Montag, 7. September 2015

Urgent need for a more equal distribution of asylum seekers across Europe.


In order to measure the burden of asylum seekers for individual countries I use the following statistic: the annualized monthly rate of asylum applications per million inhabitants (AMAPMI).


AMAPMI = monthly asylum applications *12 / inhabitants (million)

Applying this formula to the latest data for the average of the second quarter of 2015 (asylum applications and population data downloaded from Eurostat website) gives the following rank order of AMAPMI by European country, both EU and outside EU, where data are available. 

The results show that the rank order of AMAPMI has barely changed, with Hungary, Germany, Austria and Sweden still carrying the greatest burden, while some large European countries like the UK carry a minimal burden. There is an urgent need for a more equal and just distribution of asylum seekers across Europe.




 
       

Montag, 15. Juni 2015

Asylum in Europe in Early 2015


For a while and because the public debate in Austria is dominated by this topic I have sought a way to compare the burden of asylum seekers on respective European countries in a simple statistic that is reactive to the fast changing trends in these numbers. I propose the following statistic: the annualized monthly rate of asylum applications per million inhabitants (AMAPMI).

AMAPMI = monthly asylum applications *12 / inhabitants (million)

Applying this formula to the latest data for the average of the first quarter of 2015 (asylum applications and population data downloaded from Eurostat website) gives the following rank order of AMAPMI by European country, both EU and outside EU, where data are available:

AMAPMI





AVG Q1 2015

1
Hungary
13,510


2
Sweden
5,511


3
Austria
4,857


4
Germany
4,140


5
Malta
3,784


6
Switzerland
2,258


7
Luxembourg
2,210


8
Cyprus
2,181


9
Belgium
1,842


10
Bulgaria
1,761


11
Liechtenstein
1,645


12
Norway
1,340


13
Denmark
1,111


14
Greece
1,077


15
Italy
1,039


16
France
990


17
Finland
729


18
Netherlands
720


19
Iceland
563


20
Ireland
546


21
United Kingdom
472


22
Poland
191


23
Spain
175


24
Czech Republic
166


25
Estonia
151


26
Slovenia
107


27
Lithuania
100


28
Latvia
88


29
Romania
70


30
Portugal
68


31
Croatia
61


32
Slovakia
44






What immediately becomes apparent is the extreme imbalance in the burden of the asylum driven immigration into different EU countries. Austria, on this measure (AMAPMI) takes in as many as 48 times as many asylum seekers as Lithuania and more than 10 times as many as the United Kingdom.

It is clear data that the current system of “laissez faire” distribution of asylum driven immigration in Europe is extremely lacking in European solidarity and is basically morally bankrupt, because it introduces a disproportionate burden on different countries in the European Union.

The logical political consequence, in my opinion, has to be to abolish the Schengen agreement, to introduce strict border controls and to install and mandatory distribution system of asylum seekers in relation to population size.



Dienstag, 17. Februar 2015

Evelyn Waugh Lamenting the Reform Of the Holy Week Liturgies





Four years before his passing on Easter Sunday 1966, Evelyn Waugh was sharply critical of the Reform of the Holy Week Liturgies by Pope Pius XII. This is relevant as these liturgies did start the whole unholy process of reform that ultimately led to the Novus Ordo mass. This reminds us of the loss of the Tenebrae services and the non-traditional and non-mystical timing of the Triduum services in this reform and that that the missal of 1962, the only missal allowed under "Summorum Pontificum" for the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, is much less than perfect.


Evelyn Waugh

"During the last few years we have experienced the triumph of the liturgists' in the new arrangement of the services for the end of Holy Week and for Easter. For centuries these had been enriched by devotions which were dear to the laity—the anticipation of the morning office of Tenebrae, the vigil at the Altar of Repose, the Mass of the Presanctified. It was not how the Christians of the second century observed the season. It was the organic grovith of the needs of the people. Not all Catholics were able to avail themselves of the services but hundreds did, going to live in or near the monastic houses and making an annual retreat which began with Tenebrae on Wednesday afternoon and ended at about midday on Saturday with the anticipated Easter Mass. During those three days time was conveniently apportioned between the rites of the church and the discourses of the priest taking the retreat, with little temptation to dis- traction. Now nothing happens before Thursday evening. All Friday morning is empty. There is an hour or so in church on Friday afternoon. All Saturday is quite blank until late at night. The Easter Mass is sung at midnight to a weary congregation who are constrained to 'renew their baptismal vows' in the vernacular and later repair to bed. The significance of Easter as a feast of dawn is quite lost, as is the unique character of Christmas as the Holy Night. 1 have noticed in the monastery I frequent a marked falling-off in the number of retreatants since the innovations or, as the liturgists would prefer to call them, the restorations. It may well be that these services are nearer to the practice of primitive Christianity, but the Church rejoices in the development of dogma; why does it not also admit the development of liturgy?"

From "The Same Again Please" in THE SPECTATOR
23rd November 1962

Montag, 5. Januar 2015

On definitions of Catholic factions


Recently in many online discussions I have seen that people use many different definitions for different points of view or currents within the Catholic Church. In order to bring a bit more structure into these discussions and because there seems to be a polarisation of opinions within the Catholic Church during the pontificate of Pope Francis, I though it useful to propose definitions for the different factions or currents of thinking.

In fact, one can pose two questions which divide the opinions within the Church in the 21st century into four groups, depending on whether these questions are answered with a “yes” or a “no”. Here are the two questions:

1)                    Was the Second Vatican Council as expressed in all its documents a hermeneutic rupture with the tradition and the magisterium (teaching) of the Catholic Church?

2)                  Are the reforms that followed the Second Vatican Council especially the liturgy reform a negative development that weakened the Church?















Those who negate both statements are best called “neoconservatives”. They believe the Vatican II to be in hermeneutic continuity with tradition and they believe the reforms of the Vatican council to be a positive development, especially the liturgy reform. Prominent representatives of this position are Bl. Pope Paul VI., Pope John Paul I, Saint John Paul II. and Cardinal Mueller the current prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. The neoconservatives tend to hold to moral positions as defined in the 1990 catechism of John Paul II. and do not want a further change to these positions. They are not fond of the old form of the liturgy and will tolerate it at best but do not wish for the old liturgy to be celebrated more widely.

Those who negate the second statement but not the first are best called “liberals” or “modernists”.  This means they believe that exactly because Vatican II was a break with tradition the reforms that followed the council were positive and the even more reforms need to follow. This group of modernists often invokes the “spirit of the council” an unclear concept that spurs on to further thinking about reform of the Church and of its rituals. In this group belong the current Pope Francis as well as Cardinal Kasper and some of the 8 chosen advisors of the current Pope, for instance Cardinal Marx of Munich.

Those who negate the first but not the second statement are best called “Conservatives”. They believe the council is in continuity with tradition but they also believe that some of the reforms following the council where an over-interpretation of the intention of the council. The conservatives believe that the old form of the liturgy needs to be more widely celebrated also as an inspiration for the new form of the liturgy. They believe in a "reform of the reform” of the liturgy to create a liturgy more in keeping with the tradition of the Church. Prominent exponents of this position are the Pope emeritus, Benedikt XVI. , Cardinals Burke, Brandmueller, Castrillon-Hoyos as well as the Institute of Christ the King (ICRSS) and the Society of St. Peter (FSSP).

Those who affirm both statements are best called “traditionalists”. They believe that Vatican II. was a rupture with tradition and the reform following it were a negative development that weakened the Church and the faith. They will on occasion question whether the new form of the Mass and sacraments are actually valid. They do however except the primacy of the Pope and hence are not sedevacantists. The most prominent exponents of this position are Archbishop Lefebvre, the founder of the Society of St. Pius X., the society of St. Pius X. itself as well as its current superior general, Bishop Fellay.