Posted on 06/21/2007 8:41:52 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
I would have said Alexander Hamilton, but this is an interesting argument as well.
John Knox would have got my vote, but Calvin is arguable along the same lines.
While Locke gets sole credit, many of the ideas that helped lead to rebellion from the crown and form our government came from the Scots who were, of course, Presbyterians and therefore Calvinists.
Interesting and enjoyable article.
General George Washington stated, “If defeated everywhere else I will make my last stand for liberty among the Scotch-Irish of my native Virginia.”
These Presbyterian people had been betrayed and tyrannized by the British government time and time and time again, and finally said “it is enough.”
Paulus Vladimiri, a 15th century Polish canon lawyer and university rector, showed that the Catholic understanding of human dignity and human rights was broader and deeper then than among the Protestants in the next century.
Most of his works have been translated. They aren’t easy to get, however, and they are in the form of consilia - paid legal opinions.
It may be the case that Catholic scholars of the 15th century were ahead of Protestant scholars in the 16th (such as they were), but if Catholics had an early lead they did not hold it long. Needless to say, it is in Locke that the concept of unalienable rights reached a mature development.
More importantly, it is an empirical fact that Protestant countries have been more (small d) democratic and capitalistic than Catholic countries. There are a lot of attempts to explain this, and none of them are very satisfying (see also: Max Weber's failed thesis). But the empirical fact remains: Protestant countries took over the cultural lead from Catholics. This is still true today: the United States is the only industrialized country that has not secularized (in fact, it is heading the other direction).
You wrote:
“It may be the case that Catholic scholars of the 15th century were ahead of Protestant scholars in the 16th (such as they were), but if Catholics had an early lead they did not hold it long.”
Catholics STILL have the lead. If you want to make the mistake of isolating this to the political realm than perhaps Protestantism, with its inherently fractured and compartmentalized view of things, is ahead of the Catholic Church - but only because the Church deals with mankind and his society as an organic whole. If we are talking about the dignity of man as man, and not just as political creatures, then it must be recognized that no Protestant could ever have discerned Theology of the Body.
“Needless to say, it is in Locke that the concept of unalienable rights reached a mature development.”
Needless to say, Locke relied on St. Thomas Aquinas - through the Protestant filter of an Anglican canonist.
“More importantly, it is an empirical fact that Protestant countries have been more (small d) democratic and capitalistic than Catholic countries.”
1) that doesn’t change anything I said, 2) That is misleading. How democratic was 17th century England really? How democratic was it before 1832?
“There are a lot of attempts to explain this, and none of them are very satisfying (see also: Max Weber’s failed thesis). But the empirical fact remains: Protestant countries took over the cultural lead from Catholics.”
Nonsense. As has been noted by far greater men than you, those countries which went Protestant often suffered culturally for decades afterward. England was considered culturally retarded well into the nineteenth century by many of its own people. Bear baiting anyone? You might want to read Patrick Collinson’s From Iconoclasm to Iconophobia: the Cultural Impact of the Second English Reformation. Also, see if you can find Ralph Adams Cram’s essays on art and beauty. He was a Protestant and an art expert. He spoke at length about how the Protestant Revolution actually twisted cultural tastes in England.
You seem to think culture is ONLY a political thing, and not about art, or literature, or anything else.
“This is still true today: the United States is the only industrialized country that has not secularized (in fact, it is heading the other direction).”
What? The United States of America HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN OFFICIALLY SECULAR COUNTRY. Now, please don’t tell me some nonsense about how religious our people are. Many are - not necessarily to any effect either - but many are. Yet, we are OFFICIALLY a secular country. Where is God mentioned in our constitution? That’s right! Nowhere. Putting “In God We Trust” on out greenbacks isn’t enough. Also, do you realize that we come in 24th in the world in terms of religious observance (i.e. attending religious services, etc)? 24th in the world. Yeah, we might be #1 in the first world, but that isn’t necessarily saying much when you realize we come after Mexico on the world stage!
I mention the political realm because we will never settle the theology. But Catholics and Protestants do at least usually agree about how to apply Christian principles to society. And there is no comparison in this regards. That is why 16th and 17th century England thrived. That is why America thrives. Both Protestant countries. That is why New England, which is predominately Catholic, is spiritually dead but the south and west (excepting the west coast) are on fire for the Lord.
Needless to say, Locke relied on St. Thomas Aquinas - through the Protestant filter of an Anglican canonist.
I fully agree that Aquinas and other Catholic scholars did important work. But the baton passed, which is why you never hear about 16th century scholastics doing important intellectual work. The Catholics remained stuck in a rut.
1) that doesn’t change anything I said, 2) That is misleading. How democratic was 17th century England really? How democratic was it before 1832?
England had far more liberty than any Catholic country in its own time.
Nonsense. As has been noted by far greater men than you, those countries which went Protestant often suffered culturally for decades afterward. England was considered culturally retarded well into the nineteenth century by many of its own people.
Unquestionably true - after the pilgrims left, England suffered for their lack. Again, the spiritual baton went from Rome, to England, to America. If Christianity keep spreading like wildfire in China, then in 50 years we may pass that baton to China.
What? The United States of America HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN OFFICIALLY SECULAR COUNTRY. Now, please don’t tell me some nonsense about how religious our people are. Many are - not necessarily to any effect either - but many are.
The government is secular. The people are religious. And overwhelming Protestant (outside of New England). If we were overwhelmingly Catholic, we'd have a country like New England. Spiritually dying and stagnant.
You wrote:
“But Catholics and Protestants do at least usually agree about how to apply Christian principles to society.”
No, we don’t agree.
“That is why 16th and 17th century England thrived.”
And 17th century France didn’t? How about 16th century Spain? Strongest nation in the world if I remember correctly. Is atheist, communist China strong? How many Christian principles do you think they follow? None right? But they’re still strong and thriving right?
“That is why America thrives. Both Protestant countries. That is why New England, which is predominately Catholic, is spiritually dead but the south and west (excepting the west coast) are on fire for the Lord.”
And yet the fastest growing region of Catholic converts is the south!!!!!!!!!!!! And which area of the US was an economic, cultural and intellectual BASKET CASE for decades and decades - oh, yeah, it was that very Protestant SOUTH. Why did zealously Protestant Wales ALWAYS suck economically? Could it be because it lacked things and not necessarily because of its strident Calvinism? Sheesh!
“I fully agree that Aquinas and other Catholic scholars did important work. But the baton passed, which is why you never hear about 16th century scholastics doing important intellectual work. The Catholics remained stuck in a rut.”
Oh, my gosh. You never hear about 16th century Catholics doing important intellectual work BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A PROTESTANT SOCIETY WHICH DENIES THEIR UTILITY AND GOODNESS. Don’t believe me? Look up the word “dunce”. Granted, Duns Scotus was not from the 16th century, but you’ll get the drift. Besides, if you knew what you were talking about you would know about Suarez, Vittoria, Cajetan, Cardinal Ximenes, and so many more you’ve never heard of because you grew up in an Anglish speaking country and probably when to a public school.
Ever hear about Domingo de Soto? He did early work on supply-demand-and pricing. He also knew that men have a natural right to own property, and should have complete rights over his own property. He died in 1560.
Joseph Schumpeter, in his History of Economic Analysis, concluded that the theology school of Salamanca came “nearer than does any other group to having been the ‘founders’ of scientific economics.” Not bad for the late 16th century!
Are you really going to claim that the same century that saw the rise of the Jesuits - some of the greatest teachers and intellectuals of all time - somehow saw the Church eclipsed intellectually?
“England had far more liberty than any Catholic country in its own time.”
Christmas celebrations were made illegal in England in the 17th century. Liberty? If you were poor, you were forcibly sent to a poor house which was little better than slavery. Liberty? I guess you slept through the lecture on enclosure battles in the 17th century, right? None of these things give the right impression of England - but they’re all true. Just as no one should assume that England was the best or most free place to live in all ways in the 17th century.
“Unquestionably true - after the pilgrims left, England suffered for their lack. Again, the spiritual baton went from Rome, to England, to America.”
No. England NEVER possessed a spiritual baton. America doesn’t possess one now. People here are religious, some of them, not all of them, and the country is NOT a religious country. We don’t even mention God in our constitution. Do not confuse market power with spiritual purity. Ancient empires, despotic all, had great wealth and yet were spiritual nightmares. Assyria dominated the Middle East. Was it spiritually pure? Did it possess the spiritual baton? How about Babylon? Egypt? Communist China today?
“If Christianity keep spreading like wildfire in China, then in 50 years we may pass that baton to China.”
Which baton? You are not directly equating financial success with Christian devotion. The health and wealth gospel rears its ugly head!
“The government is secular. The people are religious. And overwhelming Protestant (outside of New England). If we were overwhelmingly Catholic, we’d have a country like New England. Spiritually dying and stagnant.”
Nonsense. England is PROTESTANT. It is spiritually dying, but is not financially stagnant. Scandinavia has been remarkably successful financially for decades and yet has been almost entirely agnostic in practice.
You are making a terrible blunder. Putting aside your lack of knowledge about history for a moment, you are assuming making money is a sign of devotion to God. Christ never promised to make us RICH in this lifetime. The gold of the gospel is about faith and grace - not about being in the black.
A major factor in the economic and other problems in the South was their defeat, which entailed massive losses of its male population in the Civil War, as well as the destruction of the transportation system and the agriculturally based economy. Post-war tariffs that protected Northern manufacturers the produced at a higher cost than European competitors slowed down the formation of capital for decades following Appomattox. Heavily Catholic South Louisiana suffered as much as the rest of the South from the Civil War and the postwar economic order. Additionally, Catholic luminaries such as Pope Pius IX and Lord Acton were sympathetic to the Southern cause. In fact, the Pope sent former Confederate President Jefferson Davis (who wanted to convert to Catholicism as a boy but was discouraged by the priests at a school he attended due to his youth) a crown of thorns he himself had made in recognition of the latter's suffering in Union prisons.
You wrote:
“A major factor in the economic and other problems in the South was their defeat, which entailed massive losses of its male population in the Civil War,...”
I know. I was hoping that Jibaholic would point that out. That was point. European countries were rich or poor because of more than their religion.
“Additionally, Catholic luminaries such as Pope Pius IX and Lord Acton were sympathetic to the Southern cause. In fact, the Pope sent former Confederate President Jefferson Davis (who wanted to convert to Catholicism as a boy but was discouraged by the priests at a school he attended due to his youth) a crown of thorns he himself had made in recognition of the latter’s suffering in Union prisons.”
Yes, I read about that sort of thing. Several Catholic priests also served the south as spies and diplomatic couriers.
Perhaps not always. But Catholics also value human rights and democracy, and a society that is wealthy enough that everyone who works can eat.
And 17th century France didn’t? How about 16th century Spain? Strongest nation in the world if I remember correctly. Is atheist, communist China strong? How many Christian principles do you think they follow? None right? But they’re still strong and thriving right?
16th Century Spain was reaping a one-off advantage of (1) gold that they took from the New World, and (2) money as a proportion of the offerings - the Catholic Church granted them the right to keep some. This wealth boyoued Spain, but it was a a short term fix. By contrast England had liberty, which led to industry. So England began creating wealth whereas Spain appropriated wealth. China is a large country with a big military, but they are not the United States in terms of either liberty or industry. The only reason you can even begin to compare the two is because there are 4 times as many Chinese as Americans.
And yet the fastest growing region of Catholic converts is the south!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is a function of relative numbers, nothing else. When Catholics make up a small minority, then you get higher rates of conversion. In the north the opposite is happening - Catholics are becoming Protestants. Overall the net flow is to Protestantism and Catholicism is in decline.
And which area of the US was an economic, cultural and intellectual BASKET CASE for decades and decades - oh, yeah, it was that very Protestant SOUTH. Why did zealously Protestant Wales ALWAYS suck economically? Could it be because it lacked things and not necessarily because of its strident Calvinism? Sheesh!
The North was Protestant until the waves of immigration in the 19th century. It was also *more* devout than the south. You had Puritans and Quakers in the North, but Anglicans in the south. The northerners took their faith more seriously. That is also why the North was originally wealthier. But with wealth comes the belief that you no longer need God, particularly when you add the Enlightenment in the background. Add in Catholic immigrants to the mix and the north secularized whereas the south did not. Now the north is in decline while the south is proverbially rising.
Oh, my gosh. You never hear about 16th century Catholics doing important intellectual work BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A PROTESTANT SOCIETY WHICH DENIES THEIR UTILITY AND GOODNESS. No, because we appreciate the 13th century scholastics. My favorite philosopher today - Alexander Pruss - is Catholic. But responsible Catholics will admit that Catholic scholars stuck too dogmatically to Aquinas in later centuries - but by then reconciling Christianity with Aristotle was no longer an important philosophical problem. The Protestant and secular worlds had grown beyond Aristotle's philosophy. This is not to say that the Catholics did nothing, they made many accomplishments. But they were no longer the central driving engine of the Western world.
Christmas celebrations were made illegal in England in the 17th century. Liberty? If you were poor, you were forcibly sent to a poor house which was little better than slavery. Liberty? I guess you slept through the lecture on enclosure battles in the 17th century, right? None of these things give the right impression of England - but they’re all true. Just as no one should assume that England was the best or most free place to live in all ways in the 17th century.
Don't committ the historian's fallacy of presentism ("the founding fathers did not respect liberty because they owned slaves"). The fact of the matter is that England's liberty was well advanced beyond anywhere else in the western world - particularly Catholic world. And after England, America took the mantle of being at the forefront of liberty.
No. England NEVER possessed a spiritual baton. America doesn’t possess one now. People here are religious, some of them, not all of them, and the country is NOT a religious country. We don’t even mention God in our constitution. Do not confuse market power with spiritual purity. Ancient empires, despotic all, had great wealth and yet were spiritual nightmares. Assyria dominated the Middle East. Was it spiritually pure? Did it possess the spiritual baton? How about Babylon? Egypt? Communist China today?
No one is completely spiritually pure except Jesus. But witnessing also happens at the level of societies, and the Protestant societies were at the forefront. This is still true today - Christianity spreads in the third world because people want the same mojo that America has - Christianity.
Which baton? You are not directly equating financial success with Christian devotion. The health and wealth gospel rears its ugly head!
No liberation theology here. But I do subscribe to following thesis: Christianity leads to a strong middle class work ethic and liberty, and as a byproduct, those two result in prosperous societies.
Nonsense. England is PROTESTANT. It is spiritually dying, but is not financially stagnant. Scandinavia has been remarkably successful financially for decades and yet has been almost entirely agnostic in practice.
England secularized and is getting what you would expect. Same thing with Scandinavia. The work ethic and family are eroding, Sweden has declined from 4th in the world in per-capita GDP in the 1970s to 21st. And it is still going down. Again, not the gospel of wealth, but Christianity results in a hard working middle class.
You are making a terrible blunder. Putting aside your lack of knowledge about history for a moment, you are assuming making money is a sign of devotion to God. Christ never promised to make us RICH in this lifetime. The gold of the gospel is about faith and grace - not about being in the black.
I completely agree. There are many devout Christians in the Catholic Church and many Catholic Churches that are filled with the Holy Spirit. But they are exceptions. There is a net flow from the Catholicism to Protestantism and the Holy Spirit is leading this. Speaking as New Englander, most Catholics stop going to church when they get confirmed and do not return until they have children of their own. But as someone who grew up in the South, the first thing people there ask is not "what is your job" but "what is your church."
Me too. Modern America is almost 100% reflective of Hamilton's vision. Calvin is not even in the running.
Or, "where do you fellowship?"
Great posts.
You wrote:
“Perhaps not always. But Catholics also value human rights and democracy, and a society that is wealthy enough that everyone who works can eat.”
Agreed.
“By contrast England had liberty, which led to industry. So England began creating wealth whereas Spain appropriated wealth.”
You forget how much wealth England stole from the Spanish through piracy, and made through the slave trade. To chalk up all of England’s success to industrialization would be a mistake since that was late in coming. By the same token, to chalk up all of Spain’s wealth to appropriation is also a mistake. Did Spain NOT trade? Did Spain not build ships? What about fishing? Did you know that so that in 1578 there were over 100 Spanish vessels at Newfoundland fishing for cod? A few years earlier there were only FOUR English ships in Newfoundland. FOUR. When did the Spanish fishing industry lose out to the English in Newfoundland? After 1585 when Sir Bernard Drake began attacking the Spanish fleets there. These attacks went on until 1604!
“That is a function of relative numbers, nothing else. When Catholics make up a small minority, then you get higher rates of conversion. In the north the opposite is happening - Catholics are becoming Protestants. Overall the net flow is to Protestantism and Catholicism is in decline.”
Incorrect. The numbers of Catholics is growing overall in America. And you’re still missing the point.
“The North was Protestant until the waves of immigration in the 19th century. It was also *more* devout than the south. You had Puritans and Quakers in the North, but Anglicans in the south. The northerners took their faith more seriously. That is also why the North was originally wealthier. But with wealth comes the belief that you no longer need God, particularly when you add the Enlightenment in the background. Add in Catholic immigrants to the mix and the north secularized whereas the south did not. Now the north is in decline while the south is proverbially rising.”
I see NO evidence that the North was more devout than the South. And the South was still OVERWHELMINGLY Protestant.
“No, because we appreciate the 13th century scholastics.”
No. You cannot claim that we never hear about the luminaries of the 16th century because we appreciate those of the 13th century. The one has nothing to do with the other. Why can’t both be appreciated? And how does one being a appreciated mean the other cannot? And none of that is what you claimed originally. Originally you simply claimed there weren’t any or that they didn’t measure up. Now you’re changing your tune.
“My favorite philosopher today - Alexander Pruss - is Catholic.”
What?! You mean you’re able to appreciate Catholic philosophers in two different centuries at once?! Didn’t you just suggest we couldn’t do that?
“But responsible Catholics will admit that Catholic scholars stuck too dogmatically to Aquinas in later centuries - but by then reconciling Christianity with Aristotle was no longer an important philosophical problem.”
Responsible Catholics? You mean those who agree with you right? So popes who encourage Catholics to stick with Aquinas are irresponsible? You’re not making any sense.
“The Protestant and secular worlds had grown beyond Aristotle’s philosophy. This is not to say that the Catholics did nothing, they made many accomplishments. But they were no longer the central driving engine of the Western world.”
And that isn’t what you said earlier. You said: “But the baton passed, which is why you never hear about 16th century scholastics doing important intellectual work.” Your story seems to be changing.
“Don’t committ the historian’s fallacy of presentism (”the founding fathers did not respect liberty because they owned slaves”). The fact of the matter is that England’s liberty was well advanced beyond anywhere else in the western world - particularly Catholic world.”
You have presented no evidence of your claim. I used no “presentism.” I leave the anachronistic approach to you.
“And after England, America took the mantle of being at the forefront of liberty.”
America is certainly very free. I don’t think that America took a mantle from England. I think America’s freedom was in spite of English practice and law – hence that whole little American Revolution that you seem to have forgotten.
“No one is completely spiritually pure except Jesus. But witnessing also happens at the level of societies, and the Protestant societies were at the forefront.”
What? How can you claim that? Who Christianized Latin America? Much of Africa and Asia? Not the Protestants.
“This is still true today - Christianity spreads in the third world because people want the same mojo that America has - Christianity.”
I absolutely agree that some fools in various countries convert to American style Protestantism SOLELY because they want cash, or property, a “in” into business groups dominated by Americans, etc. I do not see any evidence that the average family in Nigeria is choosing to risk their lives in a country that is half Muslim by becoming Christians because they think they’re going to make a buck. And isn’t sad that any man, anywhere, would ever convert for the sake of expected wealth?
“No liberation theology here. But I do subscribe to following thesis: Christianity leads to a strong middle class work ethic and liberty, and as a byproduct, those two result in prosperous societies.”
No. Christianity has been around for 2,000. The Middle Class as we know it has been around for less than 150 years – really it’s a product of the 19th-20th centuries! Christianity is not about fostering the wealth of the Middle Class. You are taking Christ’s gospel and dropping it down to something far less than spiritual. You are making it into a financial contract.
“England secularized and is getting what you would expect. Same thing with Scandinavia. The work ethic and family are eroding, Sweden has declined from 4th in the world in per-capita GDP in the 1970s to 21st. And it is still going down. Again, not the gospel of wealth, but Christianity results in a hard working middle class.”
The issue is not hard work. In Scandinavia it is sinking population. No growth (in population) means exactly that – no growth (in the economy). The English are a different story. The English are simply drinking, and screwing their way into oblivion. But their economy is generally healthy. Mind you, Italy surpassed the UK economically over 20 years ago! The simple fact is that you are looking for incredible simple explanations for these things. You want find them. You can make them up, but they won’t stick.
“I completely agree. There are many devout Christians in the Catholic Church and many Catholic Churches that are filled with the Holy Spirit. But they are exceptions. There is a net flow from the Catholicism to Protestantism and the Holy Spirit is leading this.”
No, there is no “net” flow. You are making the mistake of looking at America alone, or are inflating stories about Latin America. Unlike all Protestant sects, we have a truly worldwide Church and it is growing. Also, the idea that the Holy Spirit is leading this is simply founded. Does the Holy Spirit lead people to become Muslim? How about Hindu? I know a former Protestant Christian who is now Muslim. What happened there? Was it the Holy Spirit? Nope.
“Speaking as New Englander, most Catholics stop going to church when they get confirmed and do not return until they have children of their own. But as someone who grew up in the South, the first thing people there ask is not “what is your job” but “what is your church.””
Anecdotal evidence is useless here. Remember, more people are responding in the south with, “My Church is the Catholic Church.”
You forget how much wealth England stole from the Spanish through piracy, and made through the slave trade. To chalk up all of England’s success to industrialization would be a mistake since that was late in coming. By the same token, to chalk up all of Spain’s wealth to appropriation is also a mistake. Did Spain NOT trade? Did Spain not build ships?
My posts are already long and I do not have the room for nuance. The simple fact is that England had (1) more liberty than any other nation (prior to America) and (2) more industrialization than any other nation (prior to American). That includes the Spanish. Incorrect. The numbers of Catholics is growing overall in America. And you’re still missing the point.
The numbers of Catholics are growing because of Hispanic immigration. By conversion, their is a net trend towards Protestantism. I see NO evidence that the North was more devout than the South. And the South was still OVERWHELMINGLY Protestant.
Go pick up any book on American history (I recommend "Albion's Seed," which specifically deals with the patterns of early immigration). The settlers in the North were primarily Puritans and Quakers who came to America for religious reasons. Many hangers-on came along with them, but that is the main engine. By contrast, immigrants to the south, while religious, came for economic opportunity. No. You cannot claim that we never hear about the luminaries of the 16th century because we appreciate those of the 13th century. The one has nothing to do with the other. Why can’t both be appreciated? And how does one being a appreciated mean the other cannot? And none of that is what you claimed originally. Originally you simply claimed there weren’t any or that they didn’t measure up. Now you’re changing your tune.
My main point is this: Aquinas reconciled Aristotle with Christianity. This was a huge accomplishment - the inability to do so sent the Muslim world into anti-intellectualism. But the Catholic Church then rested on its laurels. A medieval and Renaissance world that was growing in intellectual might soon surpassed Aristotle. But the Catholic church continued to make Aristotle the main pillar of their intellectual thought and this held them back. This is a generally accepted point by both Catholics and Protestants. Did this mean that there weren't important Catholic thinkers? Of course not. But Catholics sequestered themselves from the evolution of western thought, and thus were cut off from the further development of the ideals of rights and democracy that reached maturity with Locke. What?! You mean you’re able to appreciate Catholic philosophers in two different centuries at once?! Didn’t you just suggest we couldn’t do that?
I never claimed that. My point is that the Catholic world was stuck in an Aristotilian rut for quite some time, but they did eventually get out. But this happened *after* Protestants like Locke developed the philosophy of human rights. Are there powerful Catholic intellectuals developing Christian morality and ethics today? yes. Were there during Locke's time? No. And that isn’t what you said earlier. You said: “But the baton passed, which is why you never hear about 16th century scholastics doing important intellectual work.” Your story seems to be changing.
To the contrary, my story has been consistent. Catholics did great stuff in the 13th century then became stagnant. Protestants like Locke picked up the baton. Eventually Catholics got our of their rut and today both Catholics and Protestants are making great accomplishments. America is certainly very free. I don’t think that America took a mantle from England. I think America’s freedom was in spite of English practice and law – hence that whole little American Revolution that you seem to have forgotten.
The American revolution did not happen in a vacuum. It happened because the colonists were from the English culture of common law and liberty. They simply took things to the next step in the progression. What? How can you claim that? Who Christianized Latin America? Much of Africa and Asia? Not the Protestants.
Spain and its imperial ambitious did much of this, along with Portugal. But it also did not stick. Syncretism became the order of the day (this is common with Catholic conversion, it is also why England outlawed Christmas - it was another pagan tradition mixing with Christianity). There is still a lot of hard work needed to fully Christianize Latin America and Asia. And again, Protestant denominations are spreading faster and gaining more converts in both regions. I absolutely agree that some fools in various countries convert to American style Protestantism SOLELY because they want cash, or property, a “in” into business groups dominated by Americans, etc. I do not see any evidence that the average family in Nigeria is choosing to risk their lives in a country that is half Muslim by becoming Christians because they think they’re going to make a buck. And isn’t sad that any man, anywhere, would ever convert for the sake of expected wealth?
This is not about "making a buck." It is about breathtakingly poor countries looking for hope against grinding poverty and oppression. And America is their City on a Hill. No. Christianity has been around for 2,000. The Middle Class as we know it has been around for less than 150 years – really it’s a product of the 19th-20th centuries! Christianity is not about fostering the wealth of the Middle Class. You are taking Christ’s gospel and dropping it down to something far less than spiritual. You are making it into a financial contract.
That is not quite true. A middle class developed among the early Christians during the Roman empire. There was enough commerce and opportunity before the Empire went into decline, even with the periodic persecution of Christians. This happened again in the Middle Ages, although it took the development of the free cities and other capitalistic structures as prerequisites. No, there is no “net” flow. You are making the mistake of looking at America alone, or are inflating stories about Latin America. Unlike all Protestant sects, we have a truly worldwide Church and it is growing. Also, the idea that the Holy Spirit is leading this is simply founded. Does the Holy Spirit lead people to become Muslim? How about Hindu? I know a former Protestant Christian who is now Muslim. What happened there? Was it the Holy Spirit? Nope.
Even the Catholic Church estimates that about 3000 Latin Americans become Protestants every day. And that estimate is probably low. Overall Catholicism is growing because everywhere Christianity is growing (except maybe Russia). But Protestantism is overall winning converts faster, and from among Catholics. Anecdotal evidence is useless here.
It is not anecdotal that Catholic New England is in a state of apostasy. Hence the liberal politics and low rates of church attendence.
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.