You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Europe
Demographics catch up to Italy
2010-09-24
ROME, September 22, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Europe will grow more "Islamicized" if Christian Europeans do not start having more children, and going back to Church, a senior Vatican official said this month. Msgr. Piero Gheddo, a famous missionary and an official with the Vatican's Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions, told Zenit news service that Europe's indigenous inhabitants have abandoned Christianity and are becoming "paganized."

"The fact is that, as a people, we are becoming ever more pagan and the religious vacuum is inevitably filled by other proposals and religious forces," said Msgr. Gheddo, who founded AsiaNews, the Christian missionary news service. As religious practice diminishes in Christian Europe, "indifference spreads; Christianity and the Church are attacked."

"If we consider ourselves a Christian country, we should return to the practice of Christian life, which would also solve the problem of empty cradles."
Mark Steyn pointed this out previously: remember the Norman Rockwell styled painting of the big Italian families around the dinner table? The many children, grandma and grandpa ready to tuck into the pasta, the beaming mother, the proud father, the cousins, etc?

It's a myth today. The only way to have a dinner like that is to hire movie extras.

Italians, for reasons of secularism, despair, and apathy, aren't bothering to have families. It's all about self-fulfillment. That's nice but at some point you either believe that you have a society and culture worth perpetuating, or you don't.

The Italians don't.
Msgr. Gheddo pointed to demographic statistics showing that the population of native Italians is decreasing by 120,000 or 130,000 a year "because of abortion and broken families." At the same time, 200,000 legal immigrants a year are moving into Italy. More than half of these, he said, are Muslims who continue to have the large families that Italians now eschew.

"Newspapers and television programs never speak of this," he said. "However, an answer must be given above all in the religious and cultural fields and in the area of identity."
Newspapers won't speak of it indeed -- first, the reporters and editors agree that Italian culture and society aren't worth perpetuating, and second, they themselves have both into the current apathy. They're likely to be childless or with one and only one child. It's not a surprise. To speak of it also raises the risk of going outside the 'narrative' (being un-PC if you will) -- the narrative of "West, bad, all other cultures, good". One can't do that and work in the MSM.
Msgr. Gheddo was responding to the taunts of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who angered many on a recent official visit to Italy when he said that Europe should convert to Islam. He gave a lecture to 500 young women, who had been paid to attend, in which he urged them to convert and offered to find them Muslim husbands in Libya.
And jobs as bodyguards ...
The comments were denounced by Archbishop Robert Sarah, secretary of the Vatican Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, who called them a "provocation."
The good bishop is just being a neanderthal, backward, bigot. He'll be re-educated in the near future.
But Msgr. Gheddo warned that the provocation could well have been a mere prediction.

"No newspaper -- except Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian Episcopal Conference -- has seriously taken into consideration how to respond to this challenge of Islam, which sooner or later will conquer the majority in Europe," he said.
Islam is just one facet of the challenge -- there will be a vacuum in Europe, and that vacuum will be filled. If the Huns and Visigoths were still around and heading east from the steppes of Asia, they would be the ones to fill that vacuum, and western cities would once again be sacked. Instead the pressure will come from Africa. Most, but not all, of the people who move into Europe will be Muslims. That 'most' will be enough to create a Eurabia.

But the fundamental challenge is whether Europeans, as they presently are, believe that they have a culture worth preserving, nurturing and carrying forward into the next several generations. It's an open question, and many Europeans would point to their history over the past millennium, particularly the 20th century, and respond in the negative.
Recent surveys conducted in Italy by local Catholic dioceses have found that the much-quoted number of Italians claiming to attend Mass weekly, 30 percent, can be deceptive. In Venice, it was discovered that the number of those actually attending is closer to 18 percent, and the numbers drop dramatically among younger Italians.
Young Italians haven't been nurtured in the Church -- indeed, they haven't been nurtured in much of any belief at all except the usual socialistic garbage that's been proffered the last fifty years. It's no wonder that they're not inclined to attend Church and have little in the way of fixed beliefs. Qaddafi is unfortunately right in one way: he understands that when the battle is between something and nothing, something almost always wins. In this case the something is Islam, which offers people something to believe, versus secularism, which offers nothing.
Although the Italian birth rate has crept up in recent years, from being the lowest in Europe at 1.2 children per woman, it still sits at only 1.31, a level sometimes referred to by demographers as the "death spiral," in which a society's population will inevitably begin to shrink.

Piero Gheddo is the author of over 80 books on the conditions of people in the developing world, with the first being published in 1956. In a recent blog post, Fr. Gheddo, who refers to himself as a "missionary journalist," decried the closure of Christian youth facilities and churches and the deterioration of schools and family life due to high Italian divorce rates.

What, he asks, has the "so-called 'secular morality' thing" done for young people?

"It replaced the [Church-run youth facilities] with the clubs that many call centers of distribution of alcohol and drugs." Secularism has created a culture in which teenagers run wild, a new phenomenon in Italy. The culture promoted in these clubs, he said, is one in which "perversion and chaos and spiritual emptiness reign supreme."
That's the nothing-ness of current socialism and secularism. We've created a void.
"Drugs, alcohol, free sex and psychedelic music for hours at high volume are some 'diversions' that kids seek and find allowed in these places, which are sometimes encouraged and financed by local governments."

"All this is the fruit of our civilization ever more distant from God and then from the education of young people."
One need not be a Christian, or a European, to find the trend of Europe, socialism and secularism profoundly disturbing. It is what the progressive Left would do to the United States, and indeed, it's very much along the lines of what our present administration would like to advance.

Secularism and socialism can't offer a life that can answer fundamental questions in peoples' souls. Whether a secular, socialist society dies in war and apocalypse or whether dies in a demographic whimper, die it will.
Posted by:Steve White

#20  Oh, and what rammer said. Although the cost of tertiary education and music lessons and Hebrew School have definitely gone up, but those are optional.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-09-24 23:29  

#19  Israel - exluding the Haredis who do little else but have children while getting handouts, Jewish birthrate quite low

Gaz, the last time I read something about that, the Jews of Israel had birthrates resembling where they (or their ancestors) had come from. It's not just the Haredis who have high birthrates, but the Jews from Arab and African countries, and also the Settlers, who are mostly Modern Orthodox, as far as I can tell -- at least they eagerly send their children to do their Army service. Or did I miss something?
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-09-24 23:27  

#18  maybe an extra kid or two

by different spouses seems to be the trend, ensuring variegated results and almost unanimous animosity between and betwixt the various parent-child-step-monster members spiced up with legal battles. Oh joy, I think a cyanide pill when Im ninety sounds more feasible.
Posted by: Ding a dang ding    2010-09-24 23:23  

#17  It's going to be an interesting dynamic when Social Security et al go down and the unmotivated unemployed kids eat through their parents capital and will find that they now have to support mom and dad. Mom and dad probably will discover that maybe an extra kid or two would have provided better options for long term support.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-09-24 23:10  

#16  It's nothing to do with Christianity, it's a global trend.

Israel - exluding the Haredis who do little else but have children while getting handouts, Jewish birthrate quite low

Japan - overwhelmingly Shinto/Buddhist - massively low birth rate, aging population

Russia - Orthodox Christian - population already declining

India - The wealthiest and most developed states in India already have birthrates at or below replacement level, all the population growth is coming from the poorest states in India like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

Even the more Urban/educated Muslim countries like Iran and Algeria are recording massive drops in birth rates in just the last couple decades.
Posted by: Gaz   2010-09-24 23:09  

#15  well, when our 2nd was born, it didn't cost us any more to live than it did before the wife was preggers... we still spent almost everything we made and didn't have much extra to show at the end of the month - same as all our childless friends.

the difference is that we spent more on what we needed instead of just blowing it on shiny objects and toys for ourselves. the eating out almost every night took a hit too.

somewhere along the way we learned to save and squirrel away some of the booty.

our single and childless friends still blow it all and live check to check. i would say that not having kids is costing them.
Posted by: Abu do you love   2010-09-24 21:36  

#14  Christ almighty, you better hope you hit the lotto!

Or be in a union.
Posted by: Pappy   2010-09-24 21:33  

#13  Oh please, the cost of raising children is now is much lower than when I was young and I'm not that old.

The price of clothes, shoes, and food is less than ever. Shirts and shoes are less than $10; pants $20. A decent outfit can be purchased for under a 100 bucks. It cost me $200 to buy a crappy suit for my College visits, and when I moved to campus I took all of my clothes, which filled less then half a closet.

Food is even less. 50# of rice less than $20. A gallon of milk has been $3 for thirty years. A loaf of bread can be made for a quarter's worth of ingredients. The microwave and dish washer creates time that was not available in the past.

Transportation costs so much less. Gas was over a dollar a gallon and my truck with 60k miles used three times more than my car with 200k miles does now. Good tires lasted 20k miles, versus 80k today. I can't even imagine how much money is not being spent repairing modern vehicles that we had to spend in the past.

The marginal cost of buying or renting in a decent school district vs a crappy one is a cost, but not more than in the past.

There is no comparison to the Commodore 64 computer that I bought for $200 30 years back vs last month's $200 netbook.

Are there lots of ways to blow your pay on expensive stuff. Ipods, restaurants, designer jeans, gaming systems. Sure. Choose not to.
Posted by: rammer   2010-09-24 21:26  

#12  It has little to do with going to church.
How the hell are you supposed to feed and cloth and educate 8 kids in this day and age? A 4 or 5 bedroom house to house them in a decent neighborhood? Shoes and clothes and school supplies?
Christ almighty, you better hope you hit the lotto!
Posted by: bigjim-CA   2010-09-24 19:55  

#11  Paul D., we on the far side of the pond hope the Tories will act to reduce the number on the dole. Let us know how that goes, 'k?
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-09-24 19:21  

#10  I think of having a kid as a leap of faith. Faith in God, faith in one's self and faith in your spouse (I said spouse, not partner). Question is: Do you have faith?
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2010-09-24 19:16  

#9  TW

I wish i could say it was only the muslim immigrants with the big families and unemployed.

Thanks to Labour we have become welfare heaven!

example-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485104/Half-single-mothers-want-work-says-report.html
Posted by: Paul D   2010-09-24 18:08  

#8  Paul D., responsible people chose to work, and arrange their lives to make use of the income. Why live in a council flat when one can afford something nicer, why live in a flat when one can afford to buy one's own house? People like us do not work in order to be able to live when, as you say, life on the dole is an alternative; people like us live as nice lives as the salary for the work we would do anyway allows. The only question is those foolish enough to live at the very edge or beyond their income, but even they would still be working anyway, since even they could easily quit their jobs and join the lotus eaters living in council flats on the dole.

Take joy in being someone who has chosen his own destiny. To do otherwise would be to destroy your soul.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-09-24 16:09  

#7  Drugs, alcohol, free sex and psychedelic music...

Typical lunch break for the UAW.
Posted by: Infidel   2010-09-24 15:59  

#6  TW

In UK it seems to be the unemployed families that have big families as the state pays extra for each kid.

Anyone with a mortgage have to work throughout their adulthood whilst people in social housing dont bother as their rent and council tax are paid for if they dont work!

Which one has the easier life?
Posted by: Paul D   2010-09-24 15:26  

#5  I was taught by my Parents that i should only have Children if i could afford them.

Holidays and entertainment cost so much these days, how can one afford to have children in addition, right?

It is repeated ad nauseum in the American press that it now costs about a quarter of a million dollars to rear an infant to adulthood, not including the cost of the necessary university education. This, of course, is bloody nonsense. It may well cost that much to rear the child in a certain standard of living that includes new designer sneakers, the matching iPod, and individual bedrooms in a McMansion in the suburbs, but careful shopping for what is now called 'vintage' clothing, an off-brand music thingy, and bunkbeds in a cozy house in decent school district will accomplish the same goals of amusement, shod feet, and a rain-free head at a considerably lower cost.
Posted by: trailing wife   2010-09-24 13:34  

#4  When nations reach a particular economic plateau, they universally drop their birthrate to between 2.1 and 2.3. It happens automatically.

However, government and culture can lower it much further, by putting increasing demands on potential parents. Often these are unintentional, trying to raise the living standard of children.

But the end result is the same. Every effort results in smaller families, and more people deciding to have no children at all.

On the US has ever, temporarily, come up with a way around this problem. It resulted in the baby boom after WWII, and required very specific criteria.

1) Men and women were kept apart (because of the war) until they had the strong goal to get married and have children. There was a strong social sanction against having children outside of marriage. No abortion, and little birth control.

2) Most employment was in new cities, with little recreation, and abundant housing and ob/gyn medical care. Men worked, women didn't. Both were bored. The new cities were family oriented, and there was a minimum of "non-breeding" adults in the area.

But, though the circumstances that brought about the baby boom were pretty much spontaneous, the US government then began a very determined program which stopped it in its tracks, and moved the nation back to a less-than-replacement demographic.

This involved encouraging women moving into the workforce while raising taxes to coerce them into the workforce, encouraging easy credit and materialism, providing abundant birth control, and then abortion.

The culture then provided abundant recreation and entertainment, sought to discourage "large" families, and encouraged "sexual freedom" as different from procreation.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2010-09-24 12:40  

#3  Having children (or declining to do so) is a political act.
Posted by: Iblis   2010-09-24 12:28  

#2  Italians, for reasons of secularism, despair, and apathy, aren't bothering to have families. It's all about self-fulfillment.

It's not just Italy, it's the West. Medical science's triumph over deadly complications of child birth and reduction of infant mortality coupled at the same time of the introduction of state support of the elderly removed the historical need for large families. Unintended consequences. Consider it social ecology in which fundamental aspects were altered with 'good intentions' but without fore thought of implications.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-09-24 12:13  

#1  I was taught by my Parents that i should only have Children if i could afford them.Muslims are taught to have as many as possible as to spread Islam and rob the West!
Posted by: Paul2   2010-09-24 12:02  

00:00