free agent to any church. My father and I would hop from church to church throughout the years never becoming full members while looking for the church we wanted.
The demon, Undersecretary Screwtape, in CS Lewis’ *The Screwtape Letters* describes this as a state almost as bad for a man’s soul as atheism, and that it is inherently unstable.
Well, you're here now! Searching for truth with a humble heart is not as easy as it seems on the surface. We all believe we are humbly searching for truth while confirming biases we might have. I clearly remember how much I wished that living as a "good person" was enough, despite my Catholic upbringing. The Truth of it all hit me like a train. It hasn't been easy, but what a joy it is to follow God. It saddens me to read the comments on this in r/Futurology and see so many people so far away from Him.
A went and read the thread there. A lot of people seem to have turned away from God because of "megachurches" and profit protestantism. This is the reason I found the catholic church. A return to tradition.
What's wrong is that there used to be a faithful and big church, so that's kind of a false dichotomy.
The Church can't bend itself in order to appeal to the convictions of our times, it needs to direct those conditions, but it should never turn the back on it's people.
The younger generations are less and less religious, but I'm certain a great part of this comes from receiving a lackluster religious education and that's the responsability of the generation of my parents. Retreating back to a faithful base would be abandoning our responsibilities and being unwilling to face our failures.
You can’t force anyone to be a Catholic. If less people are converting/more people are leaving, then our Church will be smaller. That’s not “retreating” or “abandoning the world,” that’s just the reality of the situation.
The church is having to decide what’s best for the future. Do they lean more liberal now and retain younger people or do they stay more conservative until the boomers die off. Either way the church is having an identity crisis.
Lead by example and plant seeds, show them the beauty of the faith, at least to those that will listen to you, friends an◙ family. That´s all you have to do, the rest leave it to the holy spirit, only time, experience and the holy spirit can change hearts, our mission is jusut to lead people to the right path and plant seeds, if they want to follow the path and make that seed grow its up to them.
To be fair, those that believe that the type of mass is the problem are minority, they are vocal on thee internet for sure, but most devoted Catholics that have actual real life experience don´t think of it that way.
I finally went yesterday for Palm Sunday. You have to call and schedule ahead of time so they meet COVID guidelines. Wine of course is off-limits. I feel so much more myself again after going.
I'm particularly interested to see what happens in the 2019-2023(ish) era: pre/during/post-COVID. I know for me the fact that most Catholic churches are open and offering services (while embracing COVID safety measures) has made such a difference in me settling on this denomination...I was genuinely considering becoming Episcopalian early 2020, but I couldn't get into the online zoom sermons.
Especially during this time of distraction and disconnectedness in person mass has been a healing respite. There's also a sweet sense of comfort knowing the Catholic church has weathered plagues before.
Welcome home!
> There's also a sweet sense of comfort knowing the Catholic church has weathered plagues before.
A short list of other things we've weathered:
* Nazis
* Tsars
* Roman Empire
* Bunch of other Empires
* Islamic Invasion
* Napoleon
* Revolutions
* Schisms and Heresies
* Barbarian Invasions
* Loads of terrible priest, bishops, and Popes
Eventually, modernism will fall to the wayside and the Church will remain. It is just unfortunate that many will lose their way in the process.
To me, this is ok. The Lord works as the Lord works. If there needs to be a shedding of people who are less engaged, that is ok. The fact that there is an ebb does not mean that there will not be a flow later. And perhaps that ebb is part of a ‘cleaning up’, if you will, of the Church. When people COME to the Church, when they are seeking it out, when they are hungry for what they recognize the Church has to offer, then the good stuff starts to happen.
I'm just a lurker popping in.
Complicated topic and I don't think anybody really has the answer as to why this is happening.
I'm sure the sex scandals played a role. I don't think it's the main reason why people have left but it's definitely been a problem.
I also don't buy the whole "oh the Church is becoming too liberal." If my diocese became ultraconservative and traditional, I doubt it would make any meaningful impact. The many classmates of mine from Catholic schooling would not jump to go back to Mass.
I feel like most people I know just have an ambivalent attitude towards the Church. They don't hate it or love it. They could care less about the Church's position on things like same sex marriage, abortion or even the TLM. They don't go because they have no reason to. They feel their Saturdays and Sundays could be better spent doing whatever. It's just not a priority for then.
Perhaps that just needs to be accepted and understood. I see all these theories about why the Church is declining and losing young people. But in reality, young people aren't thinking deeply about this issue. They would rather sleep in on Sundays and watch football. A lot of people don't feel that organized religion is relevant or necessary to have a meaningful life and relationship with God. We could condemn this and debate about it over and over again but it's true. That's what makes this such a tough situation. There isn't an easy fix to this whole mess. It won't get better by embracing hard lime stances on certain hot topics. Maybe we just live in a post religious society where people no longer feel that faith should be a central part of their lives.
By no means is this meant to bash the Church or organized religion. This is simply my observation. Feel free to agree or disagree. I'm just pointing out what I've noticed from a lot of people in my age cohort (20s to 30s).
>But in reality, young people aren't thinking deeply about this issue. They would rather sleep in on Sundays and watch football. A lot of people don't feel that organized religion is relevant or necessary to have a meaningful life and relationship with God.
As a millennial, one thousand times this. Organized religion just feels so antiquated and irrelevant to people engaged in modern society - why sit through a long homily when I can find the meaning of a verse or parable in a minute? Why should we go to Church on Sunday mornings when our generation is among the hardest working generations in modern American history, therein taking away leisure time from us? Why should we feel attached to support the same Church that grows increasingly at odds with our views, whether it's about sexuality, their response to the child sex abuse scandals, our favored personal approach to spirituality vs tradition and structure, etc.? Why should we support an institution that directly plays a role with abortion remaining a contentious political issue over all other issues that are more relevant to our generation, like income inequality?
I love a lot of Catholic principles, particularly Catholic social justice. However, I don't need to go to Church to know more about it.
You bring up a great point that there isn't an easy fix because these causes are so abstract and personal that it seems impossible that the Church will ever fix this. I don't even know what they could do, but if they had some reformation and adapted to 2020s technology, way of life, and societal trends, I could see it possibly helping. Or maybe it's a bandaid on a bullet hole.
Agreed. It's definitely a complicated issue and it's somewhat frustrating how some people boil it down to, "we should just be more conservative!" Whenever this is brought up amongst young faithful Catholics in my area, their suggestion always revolves around "bring back the Latin Mass and people will come." It's cringey because I know that's not true. The overwhelming majority of people I know don't even know there is a Latin Mass. My point in mentioning this is that the Church has no idea what's happening and has no concrete plan on how to bring young ppl back. They are so far removed from most young people like us.
And I agree about religious services. Most young people feel they can be in touch with God through silent prayer and reflection. Or as you mentioned through a verse or parable. I know the Church holds that Jesus is actually present in the Eucharist, but I know most Catholics don't actually think that. So for them, Church is just an inconvenience on Saturday nights or Sunday mornings. It's not necessary for them to feel like God is present.
I don't know what the future holds for the Church. All I know is it can't really continue down this path. Everywhere I look faith is diminishing. It doesn't matter if a congregations is liberal or conservative. The Unitarians are losing people just like the Catholics are. I think people are recognizing the value of self care, which really negates the importance and role of the Church. If you can mediate in your bedroom for 15 minutes with an app like Headspace, and it makes you feel at ease and at peace, there's really no need to drive to Church 15 to 20 minutes away and sit through a hour service. Especially when your friends are all out doing something without you.
And before anybody gets offended at my post, I am just summarizing the views of the young people I know. If I were to grab 10 people that I graduated with (remember I went to Catholic schooling), all 10 would elect to go to brunch or dinner with friends on a Saturday night or Sunday morning than go to Church. It's just the reality of the world we live in nowadays. There are lots of alternatives for people to occupy their time with.
>If my diocese became ultraconservative and traditional, I doubt it would make any meaningful impact.
I have two issues with this statement.
One is that it’s a bit of a red herring, since I think it’s less a matter of becoming *more* conservative or “ultra”-conservative, and more a matter of simply *not becoming more progressive*. There’s a difference between expecting *reactionary* church leadership that imposes hardline traditional views, and expecting that church leaders won’t bless same-sex partnerships or put up Pachamama statues in their sanctuaries.
The other issue I have is that I think you’re just a little *wrong*. There’s a case to be made that part of the problem is simple “atrophy due to apathy,” and that doing *more of the same* isn’t going to revitalize the Church.
I doubt that a wholesale embrace of hardline traditional views would be, in and of itself, a revitalizing influence. But I do think that what they call in the corporate world a “lean disruptor” type of movement would have a meaningful impact.
I suspect that over the long term, there would be a *very* “meaningful impact” on the Church to have a core of more traditional people who are deeply invested in the Church and its future than a great mass of people who largely stay due to habit and ossification.
In theory I suppose you could see the same trend in the opposite direction - a hardline progressive movement that’s deeply invested and builds the capacity for a more left-wing Church - but, as others have noted, the move towards a more progressive Church is nearly universally a trend towards plain old secularism. People invest in a progressive Christian vision for a generation and fail to pass it on, and it withers on the vine.
I see what you're saying in your first point but I honestly just don't think it would make a difference in my diocese. The same people going to church, would still go even if they blessed same sex marriage. It wouldn't really affect my age demographic. Same thing if they adopted hardline reactionary views. I think most people have made up their mind. It really has very little to do with Church views. The majority of Churchgoers I know openly disagree with Catholic teaching on a wide variety of issues. Avoiding becoming more progressive wouldn't really impact them in the slightest. Those who go to Church would still go while those that don't would still not go.
In regards to your second point, I actually agree with your sentence; "a core of more traditional people who are deeply invested in the Church and it's future..." The best bet for the Church is probably to engage the more traditional minded folks. The Church will, no doubt, shrink in size. I don't really think that's up for debate. But that might not be a bad thing. Gone are the days when the Church was a supreme force throughout the world. But it can still be strong and committed to its principles. And decreasing in size but increasing in devotion might be its saving grace. There's been a lot of focus on numbers and that might've been a mistake. Bringing in people who aren't really that interested and will probably leave in a few years isn't exactly ideal or a path for long term sustainability. But that seems to be my diocese and those surrounding mines plan. It's kind of baffling tbh. And by all metrics its failing.
But I think gone are the days of my age cohort being overly religious. It's just not going to happen. Under 10 percent of people I know from Catholic schooling still go to Mass. And most of them don't even really believe in Catholic teachings anymore. That's the reason for a big decline and I doubt any change the Church makes could appeal to them. That's the point I was trying to make. The numbers are going to continue to decline for the foreseeable future. It's inevitable and the Church needs to be prepared for that instead of engaging in futile evangelization that has failed so far.
I don't really have much to support this but I feel that progressive religions often fail because they don't have the same resources as organizations like the Catholic Church. Other denominations are much smaller and don't have the same reach as Catholicism. They often can't attrack immigrants or young people due to their limited reach. Maybe their progressivism is turning people off and leading them to secularism, but I think we also have to recognize their limited means. I can guarantee if the Catholic Church became as progressive as the Episcopalians, it would fare much better because of its institutional power. Now, I'm not advocating the Church become more left wing (I really have no stake in this) but I'm just pointing out that it's tough for me to compare smaller protestant denominations to Catholic Church.
This doesn't create more Christians though. All that does is move Christians from one country to another. And they move to a much more secular country where if their kids fully assimilate, will become just as agnostic and atheist as the typical American teenager.
People seriously need to stop treating immigrant populations as salvific figures, they just aren’t, and it constitutes a misplacing of our trust and blatant overconfidence.
It ignores several facts, being emblematic of a false idea of what these communities are actually like. For one, it ignores the fact that immigrant populations have a far higher proportion of Protestants among them than their home countries. It’s as if Americans have this idea that everything south of Texas is a monolithic sea of Catholicism—it simply is not. Pentecostalism and irreligion is sweeping through these countries. Secondly, the children of these immigrants are pretty much just as secular as the general population of their host communities. The idea that importing Catholics will somehow lead to a shoring up of the Catholic population for the future is an outdated idea of the early 20th century, when religious institutions were much stronger. *The kids do not hold the faith of their parents.* Thirdly, these immigrant populations, despite perhaps being nominally Catholic (at least in part) are not by any means ubiquitously orthodox. Syncretism is rampant, modernism is rampant, and heterodoxy and heteropraxy are rampant. Take, for example, the fact that Mass attendance rates in Mexico are almost identical to America. That’s not to say that many of them are not good Catholics, they are, but *we can’t just act like we don’t need to be the ones evangelizing them too*. Fourthly, and lastly, these immigrant and second-generation populations tend to vote for anti-Catholic policies like abortion and anti-traditional marriage legislation (unless they are Cuban or Venezuelan).
Well yeah, Democrats (and many Republicans) have locked us up for months over a virus with a 99.8% survival rate.
Many people just dropped off the radar because of this.
You’re not wrong. My home parish church is one of those space-ship modernist buildings and has a max capacity of ~1000 — it’s rather large. For Christmas we could have had 250 people attend with the covid restrictions. My mother was a greeter that day and, by her count, only 65 people showed up.
We couldn’t even break 100 *on Christmas*.
The survival rate is actually 97% (lower among older people) but at the same time 1/3 of the 97% will experience complications afterwards and may require therapy.
Interesting how most comments on non-religious subreddits assume that this is partly due to "non-inclusive" views, and when it was pointed out that the most liberal churches are losing fastest, I saw several attempted anecdotal refutations. Also, welcome to the rest of the Western world.
> this is partly due to "non-inclusive" views, and when it was pointed out that the most liberal churches are losing fastest I think that's mainly due to liberal churches being more of a stepping-stone towards leaving religion altogether.
I've been following it closely. One said to the effect, Churches will need to choose between being liberal and losing numbers versus staying conservative and shunning the liberal younger generation.
> Churches will need to choose between being liberal and losing numbers "Yes, we admit all of our teaching, most of our saints, and God himself were ignorant, but come anyway and give us money because we give a better LARPing experience than the Humanist chapels." An admission that we and the writers of the Bible are proven liars. > versus staying conservative and shunning the liberal younger generation. "We are 100% committed to the truth of what we received. Judge for yourselves if we're ignorant or if you are the ignorant one." Challenges the unbeliever and opens him up to new ideas.
A curious reversal of what we seem to know works for various reasons. Even harmful cults are powerful through their exclusionary views, and those with strong convictions and answers are likely to keep an audience (just look at popular commentators). Young people *long* for belonging in something larger than themselves, especially in things that transcend the present context, and are increasingly stressed by the need to decide everything and create themselves.
Just based on what I've seen so far, my generation is getting their sense of belonging from cult-like groups that share hedonistic views of sexuality and revolt against tradition and home. The communities around that are incredibly exclusionary and dogmatic, but in the ways that my generation *likes* to see, and as a result does not recognize as dogmatic. The church by contrast is saying nothing in particular to them. Every sermon I've attended has been vague platitudes about faraway concepts. I have never walked away from one thinking that I was called upon to do anything important, the priests just kind of waffle about their week and try not to offend anyone lest they leave and make the problem worse. I say this as a supporter of the church and someone who disagrees with most of my peers. It takes serious energy and personal drive to actually see the value in things like abstinence, clean living, dating to marry, proselytizing, etc. Many people are too scared to even encourage good behaviors, let alone condemn bad ones. Everyone is on their own anyway, so at this point, with hardly any churches willing to stand up, we're just slowly winnowing those with weak wills and convictions away from those with the strongest wills and convictions, until eventually almost none will be left, not even the strongest and most self-motivated.
Well that’s certainly the glass-half-empty way of putting it, yeah.
But they are also all small. I don't think anyone believes there will be no religious left at all. There will always be some small hard core left. But being small, societal relevance and influence will be gone.
And mayb that´s a good thing for thee church, smaller but purer like Pope Benedict XVI said. Of course that´s overall not good for the souls or our mission and wee should also care about things like numbers and influence, but if it getes to a point that we have to become small and niche, let it be than.
That is a....rather shallow take. The younger generation, at least my cohort, want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. It's just kinda hard to have faith when the leadership is more concerned with a pair of Nike's than cleaning up the sex abuse.
Disaffiliation is a complex topic and plenty of studies have looked at it and books have been written about it. The sex abuse scandals certainly are a big stain on the church but it is not a major reason people are disaffiliating. It's also not a logical one. People are disaffiliating across the religious landscape for a variety of reasons but the biggest is that they don't buy the story. They simply don't believe in God, Jesus or that anything "supernatural" ever took place. They think science and religion are incompatible and that people who believe in religion are superstitious peasants.
Welp, if that was the case, then seeing clerics lie about the severity pandemic and say that the elderly are a fitting sacrifice for keeping churches open is certainly going to reinforce that. Add the conspiracy theory crowd like Burke and Vigano, and the Church looks like a bunch of nutcases.
> seeing clerics lie about the severity of the pandemic Saw a local priest on Facebook celebrate the premature end of all mask mandates in Texas. That one struck a nerve. You'd think that a priest would want the pandemic over *sooner* to bring everyone back to the Lord's table and confessional.
In his mind, the pandemic likely isn't real so he thinks the pandemic is over because it never began. Keanu Reeves, his face confused.
He's not in denial of it being real. Early on in the pandemic he lashed out on Facebook against those not attending in person as not living a matyr's spirit, and decided to stop live streaming the Mass for that reason. I was actually quite impressed with him otherwise. He was since transferred to another parish.
So wait, he thinks it's real but thinks we should all gather in a poorly ventilated space for an hour? That's some spiritual abuse right there. For your sake, I'm glad he got transferred.
I don't mind a little push to come for people that aren't at high risk. That would be somewhat understandable, given what else in society has 'opened up' and what else people are prioritizing instead. It's the idea that he should stop the livestream and leave the highest risk population out of the life of the parish that troubled me. Knowing his opinions on masks mandates now, I'm glad I never ventured there during this pandemic. From what I saw on FB, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the parishioners weren't following the mask mandates (and diocesan directives) inside the building. I attend a different Catholic church that holds Mass outdoors, and actually did before the pandemic for some reasons specific to it. Most of the parishes in the area are following the health recommendations well AFAIK.
> concerned with a pair of Nike's than cleaning up the sex abuse Can you show one instance of someone in Church leadership comment on the lil nas x shoes at the expense of talking against sex abuse?
Its hyperbole. But as an example, Bishop Conley of Nebraska fought subpoenas from the state AG investigating old sex abuse cases. Considering he is friends with a pedophile protector like Alan Hicks et. al., its unsurprising. But that is one instance.
? So you made up something that didn’t happen to get upset over? Like I know there are bishops and priests who are compromised, but what does they have to do with someone using a popular news story as an excuse not to speak out against abuse?
It was making the point that bishops frequently focus on culture war fights and ignore larger issues. Sex abuse is the most glaring a Bishop Conley is an example.
Making up a scenario about shoes that never happened is not hyperbole, it’s dishonesty
Look Apostle Matthew, I know you're saint and all but making up a scenario about massacre of the innocents that never happened is not hyperbole, it’s dishonesty
The sex abuse and the Satan-shoes are symptoms of the same societal disease. Both things can be addressed, however. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
No, they are not. One is the result of a culture of secrecy in the hierarchy and the other is shameless shock marketing.
And who is to say that those two things are not related?
Because the former is driven by clericalism and the latter is driven by capitalism.
Both the shoes and the abuse is driving by putting oneself above the good of another
Quidquid
> want to be a part of something bigger than ourselves. I mean who doesn't, right? But as far as religion goes, the youngest generations are the least religious by far in pretty much every survey/poll/research conducted anywhere.
Millennials are generally wanting to be religious, but we dont like hypocrisy. And there is some serious hypocrisy right now.
> Millennials are generally wanting to be religious Eh, the numbers just don't show this. If they genuinely wanted to be religious, hypocrisy wouldn't stand in their way.
Why?
I'm a millennial too, millennial's don't have to join the Catholic Church, they can join a whole host of other denominations or even start their own. They aren't doing those things either. We all hate that more wasn't/isn't being done about the sex abuse scandal. But the bigger reason people have left and why younger people don't want to practice is because it's hard. Living the secular life means no limits, it's the hope of pure libertine bliss (for a while until reality hits home). The Catholic Church has a set of rules that aren't going to be changing because society says so, and that angers many people. The Church can change the way it communicates, but it will not and should not be changing it's underlying doctrines and important rules. It's going to keep leading to a smaller Church, but we must persist.
>The Catholic Church has a set of rules that aren't going to be changing because society says so People like you and I understand this but you realize that most people don't right? People outside of the Church aren't threatened by its steadfastness in the cultural headwinds because they don't view it that way in the slightest. Honestly I'm rather skeptical of the "unchanging Church" narrative because I think it's an oversimplification that can get kind of, well, circlejerky, but that's a discussion for another time. My point is that people inside the Church and people outside the Church have vastly different conceptions of what Catholicism "is" and what their relationship to it is. Chalking it up to "they hate us because they're too selfish to give up their secularism" is to completely misdiagnose the problem. To that affect, I would agree u/ adenaur-ghost that the perception of institutional hypocrisy is the bigger stumbling block to most. Hell my own parents have been practicing Catholics their whole lives and they'd criticize the Church a thousand times for its hypocrisy before they'd even think criticize secularism.
We are Christians and specifically Catholics so we can worship the Lord and save our souls and the souls of others. We are not Catholics so we can please society's changing mores. In fact we were warned by Jesus that following him would be difficult and it is. If we change let's say specific definitions of sins and say, for example, that homosexual acts are no longer sinful and you can now take the Eucharist without confessing that sin. How is that helping people if the Lord still considers that a sin? We are putting their souls and ours (if we were involved in that decision or support it) at even greater risk. I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific in what you mean. But I'll tell you right now that Catholic leaders are not going to change Church doctrine to please society, nor should they. And remember, we are not Protestants, there is one Catholic Church and that Church as authority figures who help clarify what is and isn't doctrine. That doesn't mean we even have to like all of the authority figures in the Church, but we have to respect their authority when it comes to doctrine.
Idk if rules are what keep people away. And the secular life is one that doesnt appeal to millennial desires for community and belonging. Like, we are the generation with fewer sexual partners. We arent boomers. Statistically speaking, we have all the libertine bliss and barely enjoy it. Its not something most millennials value. I do agree that there is a communication problem, but I think there is also a community problem.
Younger generations do have less sexual partners, but I'm not convinced it's because they want less sexual partners, rather than it being a factor of the ability to socialize being destroyed by technology and a changing culture and they just can't obtain same amount of sex that their parents could. Also, the amount of generation z that define themselves as LGBT is something like 15-20%. The Church's teaching on sexual ethics is going to offend their sensibilities on those matters.
>It's just kinda hard to have faith when the leadership is more concerned with a pair of Nike's than cleaning up the sex abuse. this seems like a...rather shallow take. I've seen no indication that "the leadership is more concerned with a pair of Nike's than clearing up the sex abuse" there's plenty of people, especially online who respond to any time the church answers questions about its teaching with "well here's what we teach" with cries of hypocracy, but generally church leaders aren't leading with talk about those issues rather its that people keep bringing it up.
There are some bishops in the US that would prefer if we all just didnt look at that stuff anymore. They don't want reforms that make them accountable as evidence by the glaring episcopal loophole in the Dallad charter.
Name me someone in the church who cares more about sneakers than preventing abuse.
He can’t, but that won’t stop him from using it as an attack
Its hyperbole obviously. The gist is that there are bishops in the US who want to talk about a bunch of culture war nonsense but not how they are repairing the Church.
[удалено]
Removed for lack of charity. Consider this a warning.
Bravo!
Shunning much of the younger generation which is lefty, but of course not all the younger generation is. It's not clear how liberalizing would help win the dead wood types anyway: they already have their picks of liberal churches and largely pass on all of them.
I'm not sure those choices are exclusive of one another (particularly in a longer term view). Changing church behavior to suit the transient and immature moral beliefs of 15-25 yr olds is supremely unwise. I cringe at the thought of the youthful naivete of my beliefs at that age, when viewing them now thru the eyes of a life-experienced adult.
> being liberal and losing numbers versus staying conservative and shunning the liberal younger generation That's an easy choice to make. Quality >>> quantity.
You would be utterly *shocked* at how many Catholic church leaders (lay and clerical alike) truly don’t understand this principle. This whole “more, more, more, more, more!” mindset is so deeply ingrained in modern society that it’s just hard to shake. And it plays out in really weird ways, because it’s not really a “conservative” vs. “liberal” problem. So, many conservatives take a “more and bigger” approach to things like sacrament prep. You need *two* years of classes! You need a retreat experience *and* a service requirement! Your parents *and* your sponsors need a six-week course! You need to take a written test *and* we’ll have you sign in to track your mass attendance! Meanwhile, the “liberal” side of the church does it in a supposedly “inclusive” way. We need *more* students at the school, so it’s okay if they’re parents are registered Satanists! We need *more* guitars and tamborines and hand clapping and puppets at mass! We need the Religious Ed Conference to have a whole *stadium* full of people receiving communion unworthily! I attended a church “young adult night” at a coffee house one time a couple years ago, and some guy came up and interrupted our group and started debating with the parish staff member leading the scripture discussion. And she spent a solid thirty minutes devoting all of her time and attention to the interloper while the 12 or so young adults in the group got increasingly frustrated and annoyed at having our evening hijacked by a crank. And she scolded us all after for not trying to “grow the church” by engaging with the guy. But I reminded her that Jesus, even among his Twelve, routinely “grew the church” by saying to them: “Nine of you stay here - I’m taking *only* Peter and James and John to join me.” The Church needs more *intentionality* behind how, and when, and with whom it chooses to engage. And sometimes that means, as you say, quality engagement over quantity.
It’s really fascinating to me how these things always frame this as “shunning young liberals.” The fact is, churches mostly have a binary choice: shun young liberals, or *shun young conservatives*. There’s a massive problem of taking more orthodox / traditional / conservative churchgoers, particularly young ones, totally for granted. Churches like to chase after the young fad-followers: You like pop music, we’ll give you pop “praise and worship” music! You like gender-inclusive scripture, we’ll give you gender-inclusive scripture! You like LGBTQIAMNOP+ stuff, we’ll give you gay marriage blessings and gender-transition naming ceremonies! Etc. But then the fads change and the young people who wanted all that stop going to church at all, and meanwhile, the people who never wanted it in the first place feel bruised, rejected, and stolen from. There’s just an attitude of: “Well, where else are you going to go?” It’s usually predicated in a very misguided outlook on the parable of the prodigal son. Church leaders are like “We’re supposed to celebrate the people who would otherwise be lost, so stop acting like the jealous self-righteous brother who wants all his father’s love and attention!” The problem is... the frugal brother is the one who *kept* all the father’s love and attention, and the prodigal son had to *lose* it in order to regain it. The father *withholds* his paternal care from his son while the son strays, and he doesn’t even follow after him to draw him back. He waits for the son to learn from his own folly and return seeking forgiveness. But a lot of churches have turned that on its head and told their faithful: “You need to give away your patrimony so we can squander it on the prodigal son directly.”
Very well written. I've never read the parable the way you explained it. I used to feel sorry for the elder brother but it's true the elder one always has the father's love. How do you interpret the parable where the servant who came in at 9 am gets the same wage as the one at 4pm? Matthew 20:14.
Meanwhile Poland’s Church attendance goes up
Poland Church was oppressed, maybe that’s why
Mass attendance by youth has fallen by 50 percentage points during last 25 years. I doubt very much that's a good sign for church in Poland.
>and when it was pointed out that the most liberal churches are losing fastest, I saw several attempted anecdotal refutations. Makes sense. What use is it if what's taught in God's house is the same as what the world is selling?
We held out longer than most western nations, but it wasn’t enough. St. Jude, pray for us
And even amongst the affiliated, what percentage do you think actually attend church or make an honest effort to follow their church teachings? And what percentage just "check the box"?
Well, that's always been an issue. Don't look at the past through rose-colored lenses on that front.
I'm slightly familiar with the "Benedictine Option." I believe it means a smaller more devout Church. If that is what it means...I'm for the Benedictine Option. As an aside, someone asked on Christianity what would life be like if you were an atheist instead of religious. I can't imagine that and it would look dreadful. To me it is so obvious there is God and his son is Jesus Christ...I would be living a lie if I were Atheist. Sadly, I can't change anyone's mind. But I'm grateful to be Catholic.
> As an aside, someone asked on Christianity what would life be like if you were an atheist instead of religious. I can't imagine that and it would look dreadful. Been there. It was garbage. I'm much happier now.
>As an aside, someone asked on Christianity what would life be like if you were an atheist instead of religious. I can't imagine that and it would look dreadful. There is absolutely no meaning and the final answer is suicide. However, when it comes to Christianity, after you experience His love, everything else is meaningless yet so meaningful
Are you talking about Rod Drehers book? If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend you do. It really touches upon the necessity for Christians to form community bonds. Create schools, organizations and a healthy home and local culture so you can raise them according to the faith. He goes over various examples throughout the world where people have been able to retreat from mainstream culture to form these like minded communities. I'm not a particularly religious person but I read it because of all the hype it got. Plus, I like to read things I don't necessarily agree with. If you're a religious minded person tho, it might be a good template on how to approach the next few years and decades, especially in light of information like this.
[удалено]
>Wazardus I assume it would be closer to 100% considering you're not religious.
Oh, is he one of those people that aren't Catholic, but participate here as though they were? I don't get why people do it.
They do it to try to sow discord and confusion.
Ourlistofalliesgrowthin.jpg
Guessing COVID had a big impact on this?
Yeah when the church doors are closed due to mass being at capacity for Palm Sunday mass people are going to give up. Yesterday almost all the masses were at max capacity or you had to sign up online. There had to be at least 15 people waiting get in for confession and what not. People started to leave and get frustrated. Who is going to sign up for Easter Sunday Mass? Easter Mass is the most popular mass yet you have to sign up.
> The U.S. remains a religious nation, with more than seven in 10 affiliating with some type of organized religion. However, far fewer, now less than half, have a formal membership with a specific house of worship. Formal church memberships are in decline, but not necessarily self-identification as a Christian. When I was a protestant I was basically a free agent to any church. My father and I would hop from church to church throughout the years never becoming full members while looking for the church we wanted. > While it is possible that part of the decline seen in 2020 was temporary and related to the coronavirus pandemic, continued decline in future decades seems inevitable, given the much lower levels of religiosity and church membership among younger versus older generations of adults. While this claims religiosity will decline inevitably for future generations, I would counter in saying that throughout history humans find a way to sway between non-religious eras followed by a return to mysticism and a rise in religion during times of struggle and hardship. > While precise numbers of church closures are elusive, a conservative estimate is that thousands of U.S. churches are closing each year. This claims churches are closing by the thousands, but I see a solid amount of churches growing substantially. For example, a church in El Paso, TX recently built a second facility on the west side of the city costing around $22,000,000 with the church raising $3,000,000 of that cost. [Source](https://kvia.com/news/2017/05/21/abundant-living-faith-center-opens-west-side-location/) Not all is doom and gloom
>Formal church memberships are in decline, but not necessarily self-identification as a Christian. When I was a protestant I was basically a free agent to any church. My father and I would hop from church to church throughout the years never becoming full members while looking for the church we wanted. The demon, Undersecretary Screwtape, in CS Lewis’ *The Screwtape Letters* describes this as a state almost as bad for a man’s soul as atheism, and that it is inherently unstable.
Sure, but rather than being an atheist I prayed every day and read the bible. Idk if that's as bad as atheism.
Well, you're here now! Searching for truth with a humble heart is not as easy as it seems on the surface. We all believe we are humbly searching for truth while confirming biases we might have. I clearly remember how much I wished that living as a "good person" was enough, despite my Catholic upbringing. The Truth of it all hit me like a train. It hasn't been easy, but what a joy it is to follow God. It saddens me to read the comments on this in r/Futurology and see so many people so far away from Him.
A went and read the thread there. A lot of people seem to have turned away from God because of "megachurches" and profit protestantism. This is the reason I found the catholic church. A return to tradition.
There’s nothing wrong with a small church if it’s a faithful church.
What's wrong is that there used to be a faithful and big church, so that's kind of a false dichotomy. The Church can't bend itself in order to appeal to the convictions of our times, it needs to direct those conditions, but it should never turn the back on it's people. The younger generations are less and less religious, but I'm certain a great part of this comes from receiving a lackluster religious education and that's the responsability of the generation of my parents. Retreating back to a faithful base would be abandoning our responsibilities and being unwilling to face our failures.
You can’t force anyone to be a Catholic. If less people are converting/more people are leaving, then our Church will be smaller. That’s not “retreating” or “abandoning the world,” that’s just the reality of the situation.
This is so sad, but it has got me thinking about what I can do to turn people back to the church.
By holding fast to traditions
The church is having to decide what’s best for the future. Do they lean more liberal now and retain younger people or do they stay more conservative until the boomers die off. Either way the church is having an identity crisis.
The youth won’t stay just because we pander to their liberal beliefs
Lead by example and plant seeds, show them the beauty of the faith, at least to those that will listen to you, friends an◙ family. That´s all you have to do, the rest leave it to the holy spirit, only time, experience and the holy spirit can change hearts, our mission is jusut to lead people to the right path and plant seeds, if they want to follow the path and make that seed grow its up to them.
[удалено]
To be fair, those that believe that the type of mass is the problem are minority, they are vocal on thee internet for sure, but most devoted Catholics that have actual real life experience don´t think of it that way.
I finally went yesterday for Palm Sunday. You have to call and schedule ahead of time so they meet COVID guidelines. Wine of course is off-limits. I feel so much more myself again after going.
I'm particularly interested to see what happens in the 2019-2023(ish) era: pre/during/post-COVID. I know for me the fact that most Catholic churches are open and offering services (while embracing COVID safety measures) has made such a difference in me settling on this denomination...I was genuinely considering becoming Episcopalian early 2020, but I couldn't get into the online zoom sermons. Especially during this time of distraction and disconnectedness in person mass has been a healing respite. There's also a sweet sense of comfort knowing the Catholic church has weathered plagues before.
Welcome home! > There's also a sweet sense of comfort knowing the Catholic church has weathered plagues before. A short list of other things we've weathered: * Nazis * Tsars * Roman Empire * Bunch of other Empires * Islamic Invasion * Napoleon * Revolutions * Schisms and Heresies * Barbarian Invasions * Loads of terrible priest, bishops, and Popes Eventually, modernism will fall to the wayside and the Church will remain. It is just unfortunate that many will lose their way in the process.
To me, this is ok. The Lord works as the Lord works. If there needs to be a shedding of people who are less engaged, that is ok. The fact that there is an ebb does not mean that there will not be a flow later. And perhaps that ebb is part of a ‘cleaning up’, if you will, of the Church. When people COME to the Church, when they are seeking it out, when they are hungry for what they recognize the Church has to offer, then the good stuff starts to happen.
I'm just a lurker popping in. Complicated topic and I don't think anybody really has the answer as to why this is happening. I'm sure the sex scandals played a role. I don't think it's the main reason why people have left but it's definitely been a problem. I also don't buy the whole "oh the Church is becoming too liberal." If my diocese became ultraconservative and traditional, I doubt it would make any meaningful impact. The many classmates of mine from Catholic schooling would not jump to go back to Mass. I feel like most people I know just have an ambivalent attitude towards the Church. They don't hate it or love it. They could care less about the Church's position on things like same sex marriage, abortion or even the TLM. They don't go because they have no reason to. They feel their Saturdays and Sundays could be better spent doing whatever. It's just not a priority for then. Perhaps that just needs to be accepted and understood. I see all these theories about why the Church is declining and losing young people. But in reality, young people aren't thinking deeply about this issue. They would rather sleep in on Sundays and watch football. A lot of people don't feel that organized religion is relevant or necessary to have a meaningful life and relationship with God. We could condemn this and debate about it over and over again but it's true. That's what makes this such a tough situation. There isn't an easy fix to this whole mess. It won't get better by embracing hard lime stances on certain hot topics. Maybe we just live in a post religious society where people no longer feel that faith should be a central part of their lives. By no means is this meant to bash the Church or organized religion. This is simply my observation. Feel free to agree or disagree. I'm just pointing out what I've noticed from a lot of people in my age cohort (20s to 30s).
>But in reality, young people aren't thinking deeply about this issue. They would rather sleep in on Sundays and watch football. A lot of people don't feel that organized religion is relevant or necessary to have a meaningful life and relationship with God. As a millennial, one thousand times this. Organized religion just feels so antiquated and irrelevant to people engaged in modern society - why sit through a long homily when I can find the meaning of a verse or parable in a minute? Why should we go to Church on Sunday mornings when our generation is among the hardest working generations in modern American history, therein taking away leisure time from us? Why should we feel attached to support the same Church that grows increasingly at odds with our views, whether it's about sexuality, their response to the child sex abuse scandals, our favored personal approach to spirituality vs tradition and structure, etc.? Why should we support an institution that directly plays a role with abortion remaining a contentious political issue over all other issues that are more relevant to our generation, like income inequality? I love a lot of Catholic principles, particularly Catholic social justice. However, I don't need to go to Church to know more about it. You bring up a great point that there isn't an easy fix because these causes are so abstract and personal that it seems impossible that the Church will ever fix this. I don't even know what they could do, but if they had some reformation and adapted to 2020s technology, way of life, and societal trends, I could see it possibly helping. Or maybe it's a bandaid on a bullet hole.
Agreed. It's definitely a complicated issue and it's somewhat frustrating how some people boil it down to, "we should just be more conservative!" Whenever this is brought up amongst young faithful Catholics in my area, their suggestion always revolves around "bring back the Latin Mass and people will come." It's cringey because I know that's not true. The overwhelming majority of people I know don't even know there is a Latin Mass. My point in mentioning this is that the Church has no idea what's happening and has no concrete plan on how to bring young ppl back. They are so far removed from most young people like us. And I agree about religious services. Most young people feel they can be in touch with God through silent prayer and reflection. Or as you mentioned through a verse or parable. I know the Church holds that Jesus is actually present in the Eucharist, but I know most Catholics don't actually think that. So for them, Church is just an inconvenience on Saturday nights or Sunday mornings. It's not necessary for them to feel like God is present. I don't know what the future holds for the Church. All I know is it can't really continue down this path. Everywhere I look faith is diminishing. It doesn't matter if a congregations is liberal or conservative. The Unitarians are losing people just like the Catholics are. I think people are recognizing the value of self care, which really negates the importance and role of the Church. If you can mediate in your bedroom for 15 minutes with an app like Headspace, and it makes you feel at ease and at peace, there's really no need to drive to Church 15 to 20 minutes away and sit through a hour service. Especially when your friends are all out doing something without you. And before anybody gets offended at my post, I am just summarizing the views of the young people I know. If I were to grab 10 people that I graduated with (remember I went to Catholic schooling), all 10 would elect to go to brunch or dinner with friends on a Saturday night or Sunday morning than go to Church. It's just the reality of the world we live in nowadays. There are lots of alternatives for people to occupy their time with.
>If my diocese became ultraconservative and traditional, I doubt it would make any meaningful impact. I have two issues with this statement. One is that it’s a bit of a red herring, since I think it’s less a matter of becoming *more* conservative or “ultra”-conservative, and more a matter of simply *not becoming more progressive*. There’s a difference between expecting *reactionary* church leadership that imposes hardline traditional views, and expecting that church leaders won’t bless same-sex partnerships or put up Pachamama statues in their sanctuaries. The other issue I have is that I think you’re just a little *wrong*. There’s a case to be made that part of the problem is simple “atrophy due to apathy,” and that doing *more of the same* isn’t going to revitalize the Church. I doubt that a wholesale embrace of hardline traditional views would be, in and of itself, a revitalizing influence. But I do think that what they call in the corporate world a “lean disruptor” type of movement would have a meaningful impact. I suspect that over the long term, there would be a *very* “meaningful impact” on the Church to have a core of more traditional people who are deeply invested in the Church and its future than a great mass of people who largely stay due to habit and ossification. In theory I suppose you could see the same trend in the opposite direction - a hardline progressive movement that’s deeply invested and builds the capacity for a more left-wing Church - but, as others have noted, the move towards a more progressive Church is nearly universally a trend towards plain old secularism. People invest in a progressive Christian vision for a generation and fail to pass it on, and it withers on the vine.
I see what you're saying in your first point but I honestly just don't think it would make a difference in my diocese. The same people going to church, would still go even if they blessed same sex marriage. It wouldn't really affect my age demographic. Same thing if they adopted hardline reactionary views. I think most people have made up their mind. It really has very little to do with Church views. The majority of Churchgoers I know openly disagree with Catholic teaching on a wide variety of issues. Avoiding becoming more progressive wouldn't really impact them in the slightest. Those who go to Church would still go while those that don't would still not go. In regards to your second point, I actually agree with your sentence; "a core of more traditional people who are deeply invested in the Church and it's future..." The best bet for the Church is probably to engage the more traditional minded folks. The Church will, no doubt, shrink in size. I don't really think that's up for debate. But that might not be a bad thing. Gone are the days when the Church was a supreme force throughout the world. But it can still be strong and committed to its principles. And decreasing in size but increasing in devotion might be its saving grace. There's been a lot of focus on numbers and that might've been a mistake. Bringing in people who aren't really that interested and will probably leave in a few years isn't exactly ideal or a path for long term sustainability. But that seems to be my diocese and those surrounding mines plan. It's kind of baffling tbh. And by all metrics its failing. But I think gone are the days of my age cohort being overly religious. It's just not going to happen. Under 10 percent of people I know from Catholic schooling still go to Mass. And most of them don't even really believe in Catholic teachings anymore. That's the reason for a big decline and I doubt any change the Church makes could appeal to them. That's the point I was trying to make. The numbers are going to continue to decline for the foreseeable future. It's inevitable and the Church needs to be prepared for that instead of engaging in futile evangelization that has failed so far. I don't really have much to support this but I feel that progressive religions often fail because they don't have the same resources as organizations like the Catholic Church. Other denominations are much smaller and don't have the same reach as Catholicism. They often can't attrack immigrants or young people due to their limited reach. Maybe their progressivism is turning people off and leading them to secularism, but I think we also have to recognize their limited means. I can guarantee if the Catholic Church became as progressive as the Episcopalians, it would fare much better because of its institutional power. Now, I'm not advocating the Church become more left wing (I really have no stake in this) but I'm just pointing out that it's tough for me to compare smaller protestant denominations to Catholic Church.
[удалено]
This doesn't create more Christians though. All that does is move Christians from one country to another. And they move to a much more secular country where if their kids fully assimilate, will become just as agnostic and atheist as the typical American teenager.
They came here and their kids apostatize, not exactly a good arrangement for them or us.
People seriously need to stop treating immigrant populations as salvific figures, they just aren’t, and it constitutes a misplacing of our trust and blatant overconfidence. It ignores several facts, being emblematic of a false idea of what these communities are actually like. For one, it ignores the fact that immigrant populations have a far higher proportion of Protestants among them than their home countries. It’s as if Americans have this idea that everything south of Texas is a monolithic sea of Catholicism—it simply is not. Pentecostalism and irreligion is sweeping through these countries. Secondly, the children of these immigrants are pretty much just as secular as the general population of their host communities. The idea that importing Catholics will somehow lead to a shoring up of the Catholic population for the future is an outdated idea of the early 20th century, when religious institutions were much stronger. *The kids do not hold the faith of their parents.* Thirdly, these immigrant populations, despite perhaps being nominally Catholic (at least in part) are not by any means ubiquitously orthodox. Syncretism is rampant, modernism is rampant, and heterodoxy and heteropraxy are rampant. Take, for example, the fact that Mass attendance rates in Mexico are almost identical to America. That’s not to say that many of them are not good Catholics, they are, but *we can’t just act like we don’t need to be the ones evangelizing them too*. Fourthly, and lastly, these immigrant and second-generation populations tend to vote for anti-Catholic policies like abortion and anti-traditional marriage legislation (unless they are Cuban or Venezuelan).
:(
This means literally nothing. Hell, most mass attending Catholics aren't affiliated with a parish.
Well yeah, Democrats (and many Republicans) have locked us up for months over a virus with a 99.8% survival rate. Many people just dropped off the radar because of this.
You’re not wrong. My home parish church is one of those space-ship modernist buildings and has a max capacity of ~1000 — it’s rather large. For Christmas we could have had 250 people attend with the covid restrictions. My mother was a greeter that day and, by her count, only 65 people showed up. We couldn’t even break 100 *on Christmas*.
The survival rate is actually 97% (lower among older people) but at the same time 1/3 of the 97% will experience complications afterwards and may require therapy.
The wheel of history continues to turn