Ads


Sign up for our
Email Newsletter

Hating Ourselves to Death

A few years ago I had occasion to spend a few days in Vienna. The beautiful city of museums and music remains a favorite but a forlorn one; its charming avenues and architecture and nightly concerts could not fully distract from the sleepy sense of diminishment that hung over the city, like the acquiescence of a cancer patient who has decided to forgo the next round of treatment.

“Vienna is dying,” I wrote in my journal. “While traipsing its avenues and hopping on and off of buses, we see a materialistic society bearing more dogs on leashes than children in strollers. The concierge is from Turkey. The hotel staff is mostly Asian, and the taxi driver appears to have migrated from Planet Neptune. For each characteristic coffee house there is a kebab stand. Where is Vienna’s tomorrow?”

In 2004, the Spanish writer Sebastian Vivar Rodriguez created a stir by announcing that “Europe died in Auschwitz.” In Auschwitz, he wrote, “we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world. The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.”

Pascal Bruckner recently picked up the theme, writing of Europe’s Guilty Conscience: “Brooding over its past crimes (slavery, imperialism, fascism, communism), Europe sees its history as a series of murders and depredations that culminated in two global conflicts. . . . Those born after World War II are endowed with the certainty of belonging to the dregs of humanity, an execrable civilization.”

Both writers have a point. The wartime slaughters of the twentieth century eclipsed anything previously seen in history and exposed to humanity the depths of its own brokenness as never before; humanity appears to have looked into its abyss and seen nothing redeemable.

Europe’s self-loathing is reflected in the uniformly low birthrates which–among non-immigrants–average less than 1.5 children per female. Cultures and peoples unable or unwilling to sustain a replacement rate of 2.1 per female are cultures and peoples that will die out.

What of America? The only nation to have yet deployed nuclear weapons in pursuit of victory has also been the nation of unbridled optimism and prosperity, and yet she has slaughtered her own tens of millions in the womb, often for motives of convenience and profit, and there are faint but unmistakable signs that utilitarian sensibilities will soon affect life issues.

As of April of this year, America’s own fertility rate has for the first time dipped to 2 children per female, suggesting that Americans, too, have lost sight of redemption. Drowning in guilt and content to be distracted, the iPad-ed and iPod-ed and singular West appears to be waving a white flag and settling in for the big sleep.

Catholics should appreciate the irony in all of this: The postmodern world has willfully misunderstood the Catholic Conscience for what they derisively hoot at as “Catholic guilt,” and yet it is the “enlightened” secularist culture that is condemning itself to extinction, because it rejects the concepts of “good” and “evil,” recognizes no sin beyond “intolerance,” and sneers at the need for a Savior; it is therefore unfamiliar with mercy and lacks the tools of absolution.

The humble confessionals of the Catholic Church
have contained a billion battles between darkness and light, and from their cramped recesses have stepped forth people exposed to mercy, prayed over and created anew; no matter their age their souls are, in the words of Chesterton, “only five minutes old.”

Those imperfect, broken but absolved people–whether peasant living in the meanest hovel or prince in gilded palace–stepped away from the experience of confession on an equal footing, as mere and acknowledged mortals made redeemed Sons and Daughters of the Eternal King. Acquainted with Eternity and willing to perceive something greater than themselves, they could see beyond the day’s crimes, and that gave them hope; with the strength of spiritual vitality, they maintained their perspective about passing things, and kept living.

They ate the air, promise-crammed.

Pope Benedict XVI, imperfect-but-faithful, unjustly reviled, is the last great man of the twentieth century who is still astride the world stage. He has lived under the jackboot of totalitarianism and is intimate with Europe’s deadly depths. He has received the confessed failings of his own priests and bishops and wept with their victims, and prayed. A lifetime spent immersed in the pageant of human sin and redemption has given him some insight as to how a single person (and a nation, and a culture and a church) may transcend unimaginable confusion, guilt, and pain in hope and faith.

When Joseph Ratzinger took Benedict for his papal name, it was a nod to his own monastic leanings, and a recognition that Europe–of whom St. Benedict of Nursia is copatron–is in a spiritual extremis that is manifesting in the physical, as well. As he prepares to visit the United Kingdom, it remains to be seen whether dying Europe (and not-well America) will allow this burdened-but-willing old man to teach them how to put on the new man, and choose to live.

Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress.

Comments:

8.17.2010 | 7:21am
fred lapides says:
The answer, then, seems to be unlimited birth in those nations "dying," and yet unlimited birth is what is going on in India and in China, and neither hardly a model of what is a wonderful alternative. PS: if Europe died at the concentration camps, the Church in some instances assisted in this death.
8.17.2010 | 7:46am
Max says:
Depressing, but no doubt true. I hope someday to see Chartres before it becomes a mosque. It is ironic that just shy of 1300 years after Poitiers, and only a little past 300 years since Sobieski saved Vienna, and likely all of Europe, from the Ottomans, the continent will become an isamic one without so much as the firing of a shot. Not with a bang, but with a wimper as T.S. Eliot said. Perhaps S.V. Rodriguez is right (I was unfmailiar with the quote, but it is a compelling one). Perhaps Europe's slow eclipse is the inevitable consequence of the Holocaust. Terribly unsettling to watch a great civilization voluntarily end itself by the simple act of not having the will to perpetuate itself. And Ms. Scalia is right. If trends continue, the U.S. will not be far behind. The future belongs only to those who have the faith and zeal to perpetuate the only thing that can claim the future-- their own humanity in the form of children.
8.17.2010 | 7:49am
John Wickey says:
You describe it so well in the way that it is true. It is so very sad.
8.17.2010 | 8:26am
Kerry says:
The current worldwide financial 'unpleasantness' merely reflects the upside-down moral conditions we suffer under. Like a top heavy iceberg rolling over, perhaps morality will be eventually be right side up again. One might ask oneself though, to what am I clinging? To those with Faith, no explanation is necessary, to those without Faith, no explanation is sufficient. Better to go to one's knees voluntarily than be forced there.
8.17.2010 | 8:46am
Irenaeus says:
Goodness, Fred, if you don't have something intelligent or accurate to say, why bother? Just enjoy some coffee and read the Daily Kos or something.

As far as India goes, they had a disastrous population control program in the 70s. China recently credited its population control programs with preventing 400 million(!) births. Unlimited? Hardly. In China births are limited by law.

As far as the Church and the holocaust, tell it to Dietrich Bonhoeffer (hanged by the Nazis in Flossenburg April 1945) and St. Maximilian Kolbe (murdered in Auschwitz on 14 August 1941). The Nazis may indeed have co-opted the so-called German Christians in the Protestant/Lutheran churches, but the number of Christian martyrs under Nazism -- much more pagan than anything else -- was significant.
8.17.2010 | 8:53am
Steve says:
fred lapides:

Unlimited birth in China? I guess you've never heard of China's long-standing one-child policy. Only recently is it being considered for repeal, since China's birthrate is below replacement level.

And last I checked, Eichmann was in charge of keeping those concentration camp trains moving, and he wasn't a heavy churchman. Do you find a lot of thorough-going Catholics in the SS? I guess I missed that part of history class. But bomb-throwing on a blog is easier than coming with any evidence, isn't it fred?
8.17.2010 | 9:01am
Sean says:
While it's hard to disagree that Europeans are dying out, and while I appreciate moralizing more than the average joe and think it plays a part, I've never seen a convincing connection made between Europe's obvious spiritual death and it's equally obvious physical one. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that the case that it's anything beyond a matter of birth rates hasn't been adequately made, and I agree with Mrs. Scalia here but wish that connection could be more concretely demonstrated.

You can't discuss Europe's fading without mentioning left-wing Self-ressentiment. Far as I can make out, what we're looking at is a bunch of consumerist Last Men with nothing deeper guiding the thoughtful ones' worldview than an ideology that privileges all other racial/cultural identities at the expense of their own.
8.17.2010 | 9:46am
RECONQUISTA says:
The Europe that is dying is the atheist,PC,Islam-appeasing type.

They are damaged goods as far as I am concerned.

As a disgruntled Eurolander myself, may I say good riddance..?

If there is a future for christianity this lies in the Global South.

Europe has served its purpose and Whitey is heading for oblivion.

..some of us though, happen to believe that our world is heading for the End Times anyway.

That's another subject altogether though...
8.17.2010 | 9:54am
CKG says:
Sean, it seems to me that you answer your own question. "[A]n ideology that privileges all other racial/cultural identities at the expense of their own" is expressive of a monumental self-loathing and despair, of which the disinclination to procreate is the most outwardly apparent manifestation. Which is what I take Mrs. Scalia's thesis to be. . .
8.17.2010 | 10:14am
Sean says:
CKG,

The problem is, I know people in Europe, at least online. I ask them about this sort of thing. They don't seem like the self-hating type, although they do have that left-wing cynicism about their civilization and the US. What I see more is a fairly blithe indifference to their own extinction, like it's quaint of me to bring it up.

But then, that word 'extinction' makes me wonder if their indifference doesn't also stem from their being thoroughly raised up in a darwinian telos in which there really isn't any reason to worry about one more extinction among billions of others.
8.17.2010 | 10:31am
Sean says:
RECONQUISTA,

It's fine that you're a racist, but can we keep the End Times business out of this? It ain't helping!
8.17.2010 | 10:57am
CKG says:
But isn't "blithe indifference to their own extinction" symptomatic of self-loathing? It needn't be all angst-ridden and angry; if one thinks that everyone else in the world is more worthy of continued existence than he is, that's spiritual malaise of a high order (apologies for the oblique reference to President Carter. . .)
8.17.2010 | 11:02am
Mark says:
This thesis is very weak. There are 95 countries and territories in the world with fertility rates of less than 2 (less than replacement rate). Some of the non-European regions include: South Korea, Sri Lanka, Costa Rica, Brunei, Maldives, Mauritius, Palau, Tunisia, Thailand, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau. I admit I was shocked that even Catholic Poland clocks in at 1.29! And note how wealthy Muslim countries are represented.

In short, there is little to no evidence that low birth rates have any connection to self-loathing of any kind. There is plenty of evidence that low birth rates are closely to connected to the degree of urbanization and wealth in society.

Society is wealthier and more urbanized than it has ever been in history. Humans are not at any risk of going extinct any time soon -- there are 6 billion of us for goodness sake! There are well over 1.6 million people living in Vienna right now, which is certainly more than who lived there at any time in history before 1870 at the earliest.

(Fertility data comes from the CIA World Factbook)
8.17.2010 | 11:03am
Mike Murray says:
Perhaps each of us has our own persective concerning the changes in Vienna and other European cities which are occurring as a result of lowered birth rates. I am not certain that the expressions of despair are entirely justified. The nightly concerts do continue and are always concluded with the spritely Radetsky March. Young Romanian immigrants and those from the former Yugoslavia may be reigniting the spirit of the city. St. Stephens, Demels, the Kunsthistorische and Drei Hussaren are all open. Vienna has survived worse and come back in full flower. Let's hope it will again.
8.17.2010 | 11:16am
CKG says:
Or again, what Mrs. Scalia evocatively describes as "the acquiescence of a cancer patient who has decided to forgo the next round of treatment."

"Screw it, the cure is worse than dying of the sickness" is not a hopeful attitude. . .
8.17.2010 | 11:50am
N. says:
All things in God's time...maybe it's God's will the West dies. Maybe He's happy to leave it to the atheists and radical Muslims and let them all blow each other to smithereens. Maybe this is the way it ends. So? I just don't get why any Catholic would be bummed out by the notion we'll all be called home sooner rather than later. What's so great about here that you'd choose this over eternal life with God?
8.17.2010 | 11:53am
One of your best [and saddest] reflections, dear Anchoress. Shades of the late Malcolm Muggeridge...
8.17.2010 | 11:59am
Mark, your statistics may be spot on, yet your conclusions are naive, the math will figure quite differently when you are watching this eye opening documentary;
Demographic Winter
http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html
8.17.2010 | 12:28pm
I lived in Vienna twice, once for a couple of months in 1993, the second time for over a year in 1994 and 1995. It was an amazing city full of life, with one of the greatest opera houses in the world and more cultural productions than one could possibly take in. The Vienna that Ms. Scalia believes is dying is in one obvious sense already dead. What was once the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire—on which, due to its worldwide reach, it was said that "the sun never set"—is now the capital city of a small Alpine country with roughly the population of Los Angeles; that's the population of Austria, not Vienna! The Austria of today is not the Austria of Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, Freud, or Wittgenstein, though the present-day immigrant diversity that Ms. Scalia seems to interpret as a sign of decay is in perfect continuity with its grand imperial past. Coffee is alleged to have come to Europe by way of the Turks who had twice encircled Vienna.

Ms. Scalia doesn't quite reckon with the darkness of the Nazi years. More Austrians showed up on Heldenplatz to salute Hitler in 1938 than showed up to greet and honor the Pope when he celebrated mass on the same square in 1983. It's not hard to see why this once-strongly Catholic country has struggled to maintain its faith in light of its history. The most painful part of Vienna's history has, of course, to do with the Jews. The city was once filled with a vibrant, brilliant, and creative Jewish population, almost all of which fled or suffered a worse fate during the second world war. I recommend Paul Hofmann's "The Viennese: Splendor, Twilight, and Exile" for a wrenching account of the period by a native of Vienna.
8.17.2010 | 12:32pm
Mark, there can be multiple causes for low birth rates, can there not? And if wealth and urbanization alone are the causes, why has American culture persisted? I find it entirely plausible that a sense of optimism, and belief in the value of one's culture, assists in cultivating the desire to propagate that culture through offspring.

I think selfishness and self-loathing are both contributing factors.
8.17.2010 | 12:53pm
"It is ironic that just shy of 1300 years after Poitiers, and only a little past 300 years since Sobieski saved Vienna, and likely all of Europe, from the Ottomans, the continent will become an isamic one without so much as the firing of a shot."

And don't forget the Siege of Vienna in 1529. If the Turks had broken through then, at the height of their power, Europe would probably have been overrun.

"The problem is, I know people in Europe, at least online. I ask them about this sort of thing. They don't seem like the self-hating type, although they do have that left-wing cynicism about their civilization and the US. What I see more is a fairly blithe indifference to their own extinction, like it's quaint of me to bring it up."

I think there is a self-loving aspect of this as well. If you think that obtaining pleasure is the highest goal in life, anything that interferes with that pursuit (like children) will be avoided.

I think the two concepts can co-exist, because while you may hate the culture you grew up in and will take satisfaction in its demise, that doesn't prevent you from thinking you are awesome, and deserving of an easy life, free of obligations owed to the past or the future.

"Maybe this is the way it ends. So? I just don't get why any Catholic would be bummed out by the notion we'll all be called home sooner rather than later."

Because we are not Gnostics, and sitting back grinning while the world falls apart is not what we do. In addition, if you have young children, you owe it to them to fight against the darkness.
8.17.2010 | 1:00pm
Stephanie says:
Lots of thoughts on this post. I'm not sure I buy Europe is "dying". Frequently things are cyclical, and birth rates may go up as well. While it's true that immigration may ease the need for more bodies, so to speak, because they can pick up the slack caused by fewer natives, society can always change and encourage people to have more kids. Europe has lost half it's population before and rebounded. It can again. Also, what we consider "Austrian" is a number of earlier cutural groups blended together as different Asians/Europeans migrated to Austria- I struggle to see why it's different now. Change happens, and has for millenia.
You sound slightly condemnatory of people not having more than 2 children. I have 2, and may have more-second is only 3 months old. In my family, most of my siblings have 3 kids- seems more common to me :-). We had a huge population boom after WWII, and the subsequent 2 generations put together are larger than the boomers- you can't add to infinity. A slight population correction may happen, but you can't really state that that will never change, and people will never have more children. Life is cyclical. Nothing goes in one doirection forever- neither up nor down :-)
8.17.2010 | 1:10pm
ic says:
Mayhaps the dearth of births in Europe is due to its high taxes and high regulations?

I visited Munich a couple of years ago, a German lady told me the rents in Munich were so high, not too many people could afford it. She quoted me an outrageous number, which I have forgotten, for a two rooms aprt. Not two bedrooms, but two rooms. Then she said, there was a law requiring so many square meters of living space per human being.

Now, can you tell me, how a young couple who live in the city where the jobs are could afford babies? By the time they could afford having babies, they have to look into retirement housings.

Europeans do not suffer mass guilt, Europeans cannot afford to have babies.

The European disease is spreading to the US. When half of your pay check is confiscated by the govt., when you have no prospects of getting a job, a responsible you will not want to have babies whom you cannot take care of.

If you are poor, your kid's college education is picked up by the govt., or the college she is attending; if you are rich, you pay whatever price to buy your kid a degree; but if you are in the middle, not only will you pay for your kid's college, you also have to pay for other people's kids' college. Why? Every semester, your college kid has to pay a fee into a fund that provides financial aids to poor kids.

The dearth of births is caused by the dearth of optimisms, caused by uncertainties, not by guilt.
8.17.2010 | 1:35pm
Note to the all things are cyclical crowd: Once you reach a certain point, populations cannot recover. Like, for instance, Italy. In the future there will be no full blooded Italians, they are already a nation of old people.
8.17.2010 | 2:02pm
"I think selfishness and self-loathing are both contributing factors."

Agreed. I would only amend it to read, "ostensible self-loathing," as I believe the cosmopolitans here in America and in the west generally, who can't be bothered to reproduce, actually have a very high self-regard. Their "ostensible self-loathing" is a practice of piety among the secular left.
8.17.2010 | 2:22pm
The current idea that God tells us unequivocally that it is so important to have children, is actually, a rather strange - and questionable - new idea in Christianity, and Catholicism.

The fact is that traditionally, the Church told the people that 1) the Bible itself, favored those who did not marry; 2) who became priests. And 3) who did not have children.

If having literal children is so important, note, then logically, priests are bad.

Neo-conservative, baby-making Catholics need to rethink their position; it does not seem to be consistent with the core of Catholic tradition; nor with the Bible either.
8.17.2010 | 2:43pm
"The fact is that traditionally, the Church told the people that 1) the Bible itself, favored those who did not marry; 2) who became priests. And 3) who did not have children."

Where do you find this "tradition" stated?

"If having literal children is so important, note, then logically, priests are bad."

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the idea of marriage and the priesthood both being vocations.
8.17.2010 | 3:45pm
JB in CA says:
Mark:

Notwithstanding some of the subsequent comments to your post, I tend to agree with your assessment. (I would correct one statistic, however. Six billion is so eight-years-ago. It's much closer to seven billion now.) I would add—though I'm not sure you would agree—that instead of self-loathing, the basic motivating factor behind the decline in European birth rates is "rational" self-interest. Prospective parents realize that fewer children in modern industrialized nations result in more disposable income. That is to say, they run a simple cost/benefit analysis.
8.17.2010 | 4:21pm
james says:
English:

The idea that baby-making is a "vocation" on par with the vocation say of the priesthood, is just another heresy of the current religious "Conservative" movement.

The fact is, in the New Testament - which some say has priority over the Old - Paul tells us that if you are not married, it is "better" not to marry (and presumably, have children).

While Jesus himself said this:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters .. he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14.26).

Does that sound to YOU like Jesus thinks that being married and having children, is a great "vocation"?
8.17.2010 | 4:26pm
John2 says:
Dear Stephanie,
Agree, demographic projections are straight line while demo reality is often cyclical. There will be a Europe for the foreseeable future. And a US, by the way. I apologize to any lefties I might offend.


Dear Brian English,
Don't get too upset with Joe the Person aka 'Dr. Brettongarcia', esteemed author of 700-page book that will revolutionize the RC faith. Check comments on J. Bottum's 7/15/10 "The signpost at the crossroads". Enough said.
8.17.2010 | 4:29pm
Franz Kafka once wrote to his friend Max Brod: "There is infinite hope, but not for us." It is hard to know out of context whether he was talking about Vienna Jews or Homo sapiens. But perhaps the fate of one was linked to the fate of the other.
8.17.2010 | 4:42pm
Billy Bean says:
I see the logic in what you're saying, JB and IC. I think, on a certain socio-economic level, that you have both defined accurately what is happening. As Dr. Francis Schaeffer told us a generation ago, the "values" we are left with after God is removed from our reckoning are (1) personal peace ("Who cares, as long as I and my immediate family and friends do well?") and (2) affluence ("More mouths to feed will cramp my style") . This is not a discussion about the newly-rich Far East. The cynicism of materialism and radical secularism are spiritual maladies of the narcissitic post-Christian West. We may "enjoy" ourselves, we may "indulge" ourselves -- but we do love love ourselves.
8.17.2010 | 5:00pm
"The idea that baby-making is a "vocation" on par with the vocation say of the priesthood, is just another heresy of the current religious "Conservative" movement."

Nonsense. The importance of children has always been recognized by the Church. Are you seriously maintaining that Catholics have traditionally not been known to have large families?

"Does that sound to YOU like Jesus thinks that being married and having children, is a great "vocation"?"

I cannot speak for other denominations, but Catholics do not cherry-pick verses from the Bible to establish Church Doctrine. The cherry-picking approach leads to silly assertions that Jesus and Paul did not want Christians to get married and have children.
8.17.2010 | 5:33pm
dan says:
James:

It might be enlightening to read the entire chapter 7 of I Corinthians wherein Paul addresses this issue of marriage. Whereas he stated that "it is good for a man not to marry," he quickly stated, "since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." Sounds like an encouragement to marry to me. There are FEW who can resist sexual temptation. Better to be married than to fall to that temptation.

And, let's not forget Genesis, where God created woman from Adam. She is referred to as "wife" and is given, in Genesis 3, the distinct title of "mother of all the living." Marriage has it's place in the very beginning of God's plan.

Regarding this Luke 14:26 business, I believe Jesus was using hyperbole (or would it be contrasts? I'm not a rhetorician) to make a point. Perhaps, one better trained in theology can expound upon this. But, just using plain ol' common sense, which is not so common amongst the intellectuals, Jesus in no way was encouraging us to hate anyone. Heck, he even commands us to love our enemies. Jesus was making a point that He is number one priority in our lives even over the ones we love.

I am curious, though, why, when you quoted Luke 14:26, you chose to leave out the part about also hating even our own lives? Somehow, I believe leaving it out doesn't make your point very well but I can't quite put it into words. I'll let someone more adept than me explore that.

Respectfully,
Dan
8.17.2010 | 5:35pm
John says:
America is the third most populous country in the world. We'll have more than 310 million citizens by the end of the next decade if current trends remain current.

I don't understand how anyone can claim that any population anywhere is in decline. You said yourself that you saw coffeehouses and kebab stands everywhere, that there were concierges and taxi drivers and hotel workers and people walking dogs. There seem to be more than enough people to fill the city, along with any other: there are 7 billion people now living on the planet Earth.

What are you getting at here?
8.17.2010 | 6:25pm
Jill says:
Maybe it is not so bad; in much of traditional religion, we are supposed to loathe our life in this world. In order to concentrate more on our spirit. And on the next life.

Brian: the line from Jesus above, has been traditionally thought by the Church to be the part of the Bible that suggests that giving up on the material life, children, to become a priest, is the favored way of life.
8.17.2010 | 6:26pm
Billy Bean says:
Thanks, Brian English. I usually stand with you, and I do here, too (if I might be allowed to append my rather silly name to your really impressive one!). But what I actually meant to say in my last post was: ""WE DO NOT LOVE OURSELVES." And I don't think we really do, in any objective sense. Although we DO like to enjoy and indulge ourselves.
8.17.2010 | 6:29pm
Gil Costello says:
Confession is a sacrament of freedom, the only escape from the exhausting slavery of hiding from our individual and collective guilt, especially the guilt of murdering children, drowning the joy their voices once heralded, and purchasing for our comfort a closet full of fashionable fig leaves with buckets of accessories, all that a materialistic Europe and America can now offer.
8.17.2010 | 7:42pm
Bill says:
John2:

Who are you?

You have said somewhere on this blog, that 1) you have taken "prelim" or preliminary exams toward a PhD in Psychology, at a major "flagship" state university. But "prelim" exams are taken usually, just by a grad student. And at the end our course work, but before beginning the dissertation, and actually getting the PhD degree. Yet 2) you have said that you are not a graduate student. And 3) you represent yourself as a doctor/PhD.

It seems 4) you frequently pass judgments on others, referring to their phychological state, almost as if your statements are clinically accurate. Yet 5) it would appear that you do not yet have a PhD in Psychology. But have only taken (/passed?) preliminary exams, toward that degree.

Could you clarify your status? Particularly, your professional qualifications in Psychology.
8.17.2010 | 8:23pm
Richard says:
Bill,

Who are you? I'll bet another avatar of Brettongarcia, who is an avatar of he's not telling.

I'd respect you more if you stuck with one monicker, like the rest of us.

I can understand that you feel put upon, but you have not always been gentle with your fellow posters.

Best,

Richard
8.17.2010 | 10:00pm
Mark says:
Timothy Dalrymple: And if wealth and urbanization alone are the causes, why has American culture persisted?

America is much less urbanized than Europe and Japan. About 20% of the entire population of Austria lives in Vienna alone, to give one example. Europeans have much smaller living spaces and put off marriage until later in life as they cannot afford to move out of their parents' home at a young age. The population density of the U.S. is a fraction of what it is in Europe and Japan. The Northeast and California look a lot like Europe in terms of population density and urbanization (not to mention wealth) and -- guess what? -- their fertility rates look a lot like Europe's as well.
8.17.2010 | 10:22pm
John2 says:
I see reasons for optimism, first in the numbers and second, in the church and the faith. Gil Costello’s point about the cost/benefit analysis of children set me to thinking. The biggest drag on our population is some 55 million abortions in the US since 1973. The oldest would be 37 years old. Some fraction of these unfortunates would have had their own children by now. Demographic trends often turn in unpredictable ways. Trend is not destiny, not by a long shot. I am sure we can develop comparable figures for Europe (apology for my laziness, maybe I’ll try it tomorrow).

Turning to the Church and the faith, we are promised that there is always to be a saving remnant. We have our ups and downs, and 2010 finds us in a down period, but I never worry about complete disappearance. Also, the faith is magnetic because it is true, that is the big thing. It gives the right answers to, and explanations for, reality as we face it. Chesterton wrote that he became a Catholic because he wanted his sins forgiven. That is a pretty powerful reason, eh? And there are many more reasons.
8.17.2010 | 11:00pm
Mark says:
In case anyone needs a reminder of how densely populated most of Europe is, Wikipedia has a useful table: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density

The Netherlands is more densely populated than India is. It is so densely populated that a not-insignificant chunk of the government budget goes to maintaining the dikes that allow the Dutch to live on land that was literally under the sea not so long ago.

To be perfectly blunt, saying that the real problem with the Netherlands is that they need to be expanding their population is crazy talk. Where exactly are all these children supposed to live when they become adults? How are they supposed to afford a home when real estate prices are already sky-high (due to aforementioned population density)?
8.18.2010 | 12:51am
Bernard says:
I certainly do not believe that married couples must have lots of children, or that having only (say) two children is a sign of self-loathing. I do believe that treating children are a lifestyle choice is disordered. This attitude is common throughout the West, and is probably more common in some parts than in others. It reflects a fundamentally selfish attitude: my life is for my self-fulfilment. This does not leave much space for sacrificial living in any sense, which is damaging on many levels. It is linked with a lack of common purpose or value, notwithstanding the practical issues like housing.

I have just finished Bruckner’s The Tyranny of Guilt (quoted above); although he does not reflect on demographic matters, he is very concerned that Europe’s self-confidence is terribly wounded, with constant flagellation over past sins sapping all will to engage with the world. (By contrast, he sees the United States as being willing to act on the world stage, but given to impulsiveness at times. He proposes a closer cooperation across the Atlantic, to make the most of both regions’ virtues.) This lack of self-confidence results in an unwillingness to stand up for the great strength and beauty in European culture (without denying its historical wrongs), and an acquiescence in the face of external injustice and a failure to generously and powerfully propose its values and civilisation to those newly arrived. I can commend this book as a valuable contribution to the discussion of this issue.
8.18.2010 | 2:21am
Mark says:
Bernard, you seem to be saying that someone who does not have more than two children is not necessarily selfish but could be. Well, then in that case, we need to know more about the motives of the people involved. I see too many commentators (most of whom do not live in Europe) presume to know that such a decision reflects a selfish, anti-life mentality. Indeed, all I see is presumption without evidence here.

I would certainly agree that some countries are probably mired a bit too much in guilt trips over the past. On the other hand, it is important to realize that racist nationalism is still hardly absent from European politics or sentiment.

There is a lot that is wrong about Elizabeth Scalia's statement about Vienna dying because, among other things, there are lots of kebab stands there. First, she may not be aware of the irony of celebrating Vienna's "characteristic coffee house[s]" considering that coffee was originally brought to Vienna by Turks. Second, she appears to have the attitude that European cities should remain essentially theme parks for tourists rather than the dynamic, cosmopolitan, ever-changing places they have always been (again, see the Viennese coffee example). Finally, one has to be very careful when talking about European culture to make sure to account for those dynamic and cosmopolitan aspects of contemporary Europe. There is a long-time association with racists and nationalists using "culture" as a defense of their attitudes.

The way forward is probably for Europe to become more like the U.S. And that means embracing things like kebab stands as part of the culture without batting an eye-lash. 200 years from now, maybe some American writer in Berlin will mention that city's "characteristic doener kebab stands" and wonder how Germany could have ever gotten along without them.
8.18.2010 | 4:29am
H. Ford says:
.. ups.. got cut off.. sorry.... I'll try to pick up..

Germany was certainly rebuilt after WW2 (with lots of support, thank you). But after the work was done, people finally had time to reflect on what the he** had happened. Nazi ideology was analyzed, the reasons for the mass hysteria the Nazis were able to create so easily was desperately sought and never really found.

Since then Germans are in a strange state of self-loathing / constant need to apologize for being German / trying to make people see that the country has changed. It's really amazing to see that the average German prefers to be regarded a European than a German. This country has successfully been soft-washed and is driven by pc and.

Deep down, in the very depth of the very complex, always rather pessimistic German soul, there is no spark of hope for forgiveness, for freedom of the past; there is no need to have children, because they will feel the same shame and will carry the atrocities committed in the name if their country for ever (don't get me wrong, I'm NOT out to get sympathy).

Nazi ideology preached to have masses of children - another reason to have as few as possible.
Certainly our egomanic, materialistic, grab as much as you can in life - because when you die it's over, mentality plays a big role as well.
It's really a combination of self loathing and lack of faith, and it will get worse.

Germany, as we all know it, is dying - currently the more multi-cultural look of the country is being hailed; but in the long run, the country won't be able to sustain itself in its current form on immigrants, who mostly still live in parallel societies.
Sorry to have focues on Germany so much. But, as said before, it's an important part of Europe; it has one of the biggest populations and he biggest economy.
8.18.2010 | 7:19am
"First, she may not be aware of the irony of celebrating Vienna's "characteristic coffee house[s]" considering that coffee was originally brought to Vienna by Turks."

Are coffee houses in Vienna the same as coffee houses in Turkey?

"Second, she appears to have the attitude that European cities should remain essentially theme parks for tourists rather than the dynamic, cosmopolitan, ever-changing places they have always been (again, see the Viennese coffee example)."

Who is asking for that? Are you denying that there is an Austrian culture? What about the basic characteristic of speaking German? Would it be okay if at some point in the future most people living in Austria did not speak German?

"There is a long-time association with racists and nationalists using "culture" as a defense of their attitudes."

That doesn't make concern about preserving the culture of a country racist or nationalist.

"The way forward is probably for Europe to become more like the U.S. And that means embracing things like kebab stands as part of the culture without batting an eye-lash. "

The US has traditionally not had large groups of immigrants who refused to assimilate. Immigrants wanted to be Americans. A person who ran a Chinese or Italian restaurant was still pursuing the American Dream.

I do not know any kebab stand owners from Vienna, but I suspect many of them do not want to be Austrians in the same sense that American immigrants want to be Americans.
8.18.2010 | 8:43am
The U.S. fertility rate dipped well below 2.0 in the 1970s (1.7) before rising again after the Reagan child tax credits and--most likely--the immigrant boom.

We are the only developed nation I know of to go from below replacement back up to replacement level fertility.
8.18.2010 | 9:35am
Rob says:
So a catholic person goes to Vienna and sees evidence of non-Catholics living there, and from that she surmises that European guilt has caused the birth rate to drop among Catholics? Smart and impassioned comments excepted, I can't believe anyone would take this argument seriously. People frequenting this web site might be predisposed to view all things through the lens of religion, but even so this thesis is outrageous. Expand your focus a bit people, your myopia is showing.
8.18.2010 | 9:39am
Ching Yim says:
I don't think one can say it is due to Europe's "guilt complex" that Europeans are contracepting and aborting themselves to death. It is happening across large part of Asia also. Look at the birth rate/woman of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong - they are all way below 2 children/woman; Hong Kong (a former British colony), where I came from, has a pitiful 1.1 child/woman rate. Other Asian countries (such as Thailand and Malaysia) have birth rate that are slightly higher, but coming down quickly. Even in Latin America the birth rate is slowing greatly.

I think you have to blame a mixture of secularism, crass materialism, desire for prosperity in the part of both individuals and government/greed, sexual revolution/change of the role of woman in society, as well as outlandish claims of "overpopulation" for the lowering of birth rate across the world.

You have to understand how much gross propaganda works. In Hong Kong in the 80's, when I grew up, the govn made an ad that played on every TV channel every night. The ad said, by a local "folkish" song, "two is enough, two is enough!" The ad featured a scene where a couple tried to put three children in a boat, and the boat flipped over - and everyone ended up in water. I still remember it - and when I asked my mom about it not so long ago, she remembered it too! The birth rate of Hong Kong plummeted in the 80's, now nobody wants to have kids. Everybody in Hong Kong wants to earn a lot of money - and kids get into the way. Having kids means that people cannot do what they want - going to vacations, "enjoy life" - same thing in Hong Kong.

I don't think people are motivated by great philosophical idea when they contracept and abort. They are motivated by the most eartly motives - money, convenience, pleasures of life, personal freedom and so forth. These kinds of temptations happen in every country.

The description of Vienna was so jarring precisely because of one of the major cultural zones in the world that bucks the trend - the Muslim world. The Islamic morality kept Muslim from following the temptations of their greed and the "quest of personal freedom". It is precisely because the Muslim world is next doors to Europe that the contrast is so jarring. If Europe were to be next doors to South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan nobody would have mentioned the "guilt complex of Auschwitz", since they'll see that their neighbors behave in the same way, and these neighbors could hardly be accused of having a "guilt complex".
8.18.2010 | 9:54am
Mark says:
Brian English: "Who is asking for that? Are you denying that there is an Austrian culture? What about the basic characteristic of speaking German? Would it be okay if at some point in the future most people living in Austria did not speak German?"

Certainly not. It's worth pointing out the idea of national language and culture is very recent in Europe, though. This is, after all, the former capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire we are talking about. Austria has native populations of Hungarians and Slavs who arbitrarily wound up on one side of the border and who still speak their native languages.

My point is certainly not that immigrants should not integrate but rather that there is another side to this. And that other side is that Europeans are just a tad less comfortable than Americans with accepting immigrants as their own people. I knew a German instructor who had grown up in Germany and who was an ethnic Korean. She emigrated to the U.S. because she got tired of people asking her what country she was from.

The idea of integration requires that enough of the native population will eventually accept an integrated immigrant as one of their own. It is not clear that immigrants in some places are made to feel as if they ever will be accepted as full citizens by their neighbors.

Likewise, I am certainly not saying that pride in one's culture is racist or nationalistic. Rather than because of Europe's history, people there are much more wary and careful about making arguments boasting of the country's native culture and the need to preserve it. Such arguments are not inherently racist but rather are like playing with matches. If Europeans are ready to accept a broader definition of culture and nationality, then these arguments lose their appeal to people who would misuse them.
8.18.2010 | 10:43am
"My point is certainly not that immigrants should not integrate but rather that there is another side to this. And that other side is that Europeans are just a tad less comfortable than Americans with accepting immigrants as their own people."

It certainly has to be a two-way street. And I also get the impression that "a tad less" is an understatement.

However, back to the point of the article, Europe would not have needed to bring in all these immigrants if Europeans were still having children. If you are not going to have children, you had better be ready and willing to assimilate immigrants into your culture.
8.18.2010 | 11:04am
"I think you have to blame a mixture of secularism, crass materialism, desire for prosperity in the part of both individuals and government/greed, sexual revolution/change of the role of woman in society, as well as outlandish claims of "overpopulation" for the lowering of birth rate across the world."

I think you are right about the cause of the decline in birth rates. I believe the self-hating aspect becomes important when the decline in birth rates leads to an influx of immigrants from foreign cultures. If most of the people in the host culture believe their culture is evil, they are not going to make any effort to assimilate the immigrants into that culture. The result will eventually be the death of the host culture.
8.18.2010 | 12:35pm
Mark says:
Brian, I confess in advance that this is a bit of a cheap shot but the idea that a country must increase its birth rate so that it doesn't need so many immigrants is an idea that would not have been unwelcome at any eugenics conference in the 1920s. If a country has a healthy relationship with its immigrant community, it shouldn't matter too much whether more and more of its young people are foreign-born or not. And from a moral point of view, there is something to be said for giving people from poor countries a shot at a better life.

Europe's demographic problem is really about economics more than anything else. Welfare states require a large working population to support them and so any shrinking of the labor force can be devastating to the status quo. That consideration aside, Western European countries would do perfectly fine with smaller populations if that is what they want. Most Europeans do not want to create extra space for new inhabitants by turning their cities into Manhattan and their rural areas into residential subdivisions.
8.18.2010 | 1:07pm
Prof. Mondo says:
I was thinking about this a little bit myself the other day. Although I'm not coming at this as a Catholic, I think we've got some common ground. The illness is spiritual.
8.18.2010 | 1:27pm
"Brian, I confess in advance that this is a bit of a cheap shot but the idea that a country must increase its birth rate so that it doesn't need so many immigrants is an idea that would not have been unwelcome at any eugenics conference in the 1920s. "

If you are not going to assimilate the immigrants into your culture (or the immigrants refuse to be assimilated), but don't want your culture to disappear, what alternative is there? Impotent gestures like the French banning the burka and the Swiss banning minarets accomplish nothing.

"That consideration aside, Western European countries would do perfectly fine with smaller populations if that is what they want."

What they want is the benefits of a larger population without having to bother with having children or turning immigrants into citizens of the country. That is a recipe for disaster.
8.18.2010 | 2:17pm
Is this shift in population distribution, democraphics, really the end of "our" culture? There are many objections to this problematic thesis.

1) First, what IS "our" culture? Isn't there some kind of hidden genetic/racial superiority, eugenics thesis here? Just out-reproduce, out-breed "them"? So our superior genes will win out?

Then too in any case, 2) the whole world, for better or for worse, has already been largely Americanized; there are democracies - and McDonald's franchises - all over the planet. "Our" American culture is to some extent now be carried out by "other" cultures.

As for 3) birth rates? Studies suggest that not only a) urbanity, population density, but also especially b) technological advances, lead naturally to a decline in fertility. So that as non-American cultures become more affluent, their fertility and birth rates should ALSO decline.

In any case 4) Jesus told us to "hate" our children, even our own lives; and get on with developing our spirits, our minds (Luke 14.26). While scholars, the experts, tell us "hate" is not an inaccurate translation; that is the favored translation by far.

So 5) rather than just making lots and lots of babies, and trying to outpopulate the rest of the world? Or 6) bullying, policing, militarily fighting the rest of the world to "keep it in line"? Instead of that, why don't "we" follow the real prescription for the historical success of the West?

Which is: 7) developing our spirits, our minds, our science and technology. To the point that, thanks to our developed minds, "our" very small numbers, nevertheless, lead the world. Not through bullying, or just raw power; but in part through intellectual/spiritual example.

In a way, the prevailing opinion expressed here in conservative journals, is really sad. If people today think that the only way "we" can be esteemed, is just by procreative lust and reproductive gluttony,just cranking out quantity, not quality, if conservatives have so totally lost the sense of the supreme importance of the mind, the spirit, over the body, then after all, we ourselves have lost the path. And simply don't deserve continued preeminence.

Rather than bemoaning the lack of more and more people, why don't we concentrate more on developing minds? We should develop the minds that make better technology, and science (and even religion?). That process in the end, was the real reason for the success of the West. And that alone - developing our minds; not raw numbers, profligate baby-making - will be the reason for any future success of the West as well.

The idea implied here - that we should have married sex like crazy, and tons of babies, as the way to succeed in life - is laughable and silly. And fails to really understand the real reasons for the success of America, and the West.
8.18.2010 | 4:32pm
Richard says:
I congratulate the Anchoress for drawing our attention, however controversially, to a real issue, whither Europe and should we care, and I think that the many thoughtful responses have well served the opportunities for discussion she has offered us.

But I would like to broaden the question a bit to put it in terms more familiar to those interested in the cultural and intellectual "geography" of the times. Rather than focus exclusively on Europe, consider the broader category "The West," Europe and her cultural offspring like North America, Australia, New Zealand, etc, especially as set against the rest of the world. I have worked in the Humanities on the university and college level all my adult life and perhaps the single most salient issue in the Humanities and Social Sciences in my time has been, if you will, "The West on Trial," the post colonial and post World War indictment of the West for imperialism and other grievous faults and the raising of the question of whether there is anything good about the West that hasn't been stolen from other people. These questions have raged like wildfire both in the Western countries and in other cultures around the world. They have dominated discipline after discipline in the academy to the point of shaping the whole of intellectual discourse outside of the hard sciences. So there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Elizabeth is concerned about something real and important.

Rather than trying to lay my understanding of the myriads of dimensions to this question before the board--a hopeless task, and one to which I could not do justice--I would like to try to summarize my understanding of the trial of the West in the form of two questions:

1. Are there any major ideas, values, and/or institutions formed uniquely in the West and worth affirming, both for us and for any others who might wish to consider them?

2. If so, can these contributions be extricated from the evils that the West has, primarily through technological ingenuity, inflicted on itself and the world, or are they so deeply interwoven with what what is wrong about us that the whole Western enterprise is best scrapped altogether (I know that this sounds naive, but again and again I hear educated people say this or words to this effect)?

Rather than trying to answer these questions myself, I would like to recommend two books each of which makes the case that, yes, the West is afflicted with self-hatred to the point of cultural suicide, and, no, it shouldn't jump off the bridge. In the end, they are strong endorsements of the best of the liberal tradition in the West, and offer suggestions as to how the West should constructively deal with the other cultures of the world.

1. "The Suicide of the West," by Chris Smith (a British Lord and MP) and Richard Koch (an American entrepreneur).

These authors argue that six principles in the West, Christianity, optimism, science, progress, economic growth, liberalism and individualism (yes, Greek rationalism is treated as foundational), have created a unique culture that should, after purification from our historical vices, be preserved as a treasure for ourselves and whoever in the world who wishes to use it.

2. "What is the West?' by Phillipe Nemo (A French Philosopher)

Nemo argues that five epochs created a unique Western culture that should engage the other great traditions in an encounter of mutual exploration and benefit:

a. The Greek Invention of the City, liberty under the rule of law, science, and education;
b. The Roman invention of law, private property, the individual, and humanism;
c. The ethical and eschatological revolution of the Bible, justice transcended by charity, linear time pulsated by eschatology, the emergence of History (read what he says before you protest);
d. The Papal Revolution of the Middle Ages which achieved the first real synthesis of Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem;
e. The great revolutions which fostered liberal democracy and pluralism.
(from pp. 3-4).

Both books are controversial, but they both confront the malaise of the West and offer engaging reasons for not writing it off as a lost cause. Both are IMHO highly worthwhile and relevant reads. (I think that Nemo's is the tighter and more profound book)

Best,

Richard
8.18.2010 | 7:24pm
Richard:

These seem like good books; with a valid point. And no doubt, we need to maintain positive values, in times of seemingly excessive self-doubt, in the West.

Still, at the same time, let's not overlook the value of what is, after all, one of the main things responsible for Western success: the value of ... self-criticism.

The ability to put all our own ideas, to the test, to put our favorite ideas up for continuous debate, is a key part of the Western tradition. A tradition that extends from Socrates' critical interrogation of everyone's favorite ideas; through Jesus' criticism of religious conservatives, priests and Pharisees; on through to postmodernism and postcolonial thought.

No doubt, this at-times excessive self-questioning, is the very feature that conservatives do not like; the perpectual self-criticism of the West, sounds too much like self-hate, self loathing. But after all, probably this is what Jesus had in mind, in part, when he told us not to be too "proud"; and told us to even "hate" so many material things thought to be good in this world. And the ability to criticize ourselves, was of course the main point, when Jesus told us to "look for the beam in your own eye," before criticizing others.

All this was in order to get us learn to think critically; to submit even our own favorite Middle Class ideas, to critical interrogation, continually.

No doubt to be sure, it is because this criticalism has been overdone, or overemphasized (to the over-dogmatic), especially in academe, many feel that the West as a whole, has TOTALLY collapsed into ... self-doubt, self-hate. And to be sure therefore, we need to say that self-criticism CAN be overdone. At times we need some more positive articles and books like those presented here, to balance things out too many self-doubts.

But at the same time, let us all remember this: that one of the great enemies of humanity, is Vanity; self-satisfaction. Or in religion, Pharisee-ism, sanctimoniousness, self-righteousness, pontificating condescention. And we should never forget that the Bible said that the greatest and only remedy for such sins - as the Bible itself hinted - is to always maintain some faculty of self-criticism; the ability to look for the "beam in your own eye."

No doubt to be sure, it is a matter of balance; many intellectuals are over-critical, and need to keep that in mind. Still, at the same time remember, many self-satisfied, bourgeoise conservatives, often make the opposite error. They are all too loften, all too pleased with, proud of, their all-too-doubtful ideas.

Today for example, they are still congratualing themselves on the perfection and holiness of their religion - even in a Church where the priests are sexually molesting little boys, and most of the Bishops lied to cover it up.

Should we really be calling THAT Church, "perfect" and "holy"? Wouldn't SOME self-criticism, be in order? And sophistical apologetics - saying that the Church itself is perfect, with imperfect people in it - are not quite honest enough.

So it's a balance. Some people are too critical no doubt. But many more are far, far, far too unselfcritical; too vain, too proud. Too vain to see - and then work to fix - many key sins, even in the core of most traditional Western institutions.
8.18.2010 | 9:24pm
Richard says:
Brettongarcia,

You have ground that axe down to a toothpick. And in the process you have missed my point. Don't you see that, if I am right, Western Culture, including the spirit of free inquiry, is at risk? Probably not. For all of your talk about critical thinking, you are one of the least self-critical people I have ever encountered. Unappeasable doubt, which some call the hermeneutics of suspicion, ends in nihilism. Like Erysichthon, it devours everything until there is nothing else but itself. Then it devours that. Liberalism has many external enemies. One of it's paramount internal dangers is skepticism run wild that, like maggots in an organism, eats up the culture from the inside.

Do you realize how tedious it is for you to end every rant with diatribes against conservatives and pederastical priests? You don't like conservatives because they believe in self-restraint. You don't like institutional religion because it is an impediment to the untrammeled exercise of the libido. And by this time everybody who follows this venue has heard it a hundred times. Can you say idee fixe?

I know that I am wrong to be so exasperated. You are like a termite in a Stradivarius. You know not what you do.

God bless you as soon, as much, and as often as possible,

Richard
8.19.2010 | 8:10am
Rob says:
Wow! No one can condescend like an arts prof. Is that last sentence irony?
8.19.2010 | 8:58am
Richard says:
Rob,

The prayer is genuine, but it does imply that God has an intensive care unit. I am sure of this, since I have spent a very great deal of time in it myself. Obviously you have discerned one of the reasons why.

Best,

Richard
8.19.2010 | 9:59am
Rob says:
Nice! Thanks for the book suggestions too.
8.19.2010 | 11:25am
Mike M says:
Richard, I appreciate your wisdom and fine explanations. I have one small question for you. There have been a number of articles recently relating conceptualization to the peculiarities of individual languages. (I may have stated this awkwardly but I hope that you understand what I mean). Do you think that Germanic notions may in some way be related to the use of compound nouns in German thought and discourse (Weltschmerz, Zeitgeist, etc)?
8.19.2010 | 12:00pm
Richard says:
Mike M.,

"Wisdom and fine explanations"? Are you sure you've got the right fellow?

To answer your question, of course a language conditions conceptualization in that language. This is universally understood. If you can't read German, you will never grasp, say, Hegel or Heidigger as fully as you could if you did. This is particularly crucial with Greek philosophy (and for that matter, Greek New Testament studies). This country is full of philosophers teaching the Greeks even though they can't read Greek. I won't say that they are wasting everyone's time, but they are certainly handicapped.

I am as much limited by this principle as anyone else. My Latin and Greek, of course, are decent, but my German and French are so so at best. My Italian no better. Forget the rest (though I have worked a little on Spanish). When I retire, I want to strengthen my languages and learn some Hebrew to try to read the Old Testament. But I will never really be able to completely grasp Dostoyevski, Kierkegaard, the Vedas, or any of the Asiatic masterpieces etc. etc. I don't want to give the impression that I am particularly learned--much more a dabbler, but I do like to read around.

In short, if you want to understand another culture, do everything you can to learn the language.

I hope this wasn't too wordy. Once you get me started it's hard to shut me up.

Best,

Richard
8.21.2010 | 6:54pm
Joe says:
Richard, you claim my support of the self-criticism of the West, has been answered earlier by Neo Cons on First Things. But I didn't quite hear your answer to this key question: how EXACTLY do you refute JESUS HIMSELF, telling us to be self-critical? How do you get around JEsus himself, telling us to look for the “log” in our own eye, before criticizing the “speck” in others?

You claimed that of course, you and First Things answered these objections long ago. But Richard, I didn't quite hear any answer, here and now. Instead, you just changed the subject.

So again: how exactly DO you answer, the statement honoring self-criticism, specifically, by Jesus? When Jesus - when Jesus himself - told us to be self-critical?” To, before criticizing the “speck” in others' eyes, look for the “beam” or “log” in our own eyes? As follows:

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in the your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.... Watch out for for prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Mat. 7.4-6, 15; Luke 6.41). “Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?” (Luke 7.46).

That Jesus! Always telling us to be self-critical, before “judging” others!

So just EXACTLY how, and with what argument SPECIFICALLY Richard, did you and First Things long ago, prove that Jesus was wrong?
8.25.2010 | 12:20am
We killed an estimated Fifty Million would-be future citizens, whose payroll taxes would've solved our social security and medicaid/medicare debt problems, not to mention giving its otherwise selfish-to-the-core generation of Babied-Boomers reasons to hope for personal care in their final years. And for all those people who welcome President Obama and his fellow travellers' mawkish apologies for our American exceptionalism they love to deplore and trash at every possible instance, all I can say is take a good look at the WHY we're so exceptional. Grow up Europe, not old. And America, never grow up if it means doing so "Euro-style."
8.25.2010 | 8:38am
Joe says:
Steve:

Isn't that a CONSERVATIVE CRITICISM of our country? Of the prevaling liberalism of the West, and the laws that allow abortion?

What's the matter, don't like your country? The USA? It's laws?

Like to criticise it?

Conservatives say Liberals criticize this country too much. But I'm saying something here, you never heard anywhere else: Conservatives criticise our country too. More than liberals in fact.
8.27.2010 | 8:30pm
Huzzah for American exceptionalism. Seriously. Make it three Huzzahs. When more people in Europe understand what's exceptional about American Exceptionalism, they'll be exceptionally glad they imported the moral and philosophical underpinnings of what makes the United States so exceptional. Should anybody still harbor some apprehensions, help them with by reminding them that it was the U.S. that did most of the heavy bleeding and lifting to rid them of militarism and keep Communism out of Western Europe, and we didn't claim an inch after WWI/WWII and the Cold War. By the way, doesn't John Bull still occupy Gilbraltar and Russia East Prussia?
8.28.2010 | 2:48pm
gb says:
Beyond me how a wonderful post about the Church & the hope she offers thru her sacraments, Holy Father & universal faith gets translated in the comments to the same ol' same ol' "liberal vs conservative" diatribes. Every time. NB: This post is about the CHURCH's ability (due to the fact that she is the Body of Christ) to lift us out of the gerbil-traces of red vs. blue.
For the love of heaven, let's lift up our heads. Our salvation is at hand.
10.1.2010 | 3:51pm
Now, can you tell me, how a young couple who live in the city where the jobs are could afford babies? By the time they could afford having babies, they have to look into retirement housings. I am curious, though, why, when you quoted Luke 14:26, you chose to leave out the part about also hating even our own lives? Somehow, I believe leaving it out doesn't make your point very well but I can't quite put it into words. I'll let someone more adept than me explore that.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact