Germany's Vanishing Monasteries
spiegel.de
spiegel.de
Think about it, monastic life really was and is monastic. It included many hours of prayers and other contemplative practices (and other minor inconveniences like celibacy). Yes, there was great variance in different orders, but many people (if not most) chose this life because they were true believers. The only way to prepare them for this life was that the church as a whole was universally present so that monasticism became just one option between many different ones within the church, albeit a quite intense one.
First, monks were not the only men to live and work in monasteries. There were many "sub-ranks" (for instance "frère convers" in French, someone that shared most of their life without taking the religious vow) as well as external workers (for centuries, many monasteries had vast domains where monks ruled over peasants, at various degrees).
Then, becoming a monk was a social ascension for many. This was still true a few decades ago. My peasant grand-mother had ten children over twenty years, and the only ones who did not stop their studies early, were the three boys who wanted to become priests. The will to study and to change their way of life was a strong incentive. Times changed, and they all found other ways.
It was a good option that provided education, stability, potentially a source of power, and was a prestigious path to go.
I think in modern times we sometimes see the church as this side organization, but in the past it was its own industry of sorts and central to life, economics, education, prestige, potentially power.
We can try turning old monasteries into concents à la Neal Stephenson's Anathem. People can go for a year in a unarian math to just study. Maybe a four consecutive years in such a math get equivalent recognition to a university degree. Whether it is the traditional monastic discipline or the Cartasian discipline, the required basic infrastructure is probably similar. Jeejahs stay outside, of course.
Particularly determined professors can populate a decennarian, maybe even a centenarian. Also, isn't there only about 9 years before our scheduled visit by the Icosahedron?
I also know my neighbors and I'm friendly with them.
Also such stories exists
The peace you feel when in one and the sinking feeling going back into "the world" are both experiences everyone should have.
We stayed in one in Italy recently, south of Napoli. It was like a very, very quiet hotel with a peaceful garden and a resident cat. I'd have happily stayed longer. I was also in one last year in Belgium, it was part of a larger church establishment but the location was so central it was like staying in a nice hotel. Again - quiet. Both were without luxuries of a 4 star hotel but very well appointed and with excellent breakfasts, and locations.
The cat is a great selling point. They should make sure to point that out on their webpage; it'd be a bonus point for me.
I stayed at an AirBnB residence in Germany when I traveled there, and they had a bunch of cats. Getting to talk to a local, and have cats around, was a nice experience.
>Both were without luxuries of a 4 star hotel but very well appointed and with excellent breakfasts, and locations.
4-star hotels don't have cats, so that's a negative when comparing them to places like this.
By the way, monasteries existed long before the Benedict order, and other orders existed in parallel. Some monasteries did not welcome visitors, especially women and couples.
You're making this seem misogynistic, but indeed, typically female monasteries were not (and are still not) open to men.
You're not wrong I was incomplete in my previous statement. Monasteries would often try to render assistance to the exceptionally needy, but have historically operated as regular inns only for those who could stay within the convent walls. This was basically restricted by sex. Even today, if you're going to do a retreat at a monastery, couples typically would have to stay away from the cloister (many monasteries - but not all - offering retreats typically have a separate house for these individuals, a short distance from the main cloister). Only single men would be permitted into a male monastery (behind the cloister for the night) and single women to a female one.
Re the paying stuff. As far as I'm aware (and I've researched a few monasteries in my area and know several monks), the payment is a suggested donation, not a requirement. Of course, that's my own anecdata. I would be interested in knowing if there is a monastery charging for the actual stay, because typically they're not supposed to.
As someone who spent a decade in depression and near the edge of suicide, there are two things I ask people to try before killing themselves.
1) A silent retreat 2) An Ayahuasca ceremony
Those two things helped more than years of therapy and anti-depressants.
A pretty intense exercise regimen also helped me out a lot, but its hard to get someone to pick that over death when they are close to the edge so I don't include it.
I don't believe there is anything mystical benefit to Ayahuasca, although the psychedelic element can definitely fuel your creativity if you want it to.
But certain drugs appear to have long-lasting effects on mental states, even if they aren't administered daily. Ketamine is another drug that shows promise in this area. There needs to be real studies around this, but in my experience the 2 day session is highly effective for at least a year afterward.
Here they have diversified in a number of directions. There is a school, an old folks home, and a hotel. The picturesque location, combined with the historic buildings makes all these quite competitive, and successful. I'd go so far as to say the church here is thriving despite the declining popularity of dedicating your life to it.
Maintaining churches, monasteries and church operated services is almost never about finances.
- School: Germany mostly has public schools. If you have operated a private school for a few years, you can apply for subsidy. You will receive roughly the amount per pupil that would otherwise be needed to fund the pupil's place at a public school. So this is more or less a zero-sum game for the state. All schools have to obey public school regulations (e.g., on curriculum and exams) regardless who operates them.
- Elderly home: there is no direct subsidy by the state. Germany has established a mandatory insurance ("Pflegeversicherung", nursing care insurance). This insurance will pay for nursing care, regardless who operates the elderly home.
- Hotel: no subsidy by the state at all.
Summarized, there exists no special deal by the state for church operated services, with respect to funding/subsidy.
About 70% of church revenues come from church tax (Kirchensteuer). This is about €9.2 billion (in 2010).
http://humanist.de/kirchensteuer/krankenhaeuser.html
Hospitals and elderly homes are NOT primarily financed by the insurance of their patients. Public hospitals are funded by the government. Church operated hospitals are funded by the government AND the church, with churches often paying the smaller share. Additionally churches themselves as public organisations receive public subsidies when providing public services, so even the money they do pay into operating these services partially comes from the state.
But in some cases the state literally subsidises the clergy directly:
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/spardebatte-staat... (€ 442 million paid for clergy wages based on a contract from 1803 that was meant to reimburse the Catholic church for lands that were claimed by the state to prop up the aristocracy -- note that this contract with no expiration date was between the Catholic Church and the German Empire, not modern Germany)
Also, "Germany mostly has public schools" -- yes, but child care is often operated by churches while being mostly funded publicly. Note that "Kindergärten" are often considered part of the school system (but definitions for pre-primary education are hazy so I admit I should have clarified).
The point is that the "special deal" church operated services get compared to regular public services is that they get to apply church law, which is uniquely privileged to override common labor protection and anti-discrimination laws. As a "user" they appear almost indistinguishable from non-church operated public services.
Since a recent court decision, this exemption is now quite limited (https://efarbeitsrecht.net/kirchliche-arbeitgeber/, unfortunately only in German).
No, the idea of a monastery is to dedicate yourself completely to God, and specifically the God of a specific religion.
Another purpose was to dump awkward heirs and spares in a primogeniture inheritance - certainly not an offically endorsed one - akin to a butcher's knife being meant for livestock and their products.
The "One" god of Christianity comes more from Neoplatonism than Judaism. The Neoplatonic Oneness, which was washed out in various times in Christian history, is fully commensurable with contemporary science. Oneness can be experienced as the common mystical experience of "we are all one, man!" But for Neoplatonists, it only made sense that the ineffable and impossible to fully understand "One" was the origin of the universe and the basis of divinity.
This notion of Oneness is different from typical conceptions of the one god as a person. It is not. To understand true, original Christianity, one must reject the idea of personhood -- god isn't a person (and actually, neither are we--it's just a useful illusion)
In a nutshell: in the beginning of time, there was the Oneness and the emanation from the Oneness, which was known as the Logos. It makes sense here to think big bang: the whole universe in a single point. But from there, the emanations, the logos built everything else. The emanations can return to the Oneness through the creation of new wholes and harmonies (think molecules, stars and solar systems -- onenesses made of parts). This wholeness/harmony is the source of divine goodness. Here's the Christian part: when a person believes in the Logos they have eternal life because they recognize that their life is part of the eternal Logos.
That's what Christianity was to early church fathers like Origen or Clement. I forgot to mention -- Jesus was described as the incarnation of the logos.
Fun fact: Logos is equivalent to "Dao" in Daoism.
So, How'd I do? Are you more open now to the mysteries of Christianity?
But Christianity implies certain ideas which are absolutely consequential, primarily that a certain historical person was the "Son of God" and that he literally rose from the dead. The idea that a single specific person could be God or the Son of God (as opposed to everybody else) is in direct opposition to any reasonable idea of God as "oneness".
But you are right, there is a bait-and-switch. I don't claim to describe the beliefs of current Christians, but ancient Christians, often of the near-heretical type (Origen was never sainted for a reason). Just keep in mind that there is no source of truth in Christianity. That's what all the wars were about! And no one was "right."
Early church fathers described Jesus as the Incarnation of the Logos ("the word made flesh", in highly misleading English translations).
And, the logos worldview meant that everything was an emanation of the oneness. So the logos/jesus lives in all of us.
"Son of God"=emanation of the One. See that? That is what son of God originally meant! See Philo of Alexandria for his judaeo-greco depiction of the logos as son of God in 10BC.
Rising from the dead... born of a virgin... Well, those are classic tropes in mystery religions. Fine for allegorical purposes.
It sounds quite compelling.
Wouter Hanugraff (read "western esoterism, a guide for the perplexed")
Shwep.net
Pythagorean Sourcebook
Oration on the dignity of man
Iamblicus
Origen
Plotinus
Philo of Alexandria
Many more. It is so fulfilling to read these old texts!
Check Perseus project for searching old texts.
Hence...
Note that there is no need to find the original interpretation (impossible), only an early, valid, and widespread interpretation. And whatever it is, it should provide spiritual meaning AND not conflict with empirical reality.
I would not treat Athanasius kindly, considering his role in the Arian heresy. But I'll check out his work.
Also, I don't mean to claim that Christianity "merely borrowed". Christian thought had a huge influence on Neoplatonism (Origen and Plotinus were schoolmates). I'm only saying that interpreting Christianity without Platonism is really missing out. (Platonism was actively removed from later Christianity, as it was seen as pagan.)
"Eastern Christian philosophy," or simply "Eastern Theology" really came into its own, and while it is absolutely valid to study Church writers in contrast and relationship to Neoplatonic philosophy, they developed their own tradition. Thus, parsing the logos tradition as if Origen, the Cappadocians, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, etc., were "philosophers" in their own right is actually quite a fruitful endeavor.
You might like shwep.net
I am a subscriber. He is a really good historian -- and interviews even better ones.
Also the book "Western Esoterism: a guide for the Perplexed".
Because this whole Oneness concept is right at the thumping heart of "the esoteric". There are real mysteries there, like you wouldn't believe. And, humanistic magic, I'm telling you!
I was interested in Advaita for a long time, and used to read Upanishads which expound about it. but recently I have come across a different school of thought, which calls this Oneness/Brahman/Nirvana as Self/I. Ramana Maharishi who died 70 years back was a recent proponent of it. but I have seen references to it from different cultures too, like the hebrew word YHWH meaning Self, and the Persian word for God "Khuda" meaning Self in Old Persian.
I recently came across Bernadette Roberts, who is a Catholic Nun, who seems to have not heard of the concept of Self from Advaita/Hinduism, but have reached to similar opinions about Self from her own contemplation/Prayers in her monastery. and in this video she explains it from her perspective as a Christian Mystic. She also has some books, which I haven't read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb5496uQ3lk
It's not hard, either. They just have to reject the idea that the Bible was written by God, which is farcical on the face of it. Then religion is about allegory, cultural traditions and having something to do with your kids on Sunday morning.
A substantial reduction in religious belief could explain away a large part of monastic decline.
But religion is indeed in decline in the West. Whether or not this is an argument against God's existence is more questionable.
It worked when praying for the world was largely accepted as having some effect. Nowadays thoughts and prayers doesn’t cut it for the general population.
In a way high level research institutes could be seen as the new monastries, with people shutting down in buildings everyday, searching for new truths that could benefit mankind.
Monasteries absolutely require participation in the group. Monks are not hermits, much of their activity is working for the monastery and interacting with other monks.
hrktb is quite right about the general principle of monasticism. Here's the start of the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on it [1]:
"Monasticism or monachism, literally the act of "dwelling alone" (Greek monos, monazein, monachos), has come to denote the mode of life pertaining to persons living in seclusion from the world, under religious vows and subject to a fixed rule, as monks, friars, nuns, or in general as religious. The basic idea of monasticism in all its varieties is seclusion or withdrawal from the world or society."
EDIT although in the entry on "monk" [2] there is considerably less certainty about the origin of the name and idea. Imagine your primary reference work being internally inconsistent like that! Can't imagine where these bible-bashers got that idea.
[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10459a.htm
[2] http://catholicencyclopedia.newadvent.com/cathen/10487b.htm
Living a monastic life has never been appealing to the broad population. But to say that an ascetic life devoted to introspection doesn't 'make sense' is misguided.
The modern world in predominately a sedentary lifestyle spent between a cube and a couch, interspersed with frenzies of gluttony, consumption and mindless distraction to stave off feeling of emptiness.
Nothing could make less sense.
One of the core tasks of the contemplative lifestyle (which can certainly be practiced outside of monasteries) is to be awakened from all of the things we think we need and desire. These are usually the things that the (societally constructed) ego needs to feel secure and comfortable - hence so many contemplative traditions stress the importance of "dying to yourself". This is not 'negative' or even necessarily introverted - in fact, dealing with the insecurities that you have inherited from the expectations of the society around you can make you comfortable both alone and with people. There is no need to impress anyone; no need to feel insecure or alone; you're at peace with yourself and the world.
The contemplative tradition has a lot to teach our world - no manner of scientific or technological progress is going to help us before we're comfortable with being ourselves.
That's the point. Living a life of reactivity to every change it the zeitgeist precludes peace.
> Nothing could make less sense.
Speak for yourself...
From a religious point of view, 'adapting' the core idea of what you believe to be Gods will might be seen as far worse than just quietly dying out with dignity.
there is a reason universities have 'faculties' (e.g. 'faculties' of the 'body of knowledge') and that key persons are called 'deans'
The rigid scheduling is an artifact of agrarianism in a quad-seasoned climate and the calender as it becomes essential to have the time aligned. Likewise in the past not being a farmer itself was essentially a luxury - prison without slavery was only affordable if you had a hostage whose ransom was worth far more.
While before they may have been a refugee of sorts for those to devote themselves to study while being socially acceptable and self-supporting.
The time for reforms was a century or more ago during industrialization - if they would want survival over purity having known the peril coming. Now I suspect the options are either accept their demise as inevitable but take all latecomers, half-hearted reforms which likely will fail to stop the death spiral or a "Neomonastic" which fundamentally be an imitation of the past by the present out of its context or contains a glimmer of the spirit - such as a collective living of Catholics who may or may not have children, which pools funds to maintain a working class standard of lifestyle but may make more as a result of being composed of mainly college educated professionals such as doctors.
Theoretically there may be a Neomonastic sort of movement which emerges on its own in another sphere but if they didn't emerge on their own already why not?
Because the core idea is dumb, the change is that more people with more access to knowledge about the world realize that, and monasteries are adapting by dying out.
Monasteries are basically communes. Great for people that have nothing, but more and more people actually have something even if it's "just" a smartphone.
In my Dutch town, there are churches that have been converted to hotels, a night club, several bicycle parkings, an award-winning bookshop that promptly went bankrupt, an indoor playground and a slew of restaurants. Others are just torn down. It seems the church has a preference for the last, but many of the expensive ones to maintain (i.e., the ones they want to get rid of first) are monuments and have to be preserved. There is one I can see from my window that has been under renovation for 20-something years; every couple of years there is a 'competition' to find someone with the best plan of what to do with it, and they never find anyone because a) it's a monument so you're very restricted in what modifications you can do with it; and b) it's very expensive to maintain (let alone renovate).
So yeah, whatever money they have remaining in art etc has been dumped into pretty much worthless property over the last decades. A few of the remaining nuns around my corner distribute a door to door church flyer once every few months (blissfully ignoring any 'no advertising' stickers on any mailbox, bless their hearts), and they report on the financial state of the parish in it every once in a while - judging from how excited they sound when they've collected a few 100 at a service that drew a large crowd, it's not all glitter and gold in the church (at the lower levels at least). Oh and another church around the corner (I have literally a dozen within a 1km radius from my house) sells christmas trees from their parking lot every year to keep the heating on - not exactly a sign of opulence either.
[0]This was only finished in 2004, and is the most disgustingly oppulent building I have ever seen:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazylika_Naj%C5%9Bwi%C4%99tsze...
You'd think all of this would turn people away from the church, but it doesn't seem that way - each church usually has to hold 4-5 masses every Sunday and for every one the church is full to the brim, with people standing outside because there's no more room in the church itself.
It does. Poland is one of the most rapidly secularizing countries in the world according to Pew.[1]
Also mass attendance is at the lowest point since 1980 (36% of Catholics attend mass) [2]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/9l3q03/polands_yout...
[2] https://natemat.pl/226659,tak-zle-z-kosciolem-w-polsce-jeszc...
I don't know why, but Polish people are the most religious community I know here.
Historical reasons basically.
For the most part of the past 200 years, Poles lacked their own independent country (first it was partitioned in 1795 by Russia, Prussia and Austria, then it gained indepenence in 1918 only to be again conquered by Soviet Union in 1945). During that time, Church and faith were one of the primary allowed (or at least tolerated by the occupants) expression of one's identity as a Pole - people were singing partiotic songs during masses, priests were leaders of the nationalist opposition (and frequently murdered for that) etc. Hence, historically Catholic Church means much more to Poles than to most other nations.
Nowadays though I would call it what it is - it's cancer growing unchecked on the Polish state. And I don't mean the religion - I mean the Catholic Church of Poland is constantly meddling in Politics, influencing new policies, Polish bishops are almost celebrities with a huge amount of wealth, the church does not pay taxes, they are one of the largest land owners in Poland....it's a frightening insitution that only seems to be growing in strength, you'd think young people would turn away from it, but with the current right-wing government literally saying that those who don't defend the church are not real Poles it's quite obvious what the party line is - either you are with the church or you are not welcome.
Here is one example in Knin, one of the poorest towns in the country.
> Situated at the site of an old bolt and screw factory, 3 million euros has been invested to construct the Gospe Velikog Hrvatskog Krsnog Zavjeta (Our Lady of the Great Croatian Baptismal Vow) Church in Knin (Šibenik-Knin County). The 1,024 square-metre Church will seat over 700 people when finished, making it Croatia’s largest Church.
https://www.croatiaweek.com/photos-building-on-biggest-churc...
Or look at this monstrosity in Split (15 million HRK, roughly 2 million EUR)
https://www.24sata.hr/news/novi-dom-skromnih-franjevaca-u-sp...
And lets not forget the luxurious episcopal conference palace covered with marble and onyx, with a cost of 16,5 million euros.
https://www.jutarnji.hr/Fotogalerije/najluksuznija-zgrada-cr...
In the meantime, cities can't even buy new buses without EU funds. It's disgraceful.
I'm guessing they would have no choice but to sell off property and land to pay their clergy?
In the UK lots of churches have either been converted to housing or commercial venues. It's really weird going to a kid's play center in an impressive old church but it happens:
Within the Catholic church, there is a traditionalist/conservative minority, who are growing basically through having a high birth rate – rejecting contraception and pre-marital sex, they tend to marry young and have lots of kids. Not all of those kids will follow in their parents' footsteps, but the majority of them probably will. Though these conservatives/traditionalists are a minority now, as the decades pass by their numbers will grow and grow, and may eventually grow to the point of no longer being a minority within Catholicism[1], but instead becoming the new majority. At that point, the decline may rebound into a new period of growth.
[1] a minority in wealthy countries like Germany. Leaving Catholicism in places like Africa out of the discussion, because the situation there is very different
Today those countries have some of the lowest birth rates in Europe, e.g. Spain and Italy[1] pretty much trail the pack. The data suggests that your hypothesis is false.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_European_U...
High birth rates are an important aspect of Orthodox demographics: They are the most reproductive of all Jews, and ultra-Orthodox communities have some of the highest rates in the world, with 6 children per an average household. Non-existent levels of intermarriage (unlike some liberal Jewish denominations, Orthodoxy vehemently opposes the phenomenon) also contribute to their growing share in the world's Jewish population. While American Orthodox are but 10% of all Jews, among children, their share rises immensely: An estimated 61% of Jewish children in New York belong to Orthodox households, 49% to ultra-Orthodox. Similar patterns are observed in Britain and other countries. With present trends sustained, Orthodox Jews are projected to numerically dominate British Jewry by 2031, and American Jewry by 2058.
However, their growth is balanced by large numbers of members leaving their communities and observant lifestyle. Among the 2013 PEW respondents, 17% of those under 30 who were raised Orthodox disaffiliated (in earlier generations, this trend was far more prevalent, and 77% of those over 65 left). It is estimated that over 20% of those raised religious Zionist in Israel disaffiliate, and greater numbers adopt a secularized lifestyle and define themselves as "living on the spectrum (of religion)". Loose observance among young adults is common even when they retain formal affiliation.
And should big families in Catholic-majority countries 100-200 years ago be attributed to Catholicism? Well, other countries, with completely different religious beliefs (e.g. Muslim-majority countries, India, China) also had big families. Most people back then, whatever their religion was, had big families due to primitive contraceptive technology, high infant mortality, economic value of child labour, less years spent in education, lack of educational and career opportunities for women, etc. Nowadays, there is a correlation between religiosity and family size, but that link is historically novel; for most of human history, the devout and the non-devout had big families alike.
It's interesting that religion has remained relevant for many whose lives today match what you describe. This isn't to blame religion for those problems, but it doubtless plays a role as both cause and effect, especially when the state is unable or unwilling to provide an adequate level of life security for the populace.
With the growing educational opportunity of catholic women, many decided to not have large families. Many people believe that this trend will continue. In my experience however it will not. The traditionalist Catholics tend to be more highly educated than their laxer counterparts. The women are educated but have rejected their mothers desire to put work ahead of family.
I think the sudden decline in catholic family size is mainly due to the suddenness of the changes to educational possibility for men and women and the rapid industrialization the world experienced in the past century. However we're at the tail end of that and educated catholicd are no longer making the same choices as their parents. I think this demographic effect will be a short blip in the history of the church.
Speaking from my own experience as a rather traditional catholic (we dont use contraception and dont plan on it which puts us firmly in the crazy category according to most), all our friends and their wives who are also forgoing contraception and are planning for large families are highly educated. We are graduates from top schools. Mothers often have advanced degrees in stem subjects. Others are actually working towards their doctorates. Still want kids and as many as God gives.
This is my experience in the san Francisco bay area and the fact that there are so many traditional catholics here in the knowledge sector despite the bay areas reputation of ireligiosity is telling. Catholics are quite a cosmopolitan bunch as well and we get quite a few international catholics popping through (including many from spain) and i think the trend checks out -- even among the Spanish catbolics, the highly educated ones are more likely to be traditional
Projections in pop-culture religious affiliation seem to make the argument of a christian fundamental majority kind of doubtful, even in the long run, there's still plenty of people in the church. Even though I'd guess a large part of those only visit church on christmas and maybe easter. Source: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/701006/umfrag...
There is a connection: people who have five, six, seven kids, tend to be less upset when one or two of those children chooses a celibate lifestyle (like a monastery), than parents with only one or two children tend to be. In the later case, there can be a great reduction in the odds of having grandchildren (and their number); the reduction in the former case is more modest.
Also, traditionalist Catholics tend to value celibacy, whereas Catholics at the more secular/progressive end tend to view it as a relic of a bygone age. So if Catholicism became majority traditional, the attitude of the "average" Catholic towards celibate religious orders may become much more positive, and their membership might experience a rebound.
What is the attrition rate for traditionalist/conservative Catholics? I don't know. I have seen some figures given for traditionalist/conservative groups of other faiths. [1] suggests the attrition rate for ultra-Orthodox Jews is 20-25%; the ultra-Orthodox birth rate is so high, they are still growing exponentially even if 25% of their children leave. (Most of those will move to less religiously demanding forms of Judaism–Modern Orthodoxy, Conservative/Masorti, Reform–rather than leave the Jewish religion altogether.) Similarly, the Amish have a retention rate of around 85% [2].
For the ultra-Orthodox Jews and the Amish, there are certain barriers to leaving (lack of secular education, limited English skills due to using Yiddish or Pennsylvania German as their main language), for which traditionalist Catholics don't have anything similar. But, I think traditionalist parents try hard to pass on their religious outlook to their children; they don't always succeed, but they probably do have more success than many lukewarm religious parents who aren't trying very hard. Some of them run their own schools–mainstream Catholic schools tend to be moderate-to-progressive in outlook, but there are Catholic schools affiliated to groups like Opus Dei and SSPX who are very conservative–which helps imprint their mindset on to their children (it won't stick with all of them, but to sustain their high growth rate, it isn't necessary that it sticks with them all). I also think that conservative religious groups who aren't as socially isolated as the Amish and the ultra-Orthodox Jews will of necessity tend to build up counter-narratives and memorised counter-arguments (whether or not those arguments are sound) to secular progressive modernity, which does give them some degree of "memetic immunity", and some of their children will culturally inherit that "memetic immunity".
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
[2] http://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/frequently-asked-questi...
The area I'm in now was built up before cars were commonplace - implication being churches built closely enough to be within walking distance. Flash forward a century, and the situation is a combination of fewer people attending churches and more ability for those that do to travel. There are also more competing interests for people's time, so there's less ability and desire for parishioners to engage in volunteer activities at churches. Attending church on Sunday morning might mean missing a little league game and attending a work day at the parish might mean missing a school event or similar. (With fewer activities centered around church than before, there's more opportunity for schedule contention that the churches often lose.)
What this means for an individual parish is that there are fewer resources available for maintaining an aging and likely historic building. There are fewer people committing money to the church and fewer people able to volunteer work at the church.
The flip side of this is that there are also fewer practical reasons to maintain an old church. Shutting down a church with 50 people in weekly attendance is easier than shutting down a church with 300 people in attendance. The trouble with this line of reasoning is that it papers over some of the more sentimental reasons for keeping a parish running. Those 50 remaining folks are also the people most likely to have a strong connection to the parish... or they'd have already left. So individual parishes can have more inertia to stay open than you might expect.
Moving up to the diocese level, a parish shutting down can transfer many of the funding/transport issues from the parish to the diocese. The diocese, which may have problems of its own, now has additional burdens to take on as it both loses revenue (from parish remittances) and gains expenses. This implies a potentially strong incentive for a diocese to sell off old properties.
The trouble with a sale is the large number of stakeholders that might be opposed to such a sale. Never underestimate the difficulties that can be thrown up by 'interested parties'. Shutting down a parish can easily involve current and former parishoners, the diocese level, local planning/zoning boards, historical building regulations... the list goes on and on. (And you still have to find a developer with the intent, resources, and ability to take on the property and turn it into something the community wants.)
The reason I go down this path is mainly to illustrate that the notion of churches as pools of free resources is somewhat dubious at best. Whatever resources are there are not only special purpose to begin with, but also can sequestered behind history, regulation, and interests that are difficult to overcome.
If you just want a hostel / retreat, many monasteries already provide that service through their guest-houses.
I think it would be way more interesting and useful to be able to actually be part of the community save for the religious part: taking part in the preparation and work, and be able to engage in one's secular activity (study, projects, reading, …) during the periods where monks engage in religious activities. Of course the issue with that is there is little incentive for churches to subsidise such inviduals (unlike even the lay brothers of old).
On guy even made a movie, "Into Great Silence"
Is there anything weird about this? Entire life is a pretty hefty price to pay, what needs to be changed is religion itself, if it wants to find more new believers to keep itself from disappearing.
It is of course complete conjecture, although more and more info is coming out on the "homosexual lobby" in the Vatican.
lukewarm religions are dying out. It's atheism or a religion that makes demands -- and the atheists are not reproducing.
Living in a monasteries is strongly coupled with a long and healthy life.
Most nuns look at least 10 years younger than they are.
Was the contradiction between these two sentences an actually intended stylistic device ("retreat from technology" vs. "proper online marketing")?
I live in a German population center with many many mosques and it affects me in exactly zero ways. I know _no one_ who regularly visits a mosque, let alone trying to convince others to join.
We have religious freedom in our constitution. Aside from some stupidly minor exceptions, Germans aren't somehow converting to Islam. They are leaving religion in general.
Glad you are not affected.
I think this should be applied to the cloisters, too. I look at some of these 800 year old buildings and marvel at what they could provide, in terms of startup-hub scene.