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.
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."
Agreed, but I will say that thrift and industriousness are solid Biblical principals. A perpetually stagnant economy is a sign that Biblical principals are not being observed.