How the West Really Lost God

Crisis Magazine ^ | May 10, 2013 | Austin Ruse

[NYer]

A few weeks ago Mitt Romney spoke at a college commencement exercise and encouraged the graduates to marry early and have a lot of children. He used the words “quiver full” taken from the Old Testament.

The comment was unremarkable, particularly for a Mormon to make. They are known for marrying early and having quivers full of children. Contra the contraceptive culture, even among Evangelicals, the notion of a quiver full from the Psalms is gathering steam among orthodox believers.

Here is what he said, “You only live one life. Don’t spend it in safe, shallow water. Launch into the deep. If you meet a person you love, get married. Have a quiver full of kids if you can. Give more to your occupation than is expected of you. Serve God by serving his children.”

A panel on Piers Morgan’s CNN show cackled like hens at what he said. So outrageous was his comment that they literally could not stop laughing.

One panelist from the Los Angeles Times said, “We’re seeing the real Mitt Romney emerge. This is maybe why he didn’t do so well with single women.”

A professor from Columbia University said, “This is the Mitt Romney I did not want to vote for, that I did not vote for. He kept making us think that he was this normal moderate guy but really he is a religious fanatic telling 21 year old college graduates to have binders-full of children.” Is it really abnormal, immoderate, and fanatical to counsel early marriage and big families?

CNN was not the only news outlet to erupt in mocking laughter at Romney’s comment. It was all over the place.

Not long ago such comments by an American politician would have been met with yawns. They would have been considered safe and true bromides. And not long ago a national news operation would have fired anyone for mocking such comments as religious fanaticism.

The good news is that American politicians are still making such comments. Look across the Atlantic and such comments by a European politician would be unthinkable, career ending.

What we are witnessing is the near absolute victory of secularism in Europe and its aggressive rise in the United States. How this happened in Europe and is happening, albeit more slowly, in the United States is the topic of an important new book by the remarkable Mary Eberstadt.

Eberstadt’s book looks specifically at How the West Really Lost God. The “really” is in her title because she proposes a new theory that now competes with other more established theories of religion’s decline, all of which, according to Eberstadt, are missing a key component.

A favorite of the new atheists is the assertion that “people stopped needing the imaginary comforts of religion.” Eberstadt responds that faithfully practicing religion is quite hard. After all, it requires you to observe practices of the faith that can be onerous—fasting, for instance—or practices that are inconvenient like going to church on Sunday or those that may be downright challenging like living constricting sexual norms that the rest of society either ignores or laughs at or both.

Secularists like to claim that religion declined as science and rationalism took center stage starting with the Enlightenment. Eberstadt points out that “the masses were not part of the Enlightenment, that 18th century elites were not modern atheists but “rational Christians” and that “those who seek to draw a straight line from Voltaire to twenty-first century atheists” tend to forget the great religious revival of the intervening 19th century.

She similarly dispatches claims that the World Wars killed Christianity and that material progress did, too.

Some theories of secularization she accepts but sees them as only parts of a larger puzzle. Urbanization and industrialization can be seen as parts of a larger whole but they still leave something out. She says that authoritative scholarly books have been written on the topic—David Martin’s On Secularization for instance—that do not have a single mention of this mysterious factor.

So what is this factor, what is the real reason for religion’s decline? It is the family and the family’s decline. She calls it the Family Factor and it explains a lot.

Many of us have taken so many secularization theories as matters of faith: faith declines with education, or riches, or modernity and that families decline as religion does. Eberstadt says it’s the other way around. All those people who crowded into factories and into cities may have slowly lost the faith and all those who have PhDs and big jobs may have lost the faith, but the reason is that they also started having smaller families or broken families or no families.

As with many things in life, one does not need a sociological study to show the truth of this. Getting married and having children practically push us into the practice of faith. A wild-thing in college gets married, has a baby and almost immediately thinks of finding a Church. Taking the child to Church inevitably leads the parent to the same thing.

Look at it another way. Catholics love to picket the Bishop when at long last he has to shutter empty churches and emptying schools. These same Catholics grump about there not being enough priests. Odds are these same complaining Catholics use contraception, had only two children and have waned in the practice of their faith while they wax nostalgic for earlier days.

Eberstadt points out something that all sociologists and theories of secularization agree with, that the great cliff that the faith fell from was the 1960’s. And it wasn’t because of rock music, Vietnam or marijuana. It was the pill. Eberstadt has dealt beautifully with the pill in her wonderful book Adam and Eve After the Pill. She points out that the Pill simply destroyed and continues to destroy families and when the family is destroyed the faith declines.

A short column cannot do justice to the wide and deep reading and all the evidence Eberstadt has marshaled for her argument, so you are urged to read this book. What is certain is that this is one of those books that will forever change the conversation about why Christianity is in decline in the West.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[James C. Bennett]

I would be shocked if sex-only-after-marriage was the majority here. Wouldn’t you, too?

[Zionist Conspirator]

In this case, the root cause of the decline of the West is Protestantism. Its insistence of Bible alone sufficient for individual understanding of Christianity disrupted the continuity of Christian faith from the Fathers of the Church and gave rise to a self-contained skeptic who believes that because he can read he has no need for the Church, and because he can figure out science he has no need of God.

And yet it's Catholics (alongside liberal Protestants) who are Biblical skeptics and worshipers of "science." Visit any "traditional" Catholic forums and even there any insistence that Revelation trumps "science" is met with accusations of "Protestantism."

Its idea that faith is separate from good works, and that predestination operates without regard of good works based on declarative faith alone has created a man without an obligation beyond an economic debt. Child rearing then ceased to be a work of obedience to the first commandment given man, and became a matter of economic expediency; marriage became a contract voidable upon mutual consent.

Protestant antinomianism is a logical inference from the antinomianism of the "new testament" and the church fathers. To condemn antinomianism while simultaneously proclaiming that "the law" is a "curse" or a "pedagogue" that has been "done away with" is the rankest hypocrisy.

Ultimately it is chrstianity's rejection of the Torah (and the Noachide Laws) that leads inexorably to antinomianism. Although Protestantism's assertion that the Biblical ceremonial system was abolished and replaced with nothing is far more intellectually consistent than the Catholic/Orthodox position that the Biblical ceremonial system was abolished (and is now forbidden) and replaced by a new, "mandatory" post-Biblical one.

[annalex]

It is possible for the Church to be at fault in matters of individual behavior of her prelates. The Church was not at fault in the matters of faith and moral teaching neither then or now.

[annalex]

any insistence that Revelation trumps "science" is met with accusations of "Protestantism."

That is, of course, wrong when it happens; however, I am skeptical that you correctly discern the nuances of any posted opinion every time you see one.

Protestant antinomianism is a logical inference from the antinomianism of the "new testament" and the church fathers.

Indeed the Church teaches that the mechanical and legalistic reading of the revealed law is incorrect; neither should the commandment to multiply and fill the earth be taken legalistically. It is in fact part of the apostasy of both rabbinical Judaism and Protestantism to view the Divine Revelation in legal terms. It is of course, wrong to accuse Protestants of antinomianism; if my original post created that impression, I haste to correct it. To wit:

Christian obligation is not to check off paragraphs in an instruction manual, -- for that is how Protestantism views the Holy Scripture, but rather nurture, through the sacraments that the Mother Church gives us, an internal and pure love of God, who was killed by his enemies out of His love for us. It is that failure to understand marriage as a sacramental work of love directed at mutual salvation of the spouses that leads to the modernist error and the perversion of marriage, -- which both the rabbis and the Protestant pastors share. But antinomian they are not.

[Zionist Conspirator]

any insistence that Revelation trumps "science" is met with accusations of "Protestantism."

That is, of course, wrong when it happens; however, I am skeptical that you correctly discern the nuances of any posted opinion every time you see one.

Go to a Catholic forum, even a "traditional" one. Or read the comments posted at the ends of articles on traditional Catholic web pages (such as the page whose criticism of Pope Francis was posted a couple months ago). There you will see people who advocate a return to the Middle Ages who complain that fighting evolution is an unnecessary fight that distracts from re-instating the "social kingdom of J*sus." And you will read accusations of "Protestant" almost constantly, along with "that's a Protestant thing; it doesn't concern us."

I've noticed that there are two types of FR Catholics: those who are raving, fanatical evolutionists/higher critics, and those who are not but who never provide a counterpart to their higher critical brethren. Why don't they? If it is still permitted to interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis as historically true and if there are Catholic FReepers who do this, why do they never say anything? Fear of being labeled a Protestant? Or because Genesis 1-11 is a "Protestant thing that has nothing to do with us?"

Just why is Genesis 1-11 so uniquely "unimportant?" Is there anything in Genesis 1-11 that actually teaches Protestantism or damages Catholic dogma? So what's the deal?

I mean it. What's the deal?

Indeed the Church teaches that the mechanical and legalistic reading of the revealed law is incorrect; neither should the commandment to multiply and fill the earth be taken legalistically. It is in fact part of the apostasy of both rabbinical Judaism and Protestantism to view the Divine Revelation in legal terms.

Actually, the Roman/Latin chrstian worldview is extremely legalistic, as it has been influenced by pre-chrstian Roman legalism. Legalism is actually something the Latins and Hebrews have in common (what they disagree on is whether it is the Biblical or a post-Biblical legal code that should be followed). Contrast this with the Eastern Orthodox model, which is more "medical" (the church is a hospital in which chrstians live out their lives undergoing treatment for their spiritual diseases). The idea of the chrstian legal/ceremonial/ritual system as treatment clashes with the Latin view of it as the "new commandments" of the "new law."

Christian obligation is not to check off paragraphs in an instruction manual, -- for that is how Protestantism views the Holy Scripture

I can't answer for Protestantism, but Rabbinic Judaism most assuredly does not regard the Written Torah as a "checkoff list." Jews are just as aware as Catholics that the Torah is not "systematically" organized. However, it was still written in its entirety by G-d and dictated to Moses letter-for-letter, and it says exactly what it is meant to say.

Many of the Commandments are only alluded to in the Scriptures, some of them barely at all. But the Jewish Written and Oral Torahs exist as an organic whole and have since Mt. Sinai. The Jewish Scriptures contain nothing but consonants--no vowels, no punctuation, no trope. These three things come from the Oral Torah. In other words, the Written Torah has the consonants, the Oral Torah has the vowels. Thus without the Oral Torah (also given to Moses at Sinai) the Written Torah couldn't even be read! We wouldn't know for sure what the actual words were! The Written Torah is the keyhole and the Oral Torah is the key.

Contrast this with the Catholic/Orthodox churches whose "written bible" is based on (and assumes the correctness of) the vocalization and punctuation which Jewish Oral Tradition assigns to the original texts which those churches translate. The chrstian bible blends the key and the keyhole into a single thing, so the only way to defend oral tradition in chrstianity is to denigrate the written bible. Because the Oral Law is absolutely essential in even making out the very words the Written Torah contains, there is no need in Judaism to "defend" it by denigrating the Scriptures. This is something only the authentic possessors and explicators of Torah can say.

but rather nurture, through the sacraments that the Mother Church gives us, an internal and pure love of God, who was killed by his enemies out of His love for us.

The Protestant concept of the crucifixion is simple and easy to understand: J*sus on the cross experienced a vicarious damnation on the behalf of every individual so that the person who accepts this is "saved" and has no need to a ritual/ceremonial system of any kind. The Catholic/Orthodox have no single simple understanding of any kind (explanations run the gamut from "christus victor" to Anselm's "satisfaction theory" to the idea of a "ransom" payed to the Devil to the "mouse trap" theory), none of which make any sense whatsoever. No Protestant will ever understand why the death of Chr*st does not in and of itself "save" the individual without the need of any intermediaries or rituals. Jews will never understand what this conversation is about because Torah Judaism is a simple statutory religion with none of the never-ending complications about "salvation." Judaism and Protestantism are on opposite sides of the spectrum, but both are internally consistent. Liturgical chrstianity is indeed historically the "authentic" form of chrstianity, but that doesn't change the fact that it is riddled with internal inconsistencies which is illustrated by the fact that Catholics/Orthodox preach "Judaism" to the Protestants ("you have to perform works!") and "Protestantism" to the Jews ("J*sus died for your sins! You can stop doing all that stuff!")

I was devastated when I first learned that historical chrstianity never taught that J*sus "took my place in hell" so that I would never go there. The chrstian religion simply makes no sense apart from this Protestant understanding, however recent and unauthentic it is. Actually, I think I have finally figured out what the death of J*sus actually accomplished: it gave some people an excuse to start a new religion!

It is that failure to understand marriage as a sacramental work of love directed at mutual salvation of the spouses that leads to the modernist error

Confront evolution and the documentary hypothesis before you talk to me about "modernist error."

[Elsie]

yes

[annalex]

Is there anything in Genesis 1-11 that actually teaches Protestantism or damages Catholic dogma? So what's the deal?

Catholics refer to Genesis a lot, but we do not consider the issue of literal historicity of the 6 days, 2 trees, 4 rivers, etc. as solvable or defining our faith. Leaving aside the liberal wing that doesn't think of the Old Testament being anything more that a collection of myths (and do so contrary to the dogma of scriptural inerrancy), we believe that Genesis 1 is an inerrant account as pertains to man's relationship to God. It is not, however, a manual of geology or of astrophysics, not intended as one, and it is foolish to read it as if it were one. It is, indeed, a characteristically Protestant fight.

the Roman/Latin [Christian] worldview is extremely legalistic

We are a large organization filled with heretics or potential heretics, so we have rules. But we do not have a legalistic soteriological world view, no. He who imitates Christ will be saved, He who does not, won't. Human nature is such that in order to imitate Christ one better do what the Church proposes, especially the sacramental life. The rest are details.

Rabbinic Judaism most assuredly does not regard the Written Torah as a "checkoff list."

I know, this is why I said "Protestantism". But Judaism is legalistic nevertheless, just not in a Bible-literal way.

We wouldn't know for sure what the actual words were!

That is important for the fundies to make a note of...

Linguistically, though, this is not exactly true; while reading unvocalized Hebrew takes practice, as the experience of everyday life in modern Israel shows, it is not at all incomprehensible. Absence of spaces, by the way, is mitigated by -- I forget what they are called, -- something "sofit"? -- special shape many consonants take when ending a word.

The Protestant concept of the crucifixion is simple and easy to understand

Yeah, but it does not make it the correct one. All the diverse atonement theories together describe something that is really an ineffable truth; to reduce it to simple formula, like your "He took my place in Hell" is silly unless taught to children. Perhaps what "devastated" you was that no one baby-talked to you past certain age?

[Elsie]

It is possible for the Church to be at fault in matters of individual behavior of her prelates. The Church was not at fault in the matters of faith and moral teaching neither then or now.

Ergo, there must be SOMETHING faulty that allows SELECTING her prelates then.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— Ergo, there must be SOMETHING faulty that allows SELECTING her prelates then. -—

Who chose Judas? Jesus didn’t promise us sinless clerics, or even good ones.

[James C. Bennett]

That was my point.

Sex before marriage = fornication.

[annalex]

Yes: promotion and selection of individual priests up the hierarchy can be driven by human error, which the Holy Spirit then corrects. My point is however, that Protestantism is altogether a grave theological error, so that good people or bad cannot produce a good fruit while remaining distinctly Protestant. The result is gross materialism (listen to Joel Osteen and count minutes till he promises you a garage or a swimming pool), loss of selfless faith, belief in ridiculous fables and outright superstition, sex-driven life, fear of the future and deliberate childlessness, — in short, the broken society that we have today.

[Elsie]

Yes: promotion and selection of individual priests up the hierarchy can be driven by human error, which the Holy Spirit then corrects.

When; by DEATH?

---

Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.^[1]

Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.^[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.^[3]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony^[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

[Elsie]

Jesus didn’t promise us sinless clerics, or even good ones.

But your chosen religion, which claims infallibility in SOME areas; manages to select sinful ones.

WHY doesn't the Holy Spirit keep that from happening?

Does He WANY folks to leave because of bad leadership?

[Elsie]

My point is however...

Is seen by me as a "HEY!!! Look over there!" moment.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

But your chosen religion, which claims infallibility in SOME areas; manages to select sinful ones.

Infallibility, not impeccability. And infallibility with respect to instruction in faith and morals.

Looked at it a different way. Despite the fact that some popes have been great sinners, no pope has ever promulgated a doctrine contrary to constant Church teaching.

WHY doesn't the Holy Spirit keep that from happening?

You'd have to ask Him. But I don't see any logical contradiction or difficulty. There have been sinful popes and saintly popes. Why should we expect otherwise?

Does He WANT folks to leave because of bad leadership?

The best argument against Christianity has always been Christians. But we shouldn't expect all Christians to be sinless. We are all works-in-progress. Non-believers seem to think that we all claim to be angels. I don't know any Christians who do.

[Natural Law]

"Despite the fact that some popes have been great sinners, no pope has ever promulgated a doctrine contrary to constant Church teaching."

Even within the 12 hand chosen by Jesus were traitors, deniers, doubters and the overly ambitious. St. Paul too had thorns in his flesh and wrote of the evil that he kept doing.

How hypocritical that some demand that all Catholic clergy live impeccable lives while denying that such a thing is even possible when Mary is discussed.

Peace be with you

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

How hypocritical that some demand that all Catholic clergy live impeccable lives while denying that such a thing is even possible when Mary is discussed.

Which goes to show that when beating a Catholic, any club will do. That's proven on a daily basis around here ;-)

[Elsie]

Which goes to show that when beating a Catholic, any club will do.

When them moles pop up; ya just HAVE to WHACK them!

[annalex]

The idiot that composed this list apparently thinks that being lampooned by poets, losing a war or being too fat to fit in a coffin are moral failures.

Yes we had bad popes. The correction of the Holy Spirit is simply that they left no legacy. Can you name an encyclical by any of them and explain what error is taught in it? You cannot because they did not teach anything.

So, on balance: we have a universal loss of faith, the only Protestant sect that is growing is Mormonism with its silly fables, people no longer reproduce, — that is Protestantism. Of several hundred popes one or two had mistresses, — that is Catholicism. You figure out what is important to you.