Replies

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.

You wrote: "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." And there is no evidence that either one of those things is related to Protestantism. England was very free even in the Middle Ages. Magna Carta ring a bell? And England became industrialized because of geography more than anything else: the woolen trade. "The numbers of Catholics are growing because of Hispanic immigration. By conversion, their is a net trend towards Protestantism." The number of Catholics is growing even without the influx of immigrants. "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." That is not cause and effect when dealing with 200 YEARS LATER! We aren't talking about the 17th century but the 19th - the Civil War. You're making a claim with no evidence at all. “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.” Again, not true. As I pointed out and I listed the names of those who live far ahead of Locke. “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.” Yes, actually there were. Bishop Adam Stanisław Krasiński comes to mind immediately as does Bossuet in regard to “there powerful Catholic intellectuals developing Christian morality and ethics.” Again, if you are living in the English speaking world, and a product of the public schools, you may not even know these men existed. “To the contrary, my story has been consistent. Catholics did great stuff in the 13th century then became stagnant.” I already proved they didn’t. Suarez was stagnant. Bossuet was not stagnant. Vladimiri was not stagnant. You are ignoring evidence. “Protestants like Locke picked up the baton. Eventually Catholics got our of their rut and today both Catholics and Protestants are making great accomplishments.” Your comment is sweeping in its avoidance of reality. “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.” So how is that progression and not stagnation but you say Catholics stagnated after the 1270s when I already posted the evidence they didn’t? And what culture of common law and liberty are you assuming here if America had to rebel? Rebel against common law and liberty? “Spain and its imperial ambitious did much of this, along with Portugal.” CATHOLIC Spain. CATHOLIC 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).” Utter nonsense. Christmas is not pagan. No matter what pagan god in ancient days was celebrated on that day no Christian celebrated anything but Christ’s birthday. The people who make these idiotic suggestion often forget we have today is Thursday – THOR’S day. If Christmas was ditched by the Puritans because it was pagan then surely they would have done the same to the days of the week. They ditched it because they were generally down on celebrating much of anything with feasting, drinking and spending money. Also, syncretism IS NOT COMMON WITH Catholic conversion. “There is still a lot of hard work needed to fully Christianize Latin America and Asia.” Yes, indeed, and Protestants need to be brought to orthodoxy as well. “And again, Protestant denominations are spreading faster and gaining more converts in both regions.” With little impact thus far. Many of the “converts” you speak of leave within the first year. “This is not about "making a buck."” You just suggested it was. “It is about breathtakingly poor countries looking for hope against grinding poverty and oppression. And America is their City on a Hill.” There city on a hill should be the heavenly Jerusalem. I do not confuse the gospel with America. The two are NOT THE SAME. I love both, but know only one is from God and always true. “That is not quite true. A middle class developed among the early Christians during the Roman empire.” It already existed in germ form. “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.’ The Middle Class, as we would recognize it, is a medieval invention. It is a Catholic invention in that regard. One only needs to think of the trading guilds to know that. “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.” No, actually Catholicism, world wide, is probably growing just as fast as all of Protestantism combined. You are making the mistake so many make and looking at one set of data and ignoring others. “It is not anecdotal that Catholic New England is in a state of apostasy.” There is not now, nor has there even been, a Catholic New England. Try again. “Hence the liberal politics and low rates of church attendence.” Apostasy certainly leads to those. Then again, Pius X, a prophetic man, said Protestantism leads to atheism. That has been seen to be true as well.