Wherever Religious Belief is Waning the Society Is In Decline Also

[CriticalThought]

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium

"This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion.(1*) And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful."

Well this is awkward...

"And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith"

Well this is REALLY awkward...

"For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter."

Could this BE anymore awkward?

Meh. "You will know them by their fruits."

I think some ol' hippy back in the day said something to that effect.

 

[CriticalThought]

It is helpful to understand the object of the infallibility, so diagram the sentence. It is the Magisterium to which the infallibility refers and the Magisterium is the Catholic doctrine transmitted handed down from one generation to another. The Cardinals and the Pope are the teachers the Magisterium is the teaching of the Church. It is on this very specific subject that a pope or collectively the college of Cardinals/Bishops can speak infallibly. This does not mean they as individuals are infallible nor that any thing or everything they say or do is infallible. The limitation is very very specific.

But it is far easier to state a belief which fits the narrative than take the 10 minutes to understand the nuance of the truth.

Basically, however said Pope chooses to interpret scripture is infallible not what they do is infallible.

I find my fellow humans to be incredibly amusing, but we all need something to believe in to get us through the day, so who am I to judge?

 

[gilbertc1908]

Basically, however said Pope chooses to interpret scripture is infallible not what they do is infallible.

I find my fellow humans to be incredibly amusing, but we all need something to believe in to get us through the day, so who am I to judge?

We share the amusement and we agree on the need for each of us to believe that which delivers his/her fuel to move through life's gauntlet and we agree on who are we to judge.

My reason to respond was to point out the factual nature of your error based on what appeared to me to be either a broad erroneous assumption or a sloppily worded assertion implying this personal infallibility for the Pope, rather than the very rare and incredibly restricted infallibility tied specifically to the teaching of the Catholic Church having nothing to do with personal sin, behavior etc..

And as another point of clarification, the Pope does not "choose" what is and is not ex-Cathedra as with everything within Catholicism it is well defined and then still hotly debated internally, one of the many reasons I chose to become a Catholic after being an atheist well into my adulthood.

Here are the conditions of a pope speaking ex cathedra from the Catholic Encyclopedia

The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.

Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).

Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.

Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church.
To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

 

[CriticalThought]

We share the amusement and we agree on the need for each of us to believe that which delivers his/her fuel to move through life's gauntlet and we agree on who are we to judge.

My reason to respond was to point out the factual nature of your error based on what appeared to me to be either a broad erroneous assumption or a sloppily worded assertion implying this personal infallibility for the Pope, rather than the very rare and incredibly restricted infallibility tied specifically to the teaching of the Catholic Church having nothing to do with personal sin, behavior etc..

And as another point of clarification, the Pope does not "choose" what is and is not ex-Cathedra as with everything within Catholicism it is well defined and then still hotly debated internally, one of the many reasons I chose to become a Catholic after being an atheist well into my adulthood.

Here are the conditions of a pope speaking ex cathedra from the Catholic Encyclopedia

It is basically the same for any interpretation of an historic document. Look at the US Constitution. I respect that people will believe what they want to believe, but I'm never going to be convinced no matter how much it is minimized that these things are not subject to change as the interpretation changes over time. That would be re-envisioning history over and over again in order to make it sync up with the current interpretation. While others may be comfortable doing that in order to justify their faith, I'm just happy to have faith for the sake of faith and not having to jump through mental hoops to continually justify it.

 

[Your Star]

The discussion of religion in China got me to thinking...

Looking at those cultures where religious belief is on the decline we find that most of them share certain other characteristics:

Their population of the traditional ethnic group is shrinking.
Their economy is in the doldrums or is declining.
Their productivity is down.
Their birth rate is below the level required for replacement.
Their divorces are up and their marriage rate down.
They are increasingly being replaced by other, more religious ethnic groups.

I'm speaking here of Western cultures in Europe, of course.

In mostly secular Russia the population of ethnic Russians is falling off a cliff and the birth rate is abysmal, so much so that Putin is publically alarmed by it.

Yes, yes, this is not always true. Northern European cultures are less Christian but still economically viable. They do, however, have lower populations and lower birth rates, increased divorce and less marriage.

In the US the lower socioeconomic strata have 30% more non-believers now than in 1960. They are also increasingly unemployed or completely withdrawn from the work force, drawing disability, and doing nothing but sitting around watching TV or playing video games.*

US citizens further up the food chain are doing better and have also not become less religious since 1960.

Meanwhile, as previously discussed, in China, which has bursting economic growth, we find that all kinds of religions are increasing.

Of course, correlation is not exact and there are probably some exceptions. But still...

____________
*Yes, the increase in atheism celebrated by so many is mainly in the lower classes. And in prisons. :lol:

And these numbers(not cited BTW) are all pointless, because you can't prove A leads to B. You can't at the end of your post point out your huge ****ing logical fallacy and shrug it off. It matters, and it makes your whole point here moot.

 

[LowDown]

And these numbers(not cited BTW) are all pointless, because you can't prove A leads to B. You can't at the end of your post point out your huge ****ing logical fallacy and shrug it off. It matters, and it makes your whole point here moot.

No, A is associated with B which leads to questions of causation and in which direction that runs, if at all. I'm of the opinion that irreligiousity is a symptom of a larger process, which is the decline of the culture, which can be seen all throughout the West.

Here's a book on it:

America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It: Mark Steyn: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

 

[Your Star]

No, A is associated with B which leads to questions of causation and in which direction that runs, if at all. I'm of the opinion that irreligiousity is a symptom of a larger process, which is the decline of the culture, which can be seen all throughout the West.

Here's a book on it:

America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It: Mark Steyn: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

A isn't even really associated with B though.

 

[LowDown]

A isn't even really associated with B though.

I think that a reasonable person would say that I've shown enough of an association to start a discussion.

 

[Your Star]

I think that a reasonable person would say that I've shown enough of an association to start a discussion.

I don't think so, for there to be an association you would have to show a decline in the morality of our society(which isn't happening), you would have to show that this decline in morality is the cause of the economic downturn, and the other various things you described, and you would also have to relate religion with morality(which isn't true, morality and religion are two separate things), and you haven't, so yeah.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

It is helpful to understand the object of the infallibility, so diagram the sentence. It is the Magisterium to which the infallibility refers and the Magisterium is the Catholic doctrine transmitted handed down from one generation to another. The Cardinals and the Pope are the teachers the Magisterium is the teaching of the Church. It is on this very specific subject that a pope or collectively the college of Cardinals/Bishops can speak infallibly. This does not mean they as individuals are infallible nor that any thing or everything they say or do is infallible. The limitation is very very specific.

But it is far easier to state a belief which fits the narrative than take the 10 minutes to understand the nuance of the truth.

Oh really? "And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith."

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I don't think so, for there to be an association you would have to show a decline in the morality of our society(which isn't happening), you would have to show that this decline in morality is the cause of the economic downturn, and the other various things you described, and you would also have to relate religion with morality(which isn't true, morality and religion are two separate things), and you haven't, so yeah.

Also have to show why a "decline in morality" is "wrong." However, I'm not holding my breath.

 

[LowDown]

I don't think so, for there to be an association you would have to show a decline in the morality of our society(which isn't happening), you would have to show that this decline in morality is the cause of the economic downturn, and the other various things you described, and you would also have to relate religion with morality(which isn't true, morality and religion are two separate things), and you haven't, so yeah.

There is a difference between causation, which is what you are discussing here, and association. Things that are associated may or may not be causally related.

 

[LowDown]

Also have to show why a "decline in morality" is "wrong." However, I'm not holding my breath.

I'm only guessing here, but if things declined to the point that you could no longer trust your neighbors or government officials to treat you fairly or respect your rights then you'd regard it as wrong.

You know, when one has to explain why a decline in ordinary morality is wrong then the rot has become so pronounced that no one can smell the stench any longer. "Morally bankrupt" no longer seems adequate to describe it.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

I'm only guessing here, but if things declined to the point that you could no longer trust your neighbors or government officials to treat you fairly or respect your rights then you'd regard it as wrong.

Nope. I'd regard it as "meh." You're incorrect.

You know, when one has to explain why a decline in ordinary morality is wrong then the rot has become so pronounced that no one can smell the stench any longer. "Morally bankrupt" no longer seems adequate to describe it.

Riiiight. So you really can't explain it. You just "assume" it.

 

[gilbertc1908]

Oh really? "And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith."

Well yes really. Context is so important, let take a deeper look at the quote you chose to cherry pick with its surrounding verbage to see who has it right, shall we.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

I think context is so much more illuminating don't you?

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Well yes really. Context is so important, let take a deeper look at the quote you chose to cherry pick with its surrounding verbage to see who has it right, shall we.

I think context is so much more illuminating don't you?

And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit , promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

Ok. So his word is irreformable. He sure does a lot of apologizing, though. So he's not a "private person, but the supreme teacher of the universe Church" - that's not denying his infallibility. That's saying he's infallible.

 

[SheWolf]

The discussion of religion in China got me to thinking...

Looking at those cultures where religious belief is on the decline we find that most of them share certain other characteristics:

Their population of the traditional ethnic group is shrinking.
Their economy is in the doldrums or is declining.
Their productivity is down.
Their birth rate is below the level required for replacement.
Their divorces are up and their marriage rate down.
They are increasingly being replaced by other, more religious ethnic groups.

I'm speaking here of Western cultures in Europe, of course.

In mostly secular Russia the population of ethnic Russians is falling off a cliff and the birth rate is abysmal, so much so that Putin is publically alarmed by it.

Yes, yes, this is not always true. Northern European cultures are less Christian but still economically viable. They do, however, have lower populations and lower birth rates, increased divorce and less marriage.

In the US the lower socioeconomic strata have 30% more non-believers now than in 1960. They are also increasingly unemployed or completely withdrawn from the work force, drawing disability, and doing nothing but sitting around watching TV or playing video games.*

US citizens further up the food chain are doing better and have also not become less religious since 1960.

Meanwhile, as previously discussed, in China, which has bursting economic growth, we find that all kinds of religions are increasing.

Of course, correlation is not exact and there are probably some exceptions. But still...

____________
*Yes, the increase in atheism celebrated by so many is mainly in the lower classes. And in prisons. :lol:

My mom's family is Russian. The government has been trying to increase the birth rate since before Stalin. Maternal Medals were commonly given to women for have multiple children. The birth rate stared significantly falling when quality of life decreased and people became poor.

My great gran was in a orphanage while her dad literally worked himself to death in an unsafe factory. But the people still prayed and worshipped in secret then. And soldiers during World War II hid prayer cards in their uniform, so I wouldn't link decline of religion to decline in birth rates.

 

[SheWolf]

Actually if you looked at the data, more and more people in this country say they do not go to church or are not "particularly religious". This sampling is so geographically diverse the OP's usual hyperbolic blather is ridiculous.

Personally I link it more to religious movements in the country being loud and proud about governing other people's lives. I don't want to go to a religious institution that doesnt value religious and individual freedom.

I associate republicans with that group of people, and republicans are losing numbers too. That's my opinion on this matter.

 

[LowDown]

My mom's family is Russian. The government has been trying to increase the birth rate since before Stalin. Maternal Medals were commonly given to women for have multiple children. The birth rate stared significantly falling when quality of life decreased and people became poor.

My great gran was in a orphanage while her dad literally worked himself to death in an unsafe factory. But the people still prayed and worshipped in secret then. And soldiers during World War II hid prayer cards in their uniform, so I wouldn't link decline of religion to decline in birth rates.

Birth rate is clearly associated with irreligiousity in the West as birth rates are going down along with an increase in unbelievers in many countries. The US, the UK, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Finland, Greece, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Belgium and Austria all show these trends.

In fact, almost all countries have a declining birth rate and almost all countries have an increase in unbelievers (with the possible exception of those countries where unbelief is illegal). In those countries where atheism is most common the birth rate is especially low, well below the level of replacement, which means that the population is shrinking. A birth rate of 1.3, as in most of Europe, means that the population will decrease by 50% every 40 years or so.

Whether there is a causal connection between the trends is open to debate. I can see how they might be causally related.

 

[wolfman24]

Personally I link it more to religious movements in the country being loud and proud about governing other people's lives. I don't want to go to a religious institution that doesnt value religious and individual freedom.

I associate republicans with that group of people, and republicans are losing numbers too. That's my opinion on this matter.

I know what you mean. down here you see alot of that. Its like they think they are something special. I love seeing the bumper stickers about how they KNOW they are forgiven. Apparently they have never read the bible because it is VERY clear as to WHO is the only one who can forgive sins.

 

[SheWolf]

Birth rate is clearly associated with irreligiousity in the West as birth rates are going down along with an increase in unbelievers in many countries. The US, the UK, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Finland, Greece, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Belgium and Austria all show these trends.

In fact, almost all countries have a declining birth rate and almost all countries have an increase in unbelievers (with the possible exception of those countries where unbelief is illegal). In those countries where atheism is most common the birth rate is especially low, well below the level of replacement, which means that the population is shrinking. A birth rate of 1.3, as in most of Europe, means that the population will decrease by 50% every 40 years or so.

Whether there is a causal connection between the trends is open to debate. I can see how they might be causally related.

People in Russia didn't become more atheist or anything like that. I just don't believe your statement adds up. Women tend to delay partenubg the more education they have. That is true even in the Middke East where even governments are heavily influenced by religion

 

[Somerville]

No, A is associated with B which leads to questions of causation and in which direction that runs, if at all. I'm of the opinion that irreligiousity is a symptom of a larger process, which is the decline of the culture, which can be seen all throughout the West.

Here's a book on it:

America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It: Mark Steyn: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

Are you sure you are talking about "irreligiousity" or are you really stating your belief that it is a decline in those of the Christian belief that is the problem? There are nations in which religious belief is becoming stronger but they also happen to be third world nations for the most part, nations that have beliefs other than Christianity.

In fact, when you look at the review on the Amazon page, you will find that it is specifically Christianity that the author is writing about

It's the end of the world as we know it...
Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a muezzin. Europeans already are. And liberals will still tell you that "diversity is our strength"--while Talibanic enforcers cruise Greenwich Village burning books and barber shops, the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn't violate the "separation of church and state," and the Hollywood Left decides to give up on gay rights in favor of the much safer charms of polygamy.

 

[LowDown]

People in Russia didn't become more atheist or anything like that. I just don't believe your statement adds up. Women tend to delay partenubg the more education they have. That is true even in the Middke East where even governments are heavily influenced by religion

Yes, Russia seems to be an exception. Yes, even in the Middle East birth rates are falling (although they are still much higher than in the West).

 

[LowDown]

Are you sure you are talking about "irreligiousity" or are you really stating your belief that it is a decline in those of the Christian belief that is the problem? There are nations in which religious belief is becoming stronger but they also happen to be third world nations for the most part, nations that have beliefs other than Christianity.

In fact, when you look at the review on the Amazon page, you will find that it is specifically Christianity that the author is writing about

In the West it's mostly about Christianity, but I think a more general argument can be made.

 

[Paschendale]

Birth rate is clearly associated with irreligiousity in the West as birth rates are going down along with an increase in unbelievers in many countries. The US, the UK, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Finland, Greece, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Belgium and Austria all show these trends.

In fact, almost all countries have a declining birth rate and almost all countries have an increase in unbelievers (with the possible exception of those countries where unbelief is illegal). In those countries where atheism is most common the birth rate is especially low, well below the level of replacement, which means that the population is shrinking. A birth rate of 1.3, as in most of Europe, means that the population will decrease by 50% every 40 years or so.

Whether there is a causal connection between the trends is open to debate. I can see how they might be causally related.

Declining birth rates come from two factors. First, women having more education and opportunities outside of the home. Second, greater wealth. Richer countries have fewer, wealthier children, and uneducated women tend to have more babies. The more religious societies, meanwhile, are usually poorer, and devote an awful lot of time and energy to repressing their women.

And what's so bad about a smaller population? Why is a 7 billion person world better than a 3 billion person one?