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.
I don't know why, but Polish people are the most religious community I know here.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.