You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
saying Europe is based on Christianity morality
I didn't say that, I said I thought it was derived from Jesus's teachings. That's not the same as Christianity - do you agree?
Then, to start namedropping philosophers, its like Leo Strauss and his argument you should read some philosophers work
Can you share your views with us? It'd be a bit easier than me reading several whole books.
The problem here is, as TJ alludes to in an albeit blunt fashion, as soon as you start cherry-picking the bits that you like and rejecting the parts that you don't it makes a mockery of the entire thing.
No, I don't think it does. You are dismantling the idea of univocality and inerrancy, because they clearly make no sense; the problem is that most Christians already agree with you. But even if parts of it are inconsistent, offensive and outdated, other parts are not, and that is the important thing.
This seems to be claiming that Luther was against the divine right of kings which wasnt the case. He was pretty strongly pro aristocracy
I think I was referring to Luther's assertion that we didn't need priests and we could make our own minds up - or did I misunderstand that as well?
honestly, you are being so defensive it's difficult to figure out what your point is
Defensive? What do you think I am defending?
I didn't think I was defending anything, just rejecting the suggestion that the increase in Catholic Church attendance is likely to be connected to a couple of non-Catholics, one of which claims to be a Muslim**
And I have suggested that Pope Francis was actually quite highly respected by many outside the Catholic Church.
That is all and those were my points which you apparently struggled to understand.
I am perfectly relaxed with people ranting about the Catholic Church/Christianity/religion. TJ's usual rant about how much he hates religion/religious people didn't bother me in the slightest.
** To be clear IME Andrew Tate is deeply disliked by the UK Muslim community and many are horrified of his influence over young Muslim men.
Double post nonsense.
Defensive? What do you think I am defending?
I didn't think I was defending anything, just rejecting the suggestion that the increase in Catholic Church attendance is likely to be connected to a couple of non-Catholics, one of which claims to be a Muslim**
Well, you seem to be very upset by the suggestion that the first time men have outnumbered women in any age group in church attendance could possibly have any connection to the manosphere and the general disaffection felt by many young men.
Hence the fact you constantly repeat the phrase, 'Two geezers one of whom is a Muslim'. I think we both know the manosphere and the conditions behind it are a bit bigger than that.
People within the Catholic Church itself have been expressing concerns about a potential influx of manosphere ideology coming in with these newly enthused religious men. And yes, they sometimes reference Jordan Petersen directly.
Like I said, it's a possibility. One you may not like, hence your constant 'two geezers' comments but it's a possibility none the less.
Another possibility is that the same forces that are driving young men to the manosphere are driving a different group of young men to the Church. Or maybe it's something else entirely or a combination of many factors.
Whatever way you look at it, it's something that has never happened before and it may be a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing depending on the reasons and the outcomes. No matter what, it's interesting and worth keeping an eye on, imo.
If you don't find it interesting or something worth keeping an eye on then that's absolutely fine and there's no need for you to comment on it.
Well, you seem to be very upset by the suggestion that the first time men have outnumbered women in any age group in church attendance could possibly have any connection to the manosphere and the general disaffection felt by many young men.
"Very upset" because I don't accept your remarkable claim that nearly twice as many young men attend Catholic churches as young women? (That's the claim you made btw although you now appear to have reduced it to just "outnumber women" and it apparently now also relates to any age group)
Have you always had this apparent problem assessing people's emotions or is just a tactic that you use in an attempt to wind people up?
Anyway let's put this one to bed, you carry on believing that, there are more men attending Catholic churches than women, that some geezer who claims to be Muslim, but almost certainly isn't, is encouraging men to attend Catholic churches, and that I am "very upset".
If you want to believe all that that's of course fine, I've made my points.
You can't think of any plausible reason? What about the one the rest of us have been discussing for the last page or so?
It's not plausible.
I think once you start looking at how the original Hebrew was translated, that is when you start to find that it might not be as clear as first thought.
On one hand: every translator and philologist of every major English translation of the Bible says that Leviticus prohibits homosexuality, a homophobic attitude that is totally consistent with the homophobia in the vast majority of Abrahamic societies.
On the other hand, a dietitian from New Jersey says that Leviticus "arguably...may have" prohibited "pederasty", a practice hat she admits has "received all too short a shrift" from religous authorities traditionally and that was common among "Greeks" but definitely not Jews.
🤔
https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/1340581.June_Kozak_Kane
In other news.....
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-pope-francis-vatican-gaza-b2738138.html
“Not only did we not say words of condolence, but we chose to erase them – and that looks bad,” said another. “Very bad.”
Classy stuff. Benjamin Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing genocidal government vindictive until the bitter end, even after someone has died.
Even Donald Trump, who faced constant criticism from Pope Francis, has shown more decorum than the bunch of psychopaths in the Israeli government.
You are dismantling the idea of univocality and inerrancy, because they clearly make no sense; the problem is that most Christians already agree with you.
Do they? Are you sure?
Why is this a problem?
But even if parts of it are inconsistent, offensive and outdated, other parts are not, and that is the important thing.
Is it?
It's Christianity's holy book. It literally (in both senses of the word) defines the religion. How can you form an belief system around something so ambiguous that some of it is "inconsistent, offensive and outdated" and yet other parts are still the word of god?
If some parts are inconsistent with others, should that not raise questions? How are we supposed to know what to believe; what is true; what is the loophole that is "allegory"; and what the important things are? As Mark Knopfler once sang, "two men say they're Jesus; one of them must be wrong."
You can't cherry-pick this stuff. You just can't. It has to be binary, either it is what it is or it isn't. Even my old high school RE teacher said "Jesus either was who he said he was or the greatest conman of all time." There is no middle ground to be had here. If the bible is out of date or flat out wrong then that's fine, but then it either needs a revision for the modern age or Cliff Notes. "Interpretation" is the domain of poetry, not religion.
"Very upset" because I don't accept your remarkable claim that nearly twice as many young men attend Catholic churches as young women? (That's the claim you made btw although you now appear to have reduced it to just "outnumber women" and it apparently now also relates to any age group)
Well, it's difficult to get exact numbers, although what they said was 12% of Gen Z women and 21% of Gen Z men attend church in general and men are more attracted to the Catholic Church.
'Almost twice as many' was a shorthand. Sorry if it upset you.
Where is the 'any age group' thing coming from? I've been very clear I'm talking about Gen Z the whole time. In fact, if it was any age group then it wouldn't really be relevant since we are specifically talking about Gen Z men. A group with high levels of disaffection who therefore may be more attracted to the Church.
Honestly, are you actually reading what I am writing?
It's not plausible.
So people keep saying and then not offering any other explanation*.
Perhaps it's simply a miracle.
*Yes yes, immigration. Although as I've said three times now, it's a pattern seen across the western world and immigration doesn't explain the gender gap. The gender gap which is what we are talking about.
On one hand: every translator and philologist of every major English translation of the Bible says that Leviticus prohibits homosexuality, a homophobic attitude that is totally consistent with the homophobia in the vast majority of Abrahamic societies.
Yes, I'm sure all translators have always been entirely free from outside pressure and under no obligation to convey the message their superiors wanted conveyed.
People within the Catholic Church itself have been expressing concerns about a potential influx of manosphere ideology coming in with these newly enthused religious men.
People in the Catholic church are concerned about an influx of indoctrinated people?
Damn it, I need another ironyometer.
More seriously,
On one hand: every translator and philologist of every major English translation of the Bible says that Leviticus prohibits homosexuality, a homophobic attitude that is totally consistent with the homophobia in the vast majority of Abrahamic societies.
I don't know of any Christians who take the Old Testament seriously outside of fringe nutjob schisms like the Westboro Baptists. It's the Dead Tree Scrolls. Anyone quoting Leviticus can safely be dismissed as a ****ing lunatic (albeit a potentially dangerous ****ing lunatic).
Also, what the actual is the "manosphere"? Is this some term coined by Tate to add a veil of inclusion/credibility to his little cult of incels?
Honestly, are you actually reading what I am writing?
I'm not disputing what you're saying, but it might help your case to show your working. Where are you getting your figures from?
(Apologies if you already have and I missed it, it's 3am and I'm dead on my feet.)
So if we can ignore some parts of the bible how is this differentiated from the bits that are the literal words of god and have to be followed?
Its almost as if none of it has any validity if we can pick and choose and differnt sects place different emphasis on different parts. Its a fundamentally illogical position. Either its all to be followed or its all nonsense
So Christian morality varies depending which bits you ignore and which bits you follow.
Many sects even the moderate churches follow the prohibition on homosexuality
Is he still dead? Isn't he meant to be up and about today?
This thread has made me a bit nostalgic, not for incense or handsy curates, but for 2010's atheist reddit.
(Apologies if you already have and I missed it, it's 3am and I'm dead on my feet.)
Honestly, I've been posting links since I first mentioned it a couple of pages ago. These links then get ignored or disregarded as not being of good enough quality.
I'm honestly not even sure what people are arguing against. If it's the idea that the zeitgeist has changed for one particular age group (Gen-Z) then even if you don't trust the article that I originally posted that kicked all this off:
that's fine but a quick search for something like 'Gen-Z men church attendance' will give you plenty of links over the last couple of years saying the same thing. In addition, it's being seen across the UK, the US, and Australia and if you went looking I'm sure you'd find examples in other western countries.
I don't think the idea that Gen-Z men are now outnumbering Gen-Z women in church attendance is in question. Although maybe it is. The goalposts are being shifted so often in this argument I'm really struggling to keep up.
The next question is why is this phenomena that has never happened before with any generation is happening with this particular generation which is where things get contentious.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/gen-z-men-and-women-most-divided-on-gender-equality-global-study-shows
There is a clear shift within Gen-Z social attitudes between men and women across the world, with the social attitudes of gen-z men and boys swinging considerably more towards 'traditional' values than women. This is most obviously manifesting itself through, Jordan Petersen, Andrew Tate, manosphere, red pill ideology, whatever you want to call it.
I'm suggesting that the change in church attendance make up for this age group might have something to do with this split in values between men and women within this age group.
Others are getting upset at this suggestion.
Well, it's difficult to get exact numbers, although what they said was 12% of Gen Z women and 21% of Gen Z men attend church in general and men are more attracted to the Catholic Church.
In the UK the Church of England says "Overall, all-age weekly attendance at Church of England churches rose to 685,000 last year, from 654,000 in 2022" - that's around 1% of the population
There a far fewer Catholics (about 10% of the population) but attendance is much higher:
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/big-increase-in-mass-attendance-recorded-in-britain/
With those 700 000 attending catholics we've got another 1%. The article notes the enthusiasm of Gen Z. Given the UK population attendance of catholics is around 10% though I've seen higher figures quoted. This article notes the increase in gen Z men but doesn't give comparable figures for women:
https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/big-increase-in-mass-attendance-recorded-in-britain/
As I read that last article alarm bells started ringing especially when I got to the end which is where all this Tate bollocks seems to have its origins - a Bible society report is quoted with sureal church attendances that would have churches bursting at the seams;
The report’s co-author and Bible Society’s director of research, Dr Rhiannon McAleer, said: “We are seeing something we had never seen before.”
Bible Society’s survey, which focuses on England and Wales, shows that in 2024, 5.8 million were attending church at least once a month – 12 per cent of the population – compared to 3.7 million, or 8 per cent in 2018.
The Catholic bishops’ conference says that there are 6.2 million Catholics in England and Wales, with 1.75 million attending Mass on a regular basis.
12% of the population attending church monthly! and specifically church as opposed to church-mosque-temple-place of worship. In terms of the potential number of Christian church goers that must be nearer 20%. I'm sorry but that and the other number are so much higher than any other sources I'm obliges to say they are highly optimistic and if I'm being honest I call bollocks. As usual do you own research but those numbers in my last quote should start your alarm bells ringing.
Again from my own expereince and observations in half a dozen catholic churches in France and Spain, Gen Z often to go to church as a couple. make of that what you will.
It's Christianity's holy book. It literally (in both senses of the word) defines the religion
Does it? Are you sure? Where did you get that ruling from?
If some parts are inconsistent with others, should that not raise questions?
It certainly does, and that's what people have been arguing about for 1500 years or more.
You can't cherry-pick this stuff. You just can't.
Why not? I feel like you aren't quite understanding what the Bible actually is.
Even my old high school RE teacher said "Jesus either was who he said he was or the greatest conman of all time."
Sure, that applies to Jesus's alleged sayings, but Jesus didn't write the Bible. All we have is people recounting what they remember Jesus as having said 60-odd years later. It's just a bunch of books (literally) from all sorts of places that some people in 400AD (ish) thought would be useful. The four gospels aren't even the only gospels, there are plenty more. The Bible you think you know was compilied by early Church men, from books written by other men, that weren't really intended to define a religion IMO. That's why they have contradictions. The compilers would have known about the contradictions and yet they still included them.
"Interpretation" is the domain of poetry, not religion
That's a very bold claim, especially for an atheist - where do you get that from?
There's loads on Reddit about this:
You literally start the Bible with two different creation stories back to back. Then you get two different retellings of the Exodus and Israel’s laws with significant differences. You get three stories of Israel’s monarchy. And that’s just the Hebrew Bible (not to mention the philosophical differences between, e.g. Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, etc.). Then in the New Testament, you start with four(!) significantly different portraits of Jesus. Then a bunch of letters
These different accounts weren't accidentally dropped into the mix. They were put in there on purpose, specifically so that we could have different viewpoints and different things to talk about.
Again from my own expereince and observations in half a dozen catholic churches in France and Spain, Gen Z often to go to church as a couple. make of that what you will.
Assuming not same sex gay couples I'm calling that pisspoor misogynist boys keeping their girlfriends happy.
Edit : A bit like you I guess. Wtf are you doing attending church when you claim to be a nonbeliever? Keeping the missus happy? Another misogynist man exposed by his catholic church attendance! Tell us what you really think of Andrew Tate!
As I read that last article alarm bells started ringing especially when I got to the end which is where all this Tate bollocks seems to have its origins - a Bible society report is quoted with sureal church attendances that would have churches bursting at the seams;
If you want to argue about whether more gen-z men are going to church now than gen-z women then there is going to be plenty of fudging of the data, I'm sure.
However, this is a phenomena that has been getting reported across the western world for a couple of years now. It no doubt varies by country and, like I said, individual figures are going to be easy to dispute but the number of reports of this suggests that, yes, across the western world more gen-z men are going to church than gen-z women.
The 'Tate bollocks' may be a completely separate phenomena but are you disputing that social attitudes within gen-z have also significantly changed compared to previous generations? There have been multiple studies that have shown gen-z social attitudes for men and women have significantly diverged in a way we haven't seen in previous generations.
Perhaps these two phenomena are completely unrelated. However, when zeitgeist's change it's generally for a reason.
I have a Gen Z son with a gen Z partner and a host of Gen Z friends. Both sexes are evolving in a world that's changed compared with the previous couple of million years. They are the computer generation, it's what defines them. Their lives are more virtual than previous generations and the next generation is taking it a step further. They drink less, they keep fit more, they struggle to find well-paid jobs despite their higher education, they have trouble finding a place to live, some still live with parents - and a few go to church more. It's hardly a generation defining thing even if its real.
Perhaps these two phenomena are completely unrelated.
I'll agree with that. 🙂
Back on subject, if Gen Zers are going to church I reckon Pope Francis has far more to do with it than any manosphere influencer. I asked non-church-going junior his opinion of Francis - "he did well". On the subjects that matter to Gen Z, which other leader expresses views that most appeal to Gen Z?
Back on subject, if Gen Zers are going to church I reckon Pope Francis has far more to do with it than any manosphere influencer. I asked non-church-going junior his opinion of Francis - "he did well". On the subjects that matter to Gen Z, which other leader expresses views that most appeal to Gen Z?
Yes, which is why it's particularly surprising that Gen-Z men (who, based on the data, are less liberal) are more attracted to the church than Gen-Z women.
Everything suggests Pope Francis should have attracted even more Gen-Z women. The opposite seems to have happened.
It's also worth noting that Catholics in the US seem to be very different from Catholics in Europe.
https://www.ft.com/content/8f3ed248-a27b-4b1b-bd0f-7bbe37af10ed
Everything suggests Pope Francis should have attracted even more Gen-Z women. The opposite seems to have happened.
Blimey, are you still banging that line? So what is your explanation for Pope Francis allegedly not attracting more Gen Z women.......the issues of social justice, immigration, speaking for the marginalised, climate change, genocide in Gaza, and all the other issues which Pope Francis was associated with, doesn't concern them as much as it concerns Gen Z men?
Ernie +1
don't worry I won't be making a habit of it, Ernie. 🙂
I can't believe why I would have thought you were overly defensive about all this, ernie. You are coming across as entirely rational and not simply knee-jerking at every perceived attack.
Let's look at what has been happening.
I liked Pope Francis and what he was trying to focus on and the changes he was apparently trying to make. He seemed liberal compared to his predecessors. In addition, he seemed to be trying to incorporate women more into the structures of the church.
Gen-Z women's attitudes seem to be breaking far more liberal than Gen-Z men's attitudes. Therefore, if we were going to see a Pope Francis effect in terms of Gen-Z attendance, you would expect to see at the very least an increase in Gen-Z women.
In fact, the opposite has happened and the general trend of reduced attendance has continued with Gen-Z women.
As should be fairly obvious, the Catholic Church is not a monolith. Especially in the US, the most vocal Catholics are very much against Pope Francis and what he stands for. MAGA Catholicism is a very real thing.
If it's not Pope Francis who is attracting these men then that leaves the very real possibility that it's the traditionalist Catholics who are attracting them.
Here's another way to look at it. Given what we know about the divergent attitudes between the genders in Gen-Z, do you think it was Pope Francis who attracted these men or was it more likely to be the same ideas that convinced JD Vance to convert to Catholicism?
https://slate.com/life/2024/08/jd-vance-tim-walz-trump-kamala-religion.html
I can't believe why I would have thought you were overly defensive about all this, ernie. You are coming across as entirely rational and not simply knee-jerking at every perceived attack.
Sorry you believe that because I am engaging in a discussion with you about Pope Francis it proves that I am "overly defensive" and "very upset"? I am not impressed with your analytical skills! 😂
I liked Pope Francis and what he was trying to focus on and the changes he was apparently trying to make.
There you go short changing him, why the claim that he was only "trying". There is no doubt that Pope Francis succeeded in focusing on many very important issues and made important changes, he did more than just simply try.
As should be fairly obvious, the Catholic Church is not a monolith.
I don't doubt for a moment that Pope Francis had his strong critics among traditionalists/conservatives but the Catholic Church is probably the most monolithic organisation on the face of the earth, I certainly can't think of another one.
"Catholic" literally means exactly that. In fact it's double ironic that you should use the word monolith which of course means a single stone....
"YOU ARE PETER AND UPON THIS ROCK I SHALL BUILD MY CHURCH" Jesus Christ circa 0 AD
I'm saying you are defensive because I'm trying to lay out my argument as clearly as I can and your responses are so all over the place I can barely tell which part you are objecting to. Mostly your objections seem to be about my choice of phrasing.
To reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am trying to highlight something that simply doesn't seem logical:
- Pope Francis was liberal (by church standards)
- Gen-Z women are more liberal than Gen-Z men
- Therefore, you would expect Gen-Z women to be more attracted to the church than Gen-Z men
- The opposite appears to be true
It is peculiar. If something is peculiar it is interesting and worthy of further investigation. Things generally happen for a reason and there is nothing wrong with speculating as to what that reason might be.
If there is anything in my language or phrasing that you don't like please try to see past it and focus on the core points that I am trying to make.
Interesting article about 'Cradle vs Convert' Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
https://www.vox.com/politics/405869/jd-vance-conversion-religion-politics-divide
I can barely tell which part you are objecting to
I am not objecting to anything, that's probably why you are struggling trying to figure out what it is!
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion that twice as many young men attend Catholic churches than young women, and that the reason for that is Andrew Tate.
Personally I think both claims are nonsense but if you want to believe something you have read on Reddit then that's up to you.
Hope that clears up any misunderstanding 👍
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion that twice as many young men attend Catholic churches than young women, and that the reason for that is Andrew Tate.
Personally I think both claims are nonsense but if you want to believe something you have read on Reddit then that's up to you.
Well, the article I posted above basically draws everything I've been saying into a single article (along with sources). True, it is US focused but as we've seen time and again US issues have a way of affecting the rest of the world. Particularly when those issues are centered around social media.
But hey, if you want to dismiss the entire thing as drivel I found on reddit you go right ahead.
From the article:
Vance is not just a Catholic. He’s a very specific type of Catholic, part of a group of young white men who, over the past decade, have found their way (often online) into both increasingly conservative politics and traditional religion — primarily Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, rather than the Protestantism that has been a common cultural feature in America.
But hey, if you want to dismiss the entire thing as drivel I found on reddit you go right ahead.
So you want to throw in the example of one single middle-aged individual thousands miles of away to back up your claim that nearly twice as many young men as young women attend Catholic churches, and that the reason for that is Andrew Tate?
You could have found examples of conversion to Catholicism much closer to home, how about Tony Blair and Boris Johnson? Do you think Tony Blair is a bit of of an Andrew Tate fanboi?
Btw I have not described your claims as "drivel", your are attaching far more emotional weight to the subject than is warranted. I simply said that I didn't agree with your claims.
Looking for evidence of this supposed male interest I thought I'd have a look at the number of baptisms in France by age group. In this article it say that 65% of the 11-17 year olds baptised were women.
And there are always more women than men catéchumènes
That report also points out it's the 18-25 age group that is progressing rather than Gen Z.
I've also hunted through for UK baptisms but found nothing based on actual solid stats to say men dominate, simply that they are a larger cohort than they used to be.
What I did find: 70% of asylum seekers are male and in some churches lots of asylum seekers are getting baptised:
whether they are Tate fans the article didn't state and it seems unlikely they are Peterson emulates😋 If there really were a Peterson effect why would it only affect the the Catholic church, protestants get cancer too.
I'm more and more convinced that some influencers and journalists have noticed two totally separate phenomonen and jumped to the conclusion there's a cause and effect/correlation where there is none.
So you want to throw in the example of one single middle-aged individual thousands miles of away to back up your claim that nearly twice as many young men as young women attend Catholic churches, and that the reason for that is Andrew Tate?
You could have found examples of conversion to Catholicism much closer to home, how about Tony Blair and Boris Johnson? Do you think Tony Blair is a bit of of an Andrew Tate fanboi?
How about if I say, 'OK, there are not twice as many Gen-Z men going to church as Gen-Z women.' I'm quite happy to do that.
The point is not so much the exact number, as I've said. The point is that there has been a shift we haven't seen before. Generally if there is a shift we haven't seen before there is a reason.
How about if I said, 'Andrew Tate has nothing to do with it.' I'm quite happy to do that.
The disaffection of young men is far bigger than one scumbag.
Would you be happy then and allow the rest of us to discuss this like adults or would you prefer to get into a multi-page debate about the exact definition of 'monolith'?
Looking for evidence of this supposed male interest I thought I'd have a look at the number of baptisms in France by age group. In this article it say that 65% of the 11-17 year olds baptised were women.
Just out of interest, how many Protestants are there in France? 3?
I suspect the 'Cradle vs Convert' discussion is slightly different to that being had in the US.
Saying that, the data from France is closer to what we would expect from a Francis effect. It indicates a general increase in popularity and no unexpected shift in demographics.
A couple of million or 3% of the French population are protestant, Bruce. Based on polls rather than any official stats so some room for error.
The point is that there has been a shift we haven't seen before. Generally if there is a shift we haven't seen before there is a reason.
We seem to be going round in circles covering stuff we already have. As I said previously until mefty mentioned it on this thread I had no idea about the recent increases in church attendance.
Yes it surprises me greatly and yes there must of course be an explanation.
But no I don't know the reasons and no I don't think that in the absence of an credible explanation anyone will do instead.
I do however believe that it is reasonable to assume that the "Pope Francis effect" is likely to be a contributing factor. Which if it is indeed a significant factor couldn't be more opposite to the "Andrew Tate effect".
The Pope Francis years was a very bad time for a reactionary conservative like JD Vance to convert to Catholicism. There are far more suitable Christian denominations in the United States for people like him, although iirc JD Vance like Tony Blair and Boris Johnson married a Catholic. The things some people do for their wives, eh?
A couple of million or 3% of the French population are protestant,
They didn't all immigrate with Nigel Farage's ancestors?
Well I guess that's one thing the UK should be grateful for.
A bit before Farages time. Henri IV, he of the Edit de Nantes, was protestant before converting to cathloic. The south west, Aquitaine, is where a lot of the protestants are based something to do with a load of Brits rocking up in the 19th century. There's a protestant temple in town.
Here is a story on the French increase in baptisms:
And within that they linked another story on the increases seen in the UK:
Both specifically mention the role of influencers. They also show the vast difference in genders who are getting baptised between the two countries.
One glaring difference is that the French influencers are French while the UK influencers are American.
And then there is this part:
John Withers, the director of WeBelieve, a new festival in England that aims to reach “seekers” as well as Catholics, said he has observed young men drawn to his parish after watching videos on YouTube that progressively interested them in the faith. They began with psychologist Jordan Peterson, then Bishop Barron, then more spiritual speakers such as Father Schmitz.
In France young women want to be Catholics. Given Francis' influence that is what you would normally expect.
In the UK it is young men. That makes no sense until you look into the type of people who are becoming Catholics in the US (JD Vance being the prime example). Then it starts to make a lot more sense.
They don't actually show any statistics for the number of men getting baptised in the UK, it just says "many of these new entrants are young men" with no numbers. And then makes a stratospheric leap to American influencers with absolutely no proof presented. Bandwagon jumping influencer speculation. All based on anecdotal evidence from one Mr Nash "Mark Nash, Southwark’s director of the Agency for Evangelization and Catechesis. “The Holy Spirit is moving in a very particular way.” "
Why is Mr Nash any more credible than me when reporting on what I see? The Southwalk situation is more likely to be profiting from the male refugee asylum seeker phenomonen noted in on of the articles I linked - If I were an asylum seeker in south London I reckon getting baptised and renouncing Islam is the first thing I'd do to improve my case..
The Interweb really is a poisonous cess pit.
They don't actually show any statistics for the number of men getting baptised in the UK, it just says "many of these new entrants are young men" with no numbers. And then makes a stratospheric leap to American influencers with absolutely no proof presented. Bandwagon jumping influencer speculation. All based on anecdotal evidence from one Mr Nash "Mark Nash, Southwark’s director of the Agency for Evangelization and Catechesis. “The Holy Spirit is moving in a very particular way.” "
Why is Mr Nash any more credible than me when reporting on what I see? The Southwalk situation is more likely to be profiting from the male refugee asylum seeker phenomonen noted in on of the articles I linked - If I were an asylum seeker in south London I reckon getting baptised and renouncing Islam is the first thing I'd do to improve my case..
The Interweb really is a poisonous cess pit.
So, your answer to all the articles I've linked over the last three pages is 'FAKE NEWS!'
I've linked Guardian articles, Vox articles, and now I've even linked Catholic News Agency articles. All of which support the idea that more young men are interested in Catholicism in the UK and the US than young women.
The opposite of what is seen in France which is following the pattern we would expect.
I'm not even saying this is definitive proof of anything. However, there are multiple concerning indications of where the popularity of 'traditional' religion is coming from amongst young men in the US and possibly in the UK. I would say it's worth further looking into and keeping an eye on in the future.
If you don't want to do that because you don't like the possibility there might be some truth to it then OK. However, doing a Donald Trump impression when presented with things you don't like is never a good look.
So, your answer to all the articles I've linked over the last three pages is 'FAKE NEWS!'
I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth. Read what I did say. Putting words in people's mouths is one of the things I'd include in the Internet cess pit.
More young men than before they say, when one of your sources says about 3% before, that gives plenty of scope for more without Gen Z men suddenly being double the number of Gen Z women in congregations. I want stats and numbers, Bruce, and not just from Southwalk, I want the full national picture. And in all honesty the Guardian (one of my favourite newspapers) has sometimes been guilty of publishing absolute shite and you know it. Pretty much anything by Adrian Chiles for example. 🙂
However, doing a Donald Trump impression when presented with things you don't like is never a good look.
This is plain gratuitous insult. Minable.
So, your answer to all the articles I've linked over the last three pages is 'FAKE NEWS!'
I've linked Guardian articles, Vox articles, and now I've even linked Catholic News Agency articles. All of which support the idea that more young men are interested in Catholicism in the UK and the US than young women.
...and none of which present any plausible data for attendance, let alone the positive impact of manfluencers on attendance. They rely heavily on vibes and speculation.
When astonishing and anomalous claims are made without good data, it's a good possibility - maybe a probability - that they're nonsense.
So, you won't believe the possibility of any of this being true until I commission multiple yougov polls? Because what we are talking about here is indications, possibilities, and a small amount of evidence spread across continents.
I'm sorry, I just don't think I personally have the resources to make you even begin to think this might have the tiniest shred of truth to it.
Oh well.
Until the multi year research projects are carried out, here is a compilation of the greatest hits so far. I don't think I have the energy to continue trawling the internet to get the barest hint of acknowledgement so I might just leave it at this unless someone finds some so far uncovered evidence that proves anything:
The Guardian article that kicked off all this fun
Gen Z men and women show worrying split on attitudes to gender and feminism
French Catholicism enjoys an increase in popularity within expected demographic norms
And finally, (mostly) US women on their experiences dating newly converted Catholic men
In France young women want to be Catholics. Given Francis' influence that is what you would normally expect.
In the UK it is young men. That makes no sense until you look into the type of people who are becoming Catholics in the US (JD Vance being the prime example). Then it starts to make a lot more sense.
Eh, what, so it's an Anglo-Saxon thing now? Why isn't it also young men in France?
Btw I love the way you repeatedly use a middle-aged American as a "prime" example of young men in the UK ! 🤣
What's wrong with our middle-aged politicians who converted to Catholicism?!?!
Please do leave it at that, Bruce. 😉
It wasn't the Guardian article that kicked it all off it was a Bible society article which was based on a Bible society commissioned survey conducted by YouGov that some journalist wrote about without putting her critical thinking cap on.
1/ Did you respond to the survey? I certainly didn't, not many people did. So you have a tiny sample of people motivated enough to respond to the survey, and this whole sorry tale is based on their responses.
2/ 21% of men who responded (we don't know the proportions of men and women who even responded, it's not stated) said they went to church once a month. Those men clearly aren't representative of the population, a population in which around 2-3% of the population go to church. All we know about them is that they replied, we have no idea what motivated them to reply. Note that YouGov polls are often promoted on STW when cyclists' interests are at stake.
That's the basis of it, and anyone who have ever been involved in stats or surveys will tell you the thing is meaningless and could be spun anyway the Bible society chose (not exactly impartial). It's not ifop or some reputable polling organisation being as random as possible, it's a YouGov survey replied to by a few people with an interest in the subject.
Eh, what, so it's an Anglo-Saxon thing now? Why isn't it also young men in France?
Btw I love the way you repeatedly use a middle-aged American as a "prime" example of young men in the UK ! 🤣
What's wrong with our middle-aged politicians who converted to Catholicism?!?!
OK. Last attempt. I promise.
It's a tale as old as time.
- Americans culturally appropriate a European institution (Catholicism)
- They then bastardise it and corrupt it until it's barely recognisable (honestly, it wasn't in the best of shapes to begin with but at least Francis was trying to repair it)
- They then repackage it and re-import it to the UK through social media. And most likely with the backing of their various special interest groups
- We eventually end up with a version of Catholicism that is closer to the bastardised American version than whatever Francis was trying to do
And the UK continues to be inbred cousin of the US forever after.
The end.
The young men demographic shift is an indication that this might be what is happening, especially when compared to the increase in popularity seen in France which follows the trends you would normally expect to see.
I really don't think I can put it any more simply, ernie. If you choose to continue not understanding what I am saying I really can't think of a way to make it any clearer.
The only other thing I can suggest is you actually read all the links I posted above rather than going off vibes. All circumstantial evidence, yes, but when what you have is a suspicion of what is happening I'm afraid circumstantial evidence is all that is really available.
Americans culturally appropriate a European institution (Catholicism)
No they haven't, what on earth are you on about? Americans have not "culturally appropriated" Catholicism, there has never even been an American Pope ffs.
And the Catholic Church is a global institution, the overwhelming majority of Catholics aren't even Europeans.
If what you are claiming was even vaguely true Jorge Bergoglio would most certainly not have become Pope.
I think some people might not have fully grasped what an anathema Pope Francis was to global conservativism. Beyond what he is widely known for, the voice he gave to peace, social justice, refugees, the marginalised, the environment, etc, and the things he did like phoning the Catholic Church in Gaza every single day, even when he was ill in hospital, here is an example of just how far his core beliefs went.
Oscar Romero of El Salvador famously said :
'Profound religion leads to political commitment, and in a country such as ours where injustice reigns, conflict is inevitable.… Christians have no fear of combat; they know how to fight but they prefer to speak the language of peace. Nevertheless, when a dictatorship violates human rights and attacks the common good of the nation, when it becomes unbearable and closes all channels of dialogue, of understanding, of rationality: when this happens, the Church speaks of the legitimate right of insurrectional violence.’
Oscar Romero also said :
‘The cause of all our ills is the oligarchy – that handful of families who care nothing for the hunger of the people but need that hunger in order to have cheap, abundant labour to raise and export their crops.’
Pretty far-left stuff eh? Well Pope Francis didn't simply defend Oscar Romero's right to say those things, he went much much further, he declared him a saint.
So a man who denounces American government-backed oligarchy, is murdered by an American government-backed death squad, is declared a saint by Pope Francis, but you want to claim that Catholicism has been culturally appropriated by Americans?
You managed to write all that and still didn't manage to read the links?
I managed to read what you wrote, and that's what I responded to :
Americans culturally appropriate a European institution (Catholicism)
If your links back up that claim I frankly couldn't give a monkeys, it's still nonsense ! 😂
Edit : Btw Oscar Romero is something of a hero of mine, in fact at one time I actually considered using his name as my username on here, before I settled on the name of perhaps an even bigger hero of mine, so I welcome the opportunity you gave me to quote him 😉
Here's another quote from Oscar Romero for you :
"Peace is not the product of terror or fear. Peace is not the silence of cemeteries. Peace is not the silent result of violent repression. Peace is the generous, tranquil contribution of all to the good of all"
If your links back up that claim I frankly couldn't give a monkeys, it's still nonsense ! 😂
OK then.
Good talk.
what we are talking about here is indications, possibilities, and a small amount of evidence spread across continents.
agreed! It's a pretty threadbare basis on which to base a dramatic conclusion about religiosity of the youth (and young men in particular) in the UK.
In troubled times like these, when one might question ones faith, I like to refer to this song, to provide divine strength:
(warning NSFW)
Ozzy for pope!
OZZY!
OZZY!
have we concluded how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
have we concluded how many angels can dance on the head of a pin yet?
Zero! Unless you are a religious nut job, I guess, in which case...
[insert preference for your favourite number here]
Should have said 666 angels, now you mention it.
42? The answer to everything?
42? The answer to everything?
Zero! Unless you are a religious nut job, I guess, in which case
Depends on the flavour of nutjob. Some are rather opposed to sex since it risks leading to dancing so will be voting for zero as well.
That was quicker than expected…
Well here's some plausible reasons why Catholic Church attendance among Gen Z might have increased
For the 63rd time, the issue is not that Gen Z is attracted to the Catholic Church. As most of us agree, Francis seemed to be going out of his way to speak to issues that progressive young people are concerned about. Although to be clear, I don't think he was doing it just to increase the church's appeal, more just because he thought it was the right thing to do.
The issue that the many links that have been provided illustrate is that there is a disconnect between the way the church is growing in Europe and the way the church is growing in the US. The danger is that in the UK young men are being influenced by the US style of Catholicism rather than the European one.
I know you refuse to read links but here is yet another couple:
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/the-rise-of-religious-young-men
Pundits point to various social trends. In the recent presidential election, young men rejected Kamala Harris’ fuzzy, feminine message — opting for Trump’s manly message. Many young men find Jordan Peterson’s solid, intellectual, commonsense worldview an attractive antidote to the wild world of woke ideologies. Within the specifically religious communities, local men’s groups, conferences, retreats and books on modern masculinity have flourished over the last few decades, and their influence now seems to be bearing fruit.
Their influence has grown as a rebound from decades of a cultural crisis in masculinity. The sexual revolution, with its ugly sisters feminism and homosexualism, has undermined masculine confidence. Accused of “toxic masculinity” and pressured to become “metrosexual,” many young men have felt marginalized and stigmatized merely for being male.
Across the U.S., the Catholic Church is undergoing an immense shift. Generations of Catholics who embraced the modernizing tide sparked in the 1960s by Vatican II are increasingly giving way to religious conservatives who believe the church has been twisted by change, with the promise of eternal salvation replaced by guitar Masses, parish food pantries and casual indifference to church doctrine.
The shift, molded by plummeting church attendance, increasingly traditional priests and growing numbers of young Catholics searching for more orthodoxy, has reshaped parishes across the country, leaving them sometimes at odds with Pope Francis and much of the Catholic world.
No matter how much you might not wish to even consider it a possibility, it's becoming clear there is a disconnect between the US and Europe when it comes to the Catholic Church. The fact that in the UK it seems to be young men rather than young women (who are making up the majority of converts/reverts in Europe) who are attracted to the church suggests that the US influence might be holding more sway than the European influence.
The only piece of real data in the National Catholic Register is this: "Among 18- to 25-year-olds, 49 percent of women are nones, compared to just 46 percent of men.” A 3% difference in one age group for all Americans (not just Catholics) doesn't seem much to get agitated about.
The rest of the piece is polemic and vibes - which is fair enough as it's a comment piece.
There's some hard data, lots of anecdotes, and plenty of opinions.
Outside of this thread, I've not seen anyone disputing the fact that in the US more young men are converting/reverting to the Catholic Church than young women.
Outside this thread I've not seen anyone disputing the figures from the UK either although not nearly as many people have been writing about this over the last few years in the same way they have about the US.
Can we at least accept the figures from France saying that amongst the upsurge in adult baptisms, 63% of them are women? And that this is in line with what we would call 'normal' church attendance?
Anyway, here is Pope Francis' opinion about the church in the US. Unfortunately he doesn't use any data at all.
https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/pope-says-there-strong-reactionary-element-us-catholic-church
For the 63rd time, the issue is not that Gen Z is attracted to the Catholic Church.
Sorry I didn't think that you actually owned this thread. I posted a link to what I thought was an interesting article with regards to the subject of this thread, the late Pope Francis.
It wasn't in anyway in response to your comments and much more in connection to mefty's earlier remark concerning the recent increases in church attendance.
Calm down ffs, for someone who earlier inexplicably accused me of being defensive you are remarkably touchy and defensive.
What you said was "Well here's some plausible reasons why Catholic Church attendance among Gen Z might have increased"
Pray tell, what are the implausible reasons? Something other than what we have been discussing? If so maybe you should specify which implausible reasons you're thinking of so as to avoid confusion.
Anyway, this seems relevant and was published as I was typing the earlier comment:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/28/maga-catholics-vatican-pope-conclave
@ernielynch and @brucewee - can you stop every reply being about a dig to the other. It's pathetic, frankly, and really tedious for the rest of us (well, me, anyway) who are interested in the issues, but don't need you two slinging your handbags at each other all the time.
Ta.
What you said was "Well here's some plausible reasons why Catholic Church attendance among Gen Z might have increased"
Pray tell, what are the implausible reasons?
Blimey, you really like going round in circles, dontcha?
I am fully aware of what I said, obviously. To repeat, yet again, I had no idea of the increases in church attendance in recent years until mefty mentioned it a few days ago on this thread.
It is fair to say that I was extremely surprised. My initial reaction was the one which you might have expected...."Gosh, I wonder why that is?"
In the article linked above they discuss what to me sounds like plausible reasons for this, certainly with regards to the Catholic Church, and since it is connected to Pope Francis I thought it would be appropriate for this thread.
Did you want me to also provide some implausible reasons? Or are you simply annoyed that I posted the link about Gen Z's views on Pope Francis and just expect me to apologise?
@ernielynch and @brucewee - can you stop every reply being about a dig to the other. It's pathetic, frankly, and really tedious for the rest of us (well, me, anyway) who are interested in the issues, but don't need you two slinging your handbags at each other all the time.
Ta.
You know how to can see who last posted, how about not clicking if you aren't interested? There's loads of threads that I don't click on because I'm not interested.
But don't let that stop you from making a comment about Pope Francis 💡
I'm annoyed because I've been trying to have a discussion which you have been trying to derail.
I laid out my thinking as clearly as I could. I linked data where it was available, opinion pieces that showed people within the Church saying what i was saying, and I even linked to where the Pope voiced his concerns about the US Catholic Church.
When I asked you to read these links you just went, 'Nah, I'm good.'
If you had a difference of opinion on what I've been linking then that would be one thing. You are just flat out ignoring everything I'm posting and having sly and not-so-sly digs instead.
It's irritating.
You know how to can see who last posted, how about not clicking if you aren't interested? There's loads of threads that I don't click on because I'm not interested.
But don't let that stop you from making a comment about Pope Francis 💡
Yeah. There's no need to patronise me thankyou.
I don't have to comment to be interested in the thread.
I'd like to be able to read the thread, the different perspectives, the different links, without you two making it personal and having verbal scraps with each other every. Single. Post.
I'm annoyed because I've been trying to have a discussion which you have been trying to derail.
What on earth are you talking about? What discussion were you trying to have? This thread had been dormant for two days until I posted the link!
And how on earth did you come to the conclusion that I am "trying to derail" the thread by posting a link which was released today concerning Pope Francis's appeal to Gen Z.
It seems completely on track to me. Personal attacks I'm not so sure. Tell me what in this article is derailing the thread :
Anyway, here is Pope Francis' opinion about the church in the US. Unfortunately he doesn't use any data at all
TBF it's not the biggest thing that the Pope asks people to take on faith without providing hard evidence
What on earth are you talking about? What discussion were you trying to have? This thread had been dormant for two days until I posted the link!
We spent two days starting with Mefty going, 'Hallelujah, young people are coming back to the church!' and then me going, 'Are you sure they aren't coming to the Catholic Church because of Jordan Petersen.'
Throughout that discussion you flat out refused to read anything that was posted and kept posting the same, 'Jordan Petersen isn't even a Catholic and it's probably not young men anyway and [insert non-sequitur here]...' It was honestly impossible to even tell what you were objecting to because it was so random and mostly just an excuse to have a dig.
I've posted at least three links where practicing Catholics who are explaining why they are seeing an increase in young men in their own congregations have directly referenced Jordan Petersen as being a factor.
And that's without going into all the links about Catholic culture in the US.
You chose to ignore all these and then have yet another wee dig with you 'plausible explanation' comment. Conveniently with plausible deniability.
You are either in the discussion or you are not. If you are not then let us know and stop responding to me at all. Every time you respond to me I just assume it's because you want to be part of this discussion.
If you just want to post your own links that have nothing to do with the discussion the rest of us are having then go right ahead. However, if you choose to post links that are very closely related to the conversation you have apparently not been involved in for several pages then you have to expect people to assume you are trying to be part of the discussion.
So, are you in or out?