amk1999
03.10.05, 20:03
Dlaczego ogromną różnicą jest to że w USA niedobory, notabene dużo mniejsze,
demograficzne wypełniają katoliccy Latynosi a w Europie muzułmanie,
The very positive reviews of The Cube and the Cathedral, George Weigel’s new
book, are, I believe, richly deserved (Basic Books, 202 pp., $23). The book
is a greatly expanded version of Weigel’s essay, “Europe’s Problem—and Ours”
(FT February 2004). The “cube” in the title is La Grande Arche de la Défense
in Paris, and the “cathedral” is Notre Dame, which, it is said, can fit into
the Arche, much as Christianity has disappeared from the sight of most
western Europeans. Europe is dying, and the root cause (for those fond of
that phrase) is its abandonment of Christian faith. The rise of atheistic
humanism in the nineteenth century and, along with it, a militant secularism,
explain such things as the European Union’s inability to even acknowledge its
Christian heritage in its cumbersomely contrived, and now rejected,
constitution. The demographic death of Europe is particularly striking, and
we have paid frequent attention to that in these pages. America’s declining
birth rate is worrying, and would be much more worrying without Hispanic
immigration, but Europe’s decline is catastrophic, and is compounded by the
surging Muslim population. A sociologist friend tells me, “Weigel is wrong to
say you can’t have a decent society without religion. European societies—
Germany, France, Scandinavia—are decent in many ways. They may be flatulent
and decadent, but they are not barbarous.” My friend also discounts the
religion factor in the demographic crisis. “The big factor here,” he
says, “is affluence, not the absence of religion. Children are very
expensive, and they are viewed as an accessory rather than as an asset.” Yes
but, one may suggest that viewing children as an accessory rather than in
terms of gift and duty is precisely a consequence of what Weigel
calls “metaphysical boredom.” Couples are consumers of time and opportunity,
not participants in a history for which they bear responsibility. People
think of themselves as the last generation, and live as they think. One is
reminded of P.D. James’ chilling novel The Children of Men, which begins with
the line, “Early this morning, 1 January 2021, three minutes after midnight,
the last human being to be born on earth was killed in a pub brawl.” Living
without hope has consequences. “In the long run, we’re all dead,” observed
John Maynard Keynes in the world-weariness of his sterile sexual
proclivities. Having children is an act of hope, which is faith disposed
toward the future. Without an anticipated future, there are no children;
without children there is no future to anticipate. Affluence is, I expect,
less the reason for no children than it is the attempted substitute for
children, which is to say the attempted substitute for hope. With respect for
my sociological friend, I’m on Weigel’s side on this one.
