Posted on 03/24/2013 11:33:43 AM PDT by NYer
The dictionary defines irony as “a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.” Well, the election of Pope Francis, first of that name, was certainly that.
The cardinal electors, most of whom rarely if ever see poor people, chose to be pope someone who has, day after day over many years. The cardinal electors, most of whom live very well indeed, chose someone who lives extremely simply, even cooking his own meals. The cardinals, most of whom do not even do very much to make sure that Church teaching is followed in their own dioceses, even by their own clergy, chose someone who does.
There are all kinds of religious in the United States, for example, who will now have to face a man who can vigorously follow the option for the poor while, at the same time, being entirely faithful to Church teaching. This will upset the old, dissenting applecart.
It will put the criticism of the Leadership Conference of Women Religion (LCWR) in context. (Of course, one wonders why only the LCWR was singled-out, since plenty of other groups need to be brought into line as well.). The critique of the LCWR members was for not maintaining a solid religious life while “serving the poor.”
There are male groups who are doing similar things, but they have considerably more leverage within the Church because many of them are clergy – and dioceses are strapped for clergy. Now, if Francis’ more faithful option for the poor becomes the new norm, then the clericalist emphasis will lose some of its strength and influence in diocesan decision-making.
And if there will be a new emphasis on the vow of poverty, there are also going to be many religious who will have to face up to a religious who can live extremely simply instead of spending all kinds of cash to surround himself with the trappings of the upper-middle class. Religious poverty is primarily obedience to live a life of poverty, both in order to follow Christ and also to identify with the poor around us. But as we know only too well, that kind of obedience has evaporated in many religious houses.
Pope Francis attends a Vatican staff Mass
A big question Francis has raised is whether the ecclesiastical inertia that we have had to pay for and watch from the sidelines for so long is going to finally change. Roman complacency has come from the fact that the United States provides most of the Vatican’s funding. Let’s hope that changes under Francis.
The possibilities are wonderful. Catholic clergy might actually consider letting go of a validating lifestyle that seems to have been inherited from the landed British Anglican clergy of the nineteenth century. The passion for furniture and the good life might finally be separated from the vocation of being a Catholic clergyman. This is a change that has been overlong in coming. If it ever happens, will the seminaries get on board so that they do not pass on anachronistic expectations and external indications of having arrived as a clergyman?
The greatest possibilities following from the election of Francis seem to be in the direction of filling out the mission of the Church to the poor, all of the time. Saint Lawrence’s conception of the poor as the “treasure of the Church” has a real possibility of coming true. This is not to gainsay the excellent work that the Church does already. But now perhaps laity will be able to see that they are an integral part of the Church and not an add-on to the clerical church.
Of course, more laity are going to have to get involved – and be more deeply formed in the faith: maybe with some out-front leadership from the clergy this can actually happen. I have a figure in my head that roughly 15 percent of parishioners are currently doing all the outreach in their parishes. Imagine if that figure were to grow to 60 or 70 per cent!
This country would have a whole different outlook on things like abortion. Instead of abortion being an answer to a social problem, preventing the destruction of these “unwanted” souls could be the possibility for a whole new arm of charitable work through giving them homes and educations. People as such might be seen as valuable again – and not just when they reach voting age.
If the Church got itself re-organized around the Vatican II Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, there are some real possibilities for following this pope and the many initiatives that he will undoubtedly start. In short, Pope Francis opens up possibilities not even imagined by the men who elected him. The Church can become much more authentically the Church and show the face of Jesus Christ to the world and especially these United States, a land that surely needs to see Him more clearly again.
Ping!
BUMP
bookmark
and
and
and
and
Perhaps, but what would the world look like without the reformation? Would there be a United States as we know it? Almost assuredly not. Would we be where we are today technologically? I think you know the answer.
Different, better in some ways. For instance the Reformation split Christendom just at the time when the Moslems conquered Constantinople -- if there had been a united Christendom, the Ottomans would have been pushed back
If there was a united Christendom then the Dutch would not have been slimy enough to throw out the Portueguese from Indonesia -- the Portuguese went out to convert and Indonesia would now be Christian, instead it remained a Dutch colony and not converted
There would have been no WWI as Prussia would not have been birthed as a separate state and hence there would have been no WWII
Would there be a United States as we know it?
Yes. The USA was formed by Anglicans primarily who were the largest bloc among the Founding Fathers (there were 2 Catholics too) and the ideals are based on ancient Greek ideals
Would we be where we are today technologically? I think you know the answer. -- yes, we would have been where we are today. See my post below
Country |
Population (millions) |
Position as a nation-state |
British Isles |
3 |
Until the end of the 100 years wars, it seemed that England and France would merge under one king. When the English lost and were thrown out of Western France, that led to the consolidation of both England and France as nation-states with language unity. However, Scotland still was independent and the Welsh chaffed under English rule. Ireland is reduced to warring clans. |
France & low countries |
12 |
See above. France emerges as the strongest nation-state, but is really an empire with the northern, “French-speaking” population around Paris ruling over the southern l’Oil areas. The French had recently destroyed and conquered the Duchy of Burgundy
The low countries (Belgium, Netherlands) are part of Spain and remain so until 1600. These were once the capitals of the Holy Roman Empire (Bruges was once a center of trade) and hence have a larger population, more trade and commerce. Belgium is part of Holland until 1830 even though it is completely Catholic. In 1830 it fights and gets independence. |
Germany & Scandanavia |
7.3 |
No sense of nation-state until Napoleon and even then as nation-states like Hesse, Bavaria, etc. not as Germany (that only happens post WWI and more especially post WWII when Germans from Eastern Europe who have lived in EE for centuries are thrown out to Germany) Scandanavia has a stronger sense of nation-states, but the Swedes are in union with the Geats (Goths) and the Norwegians and Danes are in a union. The strongest nation-state is Denmark. Sweden is close but will not develop it until the 1600s. Norway is still tribal as is Iceland and Finland Switzerland is still part of the Holy Roman Empire and has no sense of a nation-state but is a loose confederation that have nothing in common except that they band together against common enemies. This will remain the state of Switzerland until Napoleon conquers Switzerland and creates the Helvetic Confederation (and then adds it to France!). Post Napoleon, there is consolidation, but Switzerland still has a large civil war and only gets some semblance of a nation state in the late 1800s |
Italy |
7.3 |
No sense of nation-state, but strong city-states. This is the most advanced “nation” in Western Europe, with an advanced financial system, manufacturing, strong in agriculture etc. Only it does not have a central government, which puts it in a bad position compared to France and Spain who interfere in the city-states. Italy is not united until Garibaldi in the late 1800s. |
Spain/Portugal |
7 |
Strong nation-states formed in opposition to the Moors. Not very advanced economically as this is still very agricultural. However, it is tied to the economically stronger Arab world and with the discovery of gold in the Americas, it will be the most powerful state for the 1500s -1680s until the rise of Louis XIV France |
Greece/Balkans |
4.5 |
Under Ottoman rule, strong sense of nation-state, but no self-rule. Highly advanced economies in Greece and Anatolia, arguably most advanced in all of Europe. Romania, Albania, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria arespan> devastated by the Ottomans with many fleeing to the mountains. Agriculture, culture etc. severely decline. They are hit on two sides – by the Turks militarily and, because the Turks have a “millet” system where people of one religion are grouped together and the millet for all of these is Orthodoxy, the Bulgarians, Romanians etc. are kept under Greek Phanariotes. Hence their culture declines while Greek culture thrives. |
Russia |
6 |
Still expanding south and east, conquering the Emirates of Kazan etc. This is still a barbaric state and remains so until Peter the Great. It has a sense of purpose, but it’s purpose is Christianity as they believe they are the last Christian state and have a holy duty to push back the Moslems. Economic and scientific development is poor as the focus is on war and agriculture – life is too hard and land too vast to develop like Western Europe. |
Poland/Lithuania |
2 |
Consolidating nation-state, however, more based on a confederacy as there are 4 nations here: Poles, Lithuanians, Ruthenians (Ukrainians, Belarusians) and Jews. This mixed with 4 different religions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Judaism and Islam (Lipka Tartars)) means a very tolerant state – tolerance levels of these are not reached by Western Europe until the late Victorian era. |
Hungary |
1.5 |
Strong nation state of the Magyars in Magyaristan (we English speakers give them an exonym of Hungary while they call themselves Magyar). However, the Magyars (descendents of Finno-Ugaric warriors) are mostly ruling class and warriors, they import Saxons as merchants. The native Romanians, Slovaks, etc are kept as serfs. The state is one of war |
Bohemia |
1 |
Strong nation-state but at war with the Holy Roman Empire and Poland has given it a sense of insecurity. It will eventually be absorbed by Austria-hungary. |
It might be interesting to remember that at the time the USA was getting it's independence, an older republic was having its life snuffed out by it's dictatorial neighbors
This republic was multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, created it's constitution in 1791, was religiously tolerant (Unitarians, Moslems, Jews, Orthodox, Armenians, Calvinists and Lutherans were free to not only practise but also to preach and proselytize in this majority Catholic nation) and had a republic in which unfortunately the votes had to be unanimous
This place was fervently Catholic. In 1680 it was the largest country in Europe bar Ottoman Turkey, bigger than France, bigger than the Holy Roman Empire (which in any case was a confederation), bigger than Muscowy.
That was the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. The rulers were mainly Catholic as were the bulk of the people.
So, no, the USA would have been formed in a Catholic land
Technological development as I showed above was not religion dependent -- in fact this was region dependent.
!
I like history and what I note in the post is bits and pieces from various locations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.