Forum menu
Oh and I counted the number of clearly males/females in my photos of the congregation in Notre Dame. 3 more females than males.
Oh and I counted the number of clearly males/females in my photos of the congregation in Notre Dame. 3 more females than males.
Ah, well, that changes everything. Case closed.
Do yourself a favour and whatever you do, don't type 'Gen Z men church attendance' into google.
..by some bloke two thousand years ago.
... allegedly.
It's amusing that some posters here will reject the NT as uncertainly inaccurate, yet have dogmatic faith about what happened many years prior to the rise of Christianity.
Maybe it's because of the contradictions and obviously ridiculous things in the Bible (like wearing mixed fibres) that people ended up having to interpret and filter it, which demanded a more open minded approach, at least in many cases.
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. Your "obviously ridiculous" may well be obviously ridiculous today, but it obviously wasn't obviously ridiculous at some point in the past or it wouldn't have been included in there in the first place.
You what? My claim? I've made no such claim, you people have absolutely shocking reading comprehension.
Of course its everyone else. It couldnt possibly be you could it? For someone demanding civil debate you could possibly try it yourself.
Lets take your claims
In China the protests against bad Emperors were along the lines of 'you aren't doing your job properly' - i.e. you still have the divine right to rule over us but you're not holding up your end of the bargain therefore you're not doing what the heavens ordained you to do.
Well aside from the counter arguments dating back to 200bc. So a rather strong fail there.
In Europe this right was called into question, because all are equal before God.
This is highly debatable. A lot of the arguments were more people not liking the particular brand of god the monarch was pushing which obviously gave issues with the divine right.
Of course the Church, being a human institution, becomes powerful and greedy, but there are always people protesting against it - Martin Luther uses these ideas to start the Reformation
This seems to be claiming that Luther was against the divine right of kings which wasnt the case. He was pretty strongly pro aristocracy and really didnt like the peasants getting ideas.
The divine right of kings was really doubled down on after the reformation FFS. It doesnt for obvious reasons play that well with Roman Catholicism.
Get multiple authors from STW together today to write about the same events and you might find a few discrepancies about what happened even last year. The devil is in the detail. That we're arguing about it today says it's stood the test of time pretty well.
There's then a chicken and egg thing. Are the things we're debating down to the influence of the Bible and its sequel the Quran on current society or are some things intrinsic to human thinking in a genetically programmed sort of way. To be arguing about the morality of homosexuality 3400 years on says something about human nature but I'm not sure what.
As for Google, Bruce Wee, like Facebook it seems to think I'm an RN supporting right wing racist nut job despite my searches mainly being at the other end of the spectrum. Facebook is convinced I want to read about Marion Marechal le Pen, I don't. Google will produce whatever Sundar Pichai wants me to read about Gen Z and churchgoing - the algorithms are feeding your thoughts. I have far more faith in what I observe with my own eyes than what Zuckerberg or Sundar Pichai feed me. You really think my observations are merely anecdote and less reliable than Google promoted articles? Go to church yourself and tell us what you expereince.
You can draw your own conclusions. All sounds a bit like Western liberalism, doesn't it?
And then we run, once again, into the problem of saying Europe is based on Christianity morality if people get to pick and choose what they want coming out with massively differing interpretations.
Then, to start namedropping philosophers, its like Leo Strauss and his argument you should read some philosophers work bearing in mind that since they liked important parts of their bodies still attached their texts might mask what they really think.
Probably right for Maimonides, although there is the challenge of whether the reading is right, but runs into issues for some other philosophers if you tried the same.
Maybe it's because of the contradictions and obviously ridiculous things in the Bible (like wearing mixed fibres)
When you look at many of those rules they probably did have a reason, good or otherwise, behind them which has been lost in the midst of time.
England had a rule that burial shrouds should be made of wool for about 150 years. Write the holy text at the right time and it might have become a firm religious law. Reason was commercial in an attempt to help out the wool trade but a thousand years later who would know.
In Mongolia some of their religions had rules/beliefs about marmots which basically said stay well away from them. Those have a really good reason namely the risk of the plague. Mongolia has backed up those religious laws with secular ones saying the same thing but giving the reason why.
To be arguing about the morality of homosexuality 3400 years on says something about human nature but I'm not sure what.
Many people are idiots?
In Europe this right was called into question, because all are equal before God.
This is highly debatable.
Which part? That the right was called into question, or that all are equal under god?
Which part? That the right was called into question,
The divine right. The latter is pushing it a tad as well but sticking to the rather simple stuff.
Many people are idiots?
That would be too charitable, I suspect it's something darker.
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
I think it is actually just you who has been suggesting for the last page or so that the increase in Catholic church attendance is likely to be linked to two non-Catholics, Petersen and Tate.
Tbh until mefty mentioned it on this thread I had no idea that church attendance had increased significantly in recent years. It surprises me greatly and I don't know the reasons but I would imagine that are multiple reasons, not just one single reason.
I think immigration is indeed probably likely to be a contributing factor along with a whole lot of others. But as you point out this increase in church attendance isn't solely limited to the UK. Which makes me consider another plausible reason which you ironically appear to have dismissed out of hand, and one which has had a global significant, certainly with regards to the Catholic Church, the Pope Francis effect.
I don't know about you but I have certainly heard quite a few both nonbelievers and lapsed Catholics, especially in political circles, talk highly of Pope Francis.
Despite you appearing to want to focus solely on Gen Z not all the increase in Catholic Church attendance appears to be among them, but I can understand how Pope Francis's strong commitment to social justice is likely to have struck a chord with them, young people tend to have strong views on social justice.
Whilst he might well have received significant disapproval from the likes of American conservative Catholics Pope Francis's appeal was very widespread, even among many Muslims.
And certainly the increase in Catholic Church attendance does seem to strongly tie in with his time as Pope.
Go to church yourself and tell us what you expereince.
So we all go to church and then extrapolate our experience to the rest of the World? And then base our arguments on that extrapolation?
I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, Bluesky, or any other social media account. Apart from this one.
If you are worried about the algorithm feeding you what it thinks you want to hear then can I suggest duckduckgo.
Tbh until mefty mentioned it on this thread I had no idea that church attendance had increased significantly in recent years. It surprises me greatly and I don't know the reasons but I would imagine that are multiple reasons, not just one single reason.
All of this ☝ right here.
Christ. First the pope dies, now I'm agreeing with Ernie. It'll be locusts next. 😁
I think it is actually just you who has been suggesting for the last page or so that the increase in Catholic church attendance is likely to be linked to two non-Catholics, Petersen and Tate.
Actually, I pointed out this Gen Z men thing which is actually pretty unprecedented. I offered explanations that I had read and asked if anyone else had any alternative explanations.
I listened to the immigration argument but I also pointed out that it can't be tied to a single country so immigration is unlikely to be the only cause. It could obviously be a factor but doesn't explain the gender split.
This is what I have been saying is happening based on articles going back the last couple of years:
- Gen Z men are, for the first time since this information has been recorded, going to church more than Gen Z women.
- They seem to be particularly attracted to the Catholic church in the UK, while in the US it is Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. In Australia it again seems to be mostly Catholicism. Possibly if you started searching you might find similar data in other countries.
- Various opinion pieces, both from within and outside the church, have said this may be related to the manosphere and crisis of masculinity somehow. Whether that is true or not or if it is an indirect relation is not clear.
I think search engines are a better way of researching these things but if you want to count the number of faces you see next time you got to church and use that as the basis of whatever argument you are trying to make (honestly, you are being so defensive it's difficult to figure out what your point is) then you go ahead.
I Use mainly Brave, Quant and DuckDuckGo. 🙂 and Google. 🙁 There are differences in what they promote and also what they censor.
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