Thoughts at the Alamo
Nov 3, 2010
George Weigel
On a recent visit to San Antonio to help support an exciting new project, John Paul II Catholic High School, I had the opportunity to re-visit the Alamo, one of my favorite American historical sites, and San Fernando Cathedral, a masterpiece of Hispanic Catholic architecture and decoration. The shrine of Texas liberty and the cathedral church of the archdiocese of San Antonio are a few blocks from each other; their proximity prompts a reflection on the paradoxes of Catholic history in the New World, and the contemporary challenges facing Catholicism on both sides of the Rio Grande.
The war for Texas independence in 1835-36 and the annexation of the Republic of Texas by the United States in 1845 were preludes to the Mexican-American War of 1846 to 48—and the latter, I think most historians now agree, was a war of conquest. Yes, various corrupt Mexican governments hadn’t done much to develop the upper one-third of the country.
But the circumstances under which President James Knox Polk contrived to wring a declaration of war out of Congress were murky at best, and both young statesmen like Abraham Lincoln (who vigorously opposed Polk’s policy) and young soldiers like Ulysses S. Grant (who distinguished himself in combat in Mexico but declared the war an unjust one in his memoirs) knew that the American cause was not without blemish, to put it mildly.
It was also, from one point of view, a war by what was a sometimes-militantly Protestant country against what had long been a deeply Catholic country. And then there was the aftermath: the argument over how to digest America’s new southwestern territories widened the breach between North and South, such that, in his history of the Civil War, Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson argues persuasively that the Mexican-American War’s results made the great bloodletting of 1861-1865 virtually inevitable.
Yet the men who died at the Alamo (including Protestants and Lodge members like William Barret Travis, Davy Crockett, and Jim Bowie) fought and died next to Catholic Tejanos—and in so doing, made it possible for the Catholic Church in San Antonio, embodied by the magnificence of San Fernando Cathedral, to live a life of faith and service today that is as least as well-developed as any in Mexico.
Some of those who fought the Texas war of independence and the Mexican-American War may have thought that they were displacing a decadent Catholic culture and making space for an energetic, freedom-loving Protestantism; it seems inconceivable that any of the victors of 1836 and 1848 imagined they were securing the conditions for vibrant Catholicism in the American southwest. But over time, that is precisely what they accomplished.
In another turn of the historical wheel, the favor is now being returned, so to speak. A man born in Mexico will become archbishop of Los Angeles next February. Another native Mexican has been appointed archbishop of San Antonio. Catholicism throughout the United States is being reinvigorated by its Hispanic members.
Meanwhile, the Church in Mexico (and throughout Latin America) continues to struggle with poverty, political corruption, and the challenge of an evangelical Protestantism that seems, in some respects, better equipped to inculcate the human virtues that make better material conditions of life possible.
Catholicism has been a powerful cultural force in Mexico for almost five centuries. Today, despite a vicious twentieth century persecution by secularists and Marxists that gave the Church new martyrs like St. Cristobal Magallanes and Blessed Miguel Pro, Mexico remains a profoundly Catholic nation. Yet Mexico in 2010 is also perilously close to becoming a failed state, its northern provinces rendered almost ungovernable by a catastrophic failure of public authority in the face of drug cartels and their wars against each other and the government.
Can an increasingly Hispanic Church in the United States challenge its brethren south of the Rio Grande to stop blaming their problems on “El Norte” and to become the protagonists of their own history—and aid in that transformation? The answer to that question is the next act in the drama symbolized by the Alamo and San Fernando Cathedral.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Comments:
11.3.2010 | 12:00pm
Richard says:
My study tells me that the US did better for many reasons, most prominent being: 1) a perfect storm of political and governmental and philosophical thought arising from emerging thought in the old country that came together to produce a uniquely effective, and revolutionary, form of government. The intelligence and character of the Founding Fathers is well documented; 2) one of the most fecund conglomeration of natural resources in the world; 3) and a geographical location that favored all other factors. And as with most significant success, luck probably had a role as well.
I don't believe the religious factors had much to do with it.
I don't believe the religious factors had much to do with it.
11.3.2010 | 12:08pm
Dan Deeny says:
Joe the Human,
Your comments are interesting, especially your final paragraph. Do you have some reading recommendations?
In a picture of Pres. Obama signing the health care reform, which will expand the abortion business, I noticed four Catholics: Sen. Harkin, VP Biden , Rep. Pelosi, and Rep. Rangel. We also know that Catholics voted 54% for Pres. Obama. Have Cathoics changed? Do Catholics now support the pro-choice position, which, at least according to some of its supporters, represents responsibility and intelligent choice?
Your comments are interesting, especially your final paragraph. Do you have some reading recommendations?
In a picture of Pres. Obama signing the health care reform, which will expand the abortion business, I noticed four Catholics: Sen. Harkin, VP Biden , Rep. Pelosi, and Rep. Rangel. We also know that Catholics voted 54% for Pres. Obama. Have Cathoics changed? Do Catholics now support the pro-choice position, which, at least according to some of its supporters, represents responsibility and intelligent choice?
11.3.2010 | 12:31pm
Michael says:
Thank you for these reflections on the churches of San Antonio, the center of my archdiocese.
Re Joe the Human: The fruits of the Church are not political institutions. The fruits of the Church are saints, which have not been wanting in Latin America. Cf. Blessed John Henry Newman's arguments in Difficulties of Anglicans:
"The Church aims, not at making a show, but at doing a work. She regards this world, and all that is in it, as a mere shadow, as dust and ashes, compared with the value of one single soul. She holds that, unless she can, in her own way, do good to souls, it is no use her doing anything; she holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse."
"Not till the State is blamed for not making saints, may it fairly be laid to the fault of the Church that she cannot invent a steam-engine or construct a tariff. It is, in truth, merely because she has often done so much more than she professes, it is really in consequence of her very exuberance of benefit to the world, that the world is disappointed that she does not display that exuberance always,—like some hangers-on of the great, who come at length to think they have a claim on their bounty."
Re Joe the Human: The fruits of the Church are not political institutions. The fruits of the Church are saints, which have not been wanting in Latin America. Cf. Blessed John Henry Newman's arguments in Difficulties of Anglicans:
"The Church aims, not at making a show, but at doing a work. She regards this world, and all that is in it, as a mere shadow, as dust and ashes, compared with the value of one single soul. She holds that, unless she can, in her own way, do good to souls, it is no use her doing anything; she holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse."
"Not till the State is blamed for not making saints, may it fairly be laid to the fault of the Church that she cannot invent a steam-engine or construct a tariff. It is, in truth, merely because she has often done so much more than she professes, it is really in consequence of her very exuberance of benefit to the world, that the world is disappointed that she does not display that exuberance always,—like some hangers-on of the great, who come at length to think they have a claim on their bounty."
11.3.2010 | 12:42pm
Joe the Human says:
Dan:
This is partially my own thesis. For which however, I am drawing on hundreds of earlier, scattered Protestant sources, which mention this kind of thing. Check the literature for 1) defenses of the Protestant Reformation; 2) of Protestantism; 3) Weber's book on Protestantism and the spirit of Capitalism. Vs. 4) "Papism" or Pope-ism, and so forth. Especially check 5) History literature that links religion, especially Protestantism, to the rise of the Middle Class.
Until recently, the standard Histories in fact, implicitly felt that the great, key moment in modern History, was 1) the "Protestant Reformation." In part because Protestantism was responsible 2) for the rise of the Middle Class; whose 3) individualism and 4) practical entrepreneurial spirit, the 5) Industrial Revolution, 6) lead in turn, to Democracy. Which increased our prosperity.
As Richard notes, the great resources, the geography of N. America played a role; but how after all did we successfully traverse geography, the sea, to exploit those resources? Except primarily by the power of .... officially Protestant (Anglican) England? And if the "philosophy" and personalities of the founders played a role? Then in the center of the "perfect storm" of Philosophical and personal resources was ... Protestantism.
I agree with your complementary thesis however: modern Catholics like Biden however, are indeed, modernizing; or roughly, "Protestantizing." Or perhaps they are going perhaps beyond all the old religious differences at last; by extending rational decision-making. Which to be sure, historically I am claiming, had certain roots in ... Protestantism.
Good luck with your own research.
This is partially my own thesis. For which however, I am drawing on hundreds of earlier, scattered Protestant sources, which mention this kind of thing. Check the literature for 1) defenses of the Protestant Reformation; 2) of Protestantism; 3) Weber's book on Protestantism and the spirit of Capitalism. Vs. 4) "Papism" or Pope-ism, and so forth. Especially check 5) History literature that links religion, especially Protestantism, to the rise of the Middle Class.
Until recently, the standard Histories in fact, implicitly felt that the great, key moment in modern History, was 1) the "Protestant Reformation." In part because Protestantism was responsible 2) for the rise of the Middle Class; whose 3) individualism and 4) practical entrepreneurial spirit, the 5) Industrial Revolution, 6) lead in turn, to Democracy. Which increased our prosperity.
As Richard notes, the great resources, the geography of N. America played a role; but how after all did we successfully traverse geography, the sea, to exploit those resources? Except primarily by the power of .... officially Protestant (Anglican) England? And if the "philosophy" and personalities of the founders played a role? Then in the center of the "perfect storm" of Philosophical and personal resources was ... Protestantism.
I agree with your complementary thesis however: modern Catholics like Biden however, are indeed, modernizing; or roughly, "Protestantizing." Or perhaps they are going perhaps beyond all the old religious differences at last; by extending rational decision-making. Which to be sure, historically I am claiming, had certain roots in ... Protestantism.
Good luck with your own research.
11.3.2010 | 12:48pm
Mike Melendez says:
Joe the Human's argument could be extended to the UK proper which created two world empires in succession while kicking off the industrial revolution. Yet, while still Protestant, it has declined to a shadow of its former self. Then again, the US has reached its height only after Catholics became the biggest single religion in the country.
I don't know for sure, but I think there is more to it.
I don't know for sure, but I think there is more to it.
11.3.2010 | 1:00pm
Fr. Jim says:
Joe, many of those Protestants held fellow humans as slaves. In Catholic Mexico slavery had been abolished long before. One has only to consider the art, architecture, music, and poetry of Catholic Culture to see that we have nothing to be ashamed of. Also note that many Americans were and are Catholic. We fought and died for this nation. You besmirch their sacrifices.
11.3.2010 | 1:32pm
A different Michael says:
Joe raises good questions that I wish I had fuller answers to. The British Protestants who settled North America were more practical in their devotion to genocide. They killed more Indians and rarely intermarried. Hardly a recommendation for British Protestantism over Spanish Catholicism.
The British also sent families, while the Spanish sent adventurers. The British wanted to build a society rather than merely plunder resources. I don’t know whether this difference had more to do with national character, religion, demographics, or something else. I’d love to know what the Spanish did with all their wealth. They seem to have frittered it all away.
I think Richard is right that the US got lucky. The Enlightenment was an ideal time for a nation to be founded because reason was held in such great esteem. A century earlier might have made the US too religious, and a century later might have made us too Romantic.
It does seem that historically Protestant nations are more pleasant and prosperous places today: Britain, Holland, Scandinavia, Germany vs. Spain, Italy, France.
I don’t know what Mike means when he says that the US only reached its height after Catholicism became the strongest religion. It all depends on how you measure height. The nation was at its most prosperous and equal between 1945 and 1973.
Fr. Jim is right that Protestant Americans remained bound to slavery long after Roman Catholics freed themselves from it. I don’t know why he thinks a generalization about a nation would imply that a minority within it was being “besmirched.” Oversensitive, I think. While Roman Catholic Mexico does have a rich culture, culture isn’t a Christian value, and frankly, most cultures manage a lovely richness. The measures of a Christian community lie in its devotion to worship and in what it does for the least of its brothers.
I had to look up the two Mexican saints Weigel mentioned. It’s horrible what was done to these men in the name of social progress. It’s also horrible that when poor Mexicans fought against those who had impoverished them, they believed the Roman Catholic Church was against them and stood instead on the side of their oppressors. How much of the rise of what Weigel calls the “persecution by secularists and Marxists” is actually due to the Roman Catholic Church’s general failure to call the wealthy toward their duty toward the poor?
The British also sent families, while the Spanish sent adventurers. The British wanted to build a society rather than merely plunder resources. I don’t know whether this difference had more to do with national character, religion, demographics, or something else. I’d love to know what the Spanish did with all their wealth. They seem to have frittered it all away.
I think Richard is right that the US got lucky. The Enlightenment was an ideal time for a nation to be founded because reason was held in such great esteem. A century earlier might have made the US too religious, and a century later might have made us too Romantic.
It does seem that historically Protestant nations are more pleasant and prosperous places today: Britain, Holland, Scandinavia, Germany vs. Spain, Italy, France.
I don’t know what Mike means when he says that the US only reached its height after Catholicism became the strongest religion. It all depends on how you measure height. The nation was at its most prosperous and equal between 1945 and 1973.
Fr. Jim is right that Protestant Americans remained bound to slavery long after Roman Catholics freed themselves from it. I don’t know why he thinks a generalization about a nation would imply that a minority within it was being “besmirched.” Oversensitive, I think. While Roman Catholic Mexico does have a rich culture, culture isn’t a Christian value, and frankly, most cultures manage a lovely richness. The measures of a Christian community lie in its devotion to worship and in what it does for the least of its brothers.
I had to look up the two Mexican saints Weigel mentioned. It’s horrible what was done to these men in the name of social progress. It’s also horrible that when poor Mexicans fought against those who had impoverished them, they believed the Roman Catholic Church was against them and stood instead on the side of their oppressors. How much of the rise of what Weigel calls the “persecution by secularists and Marxists” is actually due to the Roman Catholic Church’s general failure to call the wealthy toward their duty toward the poor?
11.3.2010 | 2:34pm
Brian says:
While religion is important, it is probably a mistake to see religion everywhere. The combatants in the Texan revolution were not very religious. Most Tejanos, although nominally Catholic, were not well catechized or connected to the institutional church. The Texians (as Anglo Texans were called back then) were even less religious. Most submitted to Catholic baptism as a condition for land ownership in Mexican Texas, but did so only ironically. Not something a devout Protestant would do Likewise, Santa Anna, although he used the Church as a power base, could not be considered religious by any means. While the Mexican constition named Catholicism as the official religion, neither Santa Anna nor any other Mexican leader made any attempt to support missionary efforts in Texas, nor to prevent protestants from giving it a go. Over all, the Texians/Tejanos ignored both.
The Texan Revolution itself is quite complex, and its aims developed over time. At first, it was merely one of many federalist revolts against Santa Anna's abrogation of the Mexican Constitution of 1824. The Texian/Tejano men who died at the Alamo fought under the Mexican Flag with '1824' written on it. It was only later, in the wake of the fall of the Alamo and the massacre at Goliad that the Texans decisively moved towards independence. The Texan Declaration of Independence was published in English and Spanish. Independence was finally secured at the Battle of San Jacinto. Afterwards, the remains of the Alamo defenders were transferred by Juan Seguin (one of the leaders in the war of independence) to San Fernando Cathedral.
Arguably, the ethnic conflict between Anglo and Tejano really begins after the Revolution and Annexation, when johnny-come-lately white Americans begin to move to Texas enmasse and defraud Tejano's out of their land. These new comers did not appreciate or need the careful alliance between Tejano and Texian cultivated by Stephen F. Austin, Jim Bowie, the Sequin and Veramendi family among others.
At the same time, Mexico never ratified the treaty granting Texas her independence. According to the Mexican view, Santa Anna did not have the power to agree to terms, and he did so under duress anyway so the treaty was not binding. There were a few attempts to retake Texas during her independent period -- Mexican soldiers did manage to take San Antonio for a time. Mexico only recognized Texan independence after the Mexican-American war. Arguagbly, had they done so earlier, they would not have given Polk the pre-text he needed for waging his (unjust) war.
On another note, the 'perseuction by secularists and Marxists' in Mexico is probably explained in part by the Masonic elements in power in the 20s and 30's. Not that I am a conspiracy theorist finding Masons behind every bush, but in Mexico Masonry was inseperable from a severe anti-clericalism. It is with the supression of the Church, the confiscation of her lands (to give to cronies in the name of the peopel) and the closing of her schools and universities that Mexico really headed on her downward spiral.
The Texan Revolution itself is quite complex, and its aims developed over time. At first, it was merely one of many federalist revolts against Santa Anna's abrogation of the Mexican Constitution of 1824. The Texian/Tejano men who died at the Alamo fought under the Mexican Flag with '1824' written on it. It was only later, in the wake of the fall of the Alamo and the massacre at Goliad that the Texans decisively moved towards independence. The Texan Declaration of Independence was published in English and Spanish. Independence was finally secured at the Battle of San Jacinto. Afterwards, the remains of the Alamo defenders were transferred by Juan Seguin (one of the leaders in the war of independence) to San Fernando Cathedral.
Arguably, the ethnic conflict between Anglo and Tejano really begins after the Revolution and Annexation, when johnny-come-lately white Americans begin to move to Texas enmasse and defraud Tejano's out of their land. These new comers did not appreciate or need the careful alliance between Tejano and Texian cultivated by Stephen F. Austin, Jim Bowie, the Sequin and Veramendi family among others.
At the same time, Mexico never ratified the treaty granting Texas her independence. According to the Mexican view, Santa Anna did not have the power to agree to terms, and he did so under duress anyway so the treaty was not binding. There were a few attempts to retake Texas during her independent period -- Mexican soldiers did manage to take San Antonio for a time. Mexico only recognized Texan independence after the Mexican-American war. Arguagbly, had they done so earlier, they would not have given Polk the pre-text he needed for waging his (unjust) war.
On another note, the 'perseuction by secularists and Marxists' in Mexico is probably explained in part by the Masonic elements in power in the 20s and 30's. Not that I am a conspiracy theorist finding Masons behind every bush, but in Mexico Masonry was inseperable from a severe anti-clericalism. It is with the supression of the Church, the confiscation of her lands (to give to cronies in the name of the peopel) and the closing of her schools and universities that Mexico really headed on her downward spiral.
11.3.2010 | 3:38pm
Jason says:
I am always fascinated by the simplistic thought that says the material fruits of a state/empire make a religion correct or not. Material benefits are not permanent in the societies you mentioned. Western europe is going bankrupt along with the us on their welfare states, soon to be compounded by a demographic collapse. That is the true fruit of the reformation and its individualism. Also by your logic, ancient romes material success means paganism is a great religion? No power attained those heights until the 17th century, furthermore rome collapsed within a hundred years of christianity's legalization. Sounds like someone needs more history lessons.
One final thought, christ said by their fruits you would know them, but he meant spiritual fruits. Unless you think, as your"logic"suggests, the sultan of brunei is the second coming.
One final thought, christ said by their fruits you would know them, but he meant spiritual fruits. Unless you think, as your"logic"suggests, the sultan of brunei is the second coming.
11.3.2010 | 4:01pm
Don Roberto says:
Despite the miserable news from the drug wars, México is not as near to failed state status as many seem to think or even as it was before PRI lost it's apparently tight grip. You will recall that a de facto presidential successor was assassinated. The real problem is the infiltration of post-protestant idolatry of the kind evangelized so well by Hollywood. The current generation is nothing like the last one. Divorce is common and even abortion is becoming more accepted.
Crucial precursors to the birth of democratic countries were the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, against the notion of the divine rights of kings, and before that the Magna Carta, largely the work of Stephen Cardinal Langton. Jefferson, et al. stood on the shoulders of giants.
Crucial precursors to the birth of democratic countries were the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, against the notion of the divine rights of kings, and before that the Magna Carta, largely the work of Stephen Cardinal Langton. Jefferson, et al. stood on the shoulders of giants.
11.3.2010 | 4:04pm
wolskerj says:
Regarding the "fruits" of colonization by Protestant v. Catholic settlers:
What has always seemed most striking to me is the marginalization and virtual eradication of the native people under Protestantism, compared to the Catholic countries where these natives and their descendants still make up the overwhelming majority of the population.
What has always seemed most striking to me is the marginalization and virtual eradication of the native people under Protestantism, compared to the Catholic countries where these natives and their descendants still make up the overwhelming majority of the population.
11.3.2010 | 4:14pm
Alberto Hurtado says:
I'm actually very disappointed in the quality of this article from George Weigel. Normally coherent, this reads like a smattering of thoughts from a travel journal entry. I'm not entirely sure how to connect the dots between the Mexican American War, the Civil War, Religious Liberty, new Archbishops and the failure of the Mexican state over the last 150 years. All of these are really interesting topics, but the normally prescient Professor Weigel has seemed to open a can of worms without really connecting the dots. To be honest, Professor Weigel, it would be nice to see you and the editors of First Things expand on this article and do a follow up because it just doesn't read well at all.
11.3.2010 | 4:20pm
Rod Blaine says:
This sort of snap game always ends badly. "Protestant Americans kept slaves!" "So did Catholics in many Latin American countries!" "Oh, yeah? Well, Thomas Nast drew a rude cartoon of the bishops!" "American morals declined after Kennedy became President!" "Kennedy sold out his Faith to the Houston pastors! He wasn't a real Catholic like, uh... Anyway! John Paul Stevens favoured abortion!" "Let's compare how many immigrants want to emigrate to historically Protestant countries with how many want to emigrate to historically Catholic, Muslim, Orthodox, etc countries..." and so on. One's own glass is always at least half-full, the other side's always very nearly half-empty.
But one objective point: Wasn't Jim Bowie a convert to Catholicism? By marriage, I believe, but that still counts.
But one objective point: Wasn't Jim Bowie a convert to Catholicism? By marriage, I believe, but that still counts.
11.3.2010 | 4:37pm
Rod Blaine says:
Having said that, and duly acknowledging the atrocity of the Baltimore nunnery and compulsory KJV bible readings in schools, I find Newman's argument rather slippery, even by his usual standards. The main Protestant criticism of historically Catholic societies is not that they didn't "invent a steam-engine" but that they are (with a few shining exceptions, particularly Poland) usually high on the corruption index - that "Don't pray to St Juan of the Valley; pray to St Maria of the Hills - she gets things done!" translates rather too easily into "Don't take your complaint to the judge at the courthouse; take it to the police chief at the police station - he gets things done!".
Note too that the Civil War involved the heavily Protestant north fighting the more Catholic South. Scarlett O'Hara wasn't a complete myth.
Note too that the Civil War involved the heavily Protestant north fighting the more Catholic South. Scarlett O'Hara wasn't a complete myth.
11.3.2010 | 5:38pm
Chris says:
Okay, well this debate is all around bizarre. Some of the historical facts (the South more Catholic than the North, at any point in U.S. History???? Did I read that correctly??) But Jason is the only one here making what seems a valid point.
I add, "The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of the light", so I'd ask again by what fruits you really want Protestantism to be known? Because if you're a follower of Christ, it sure as heck shouldn't be anything worldly.
I add, "The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of the light", so I'd ask again by what fruits you really want Protestantism to be known? Because if you're a follower of Christ, it sure as heck shouldn't be anything worldly.
11.3.2010 | 8:50pm
NeilK says:
"Catholicism throughout the United States is being reinvigorated by its Hispanic members." I fail to grasp the reality of this concept when statistics show that the majority have voted and continue to vote for abortion candidates. Can someone help me out here? I continue to be mystified by these contentions when I hear them and I would like someone well qualified to explore this in a future piece.
11.3.2010 | 8:52pm
Richard says:
Chameleon Man (You know who you are),
Once again under the guise of honest inquiry you prosecute your war against First Things and the Catholic Church. And the reason you do that is that they proclaim that the kingdom of God has dominion over the various concupiscences of Brettongarcia/Reston/Joe/Joe the Person/Joe the Human Person and all the other aliases you have contrived to cover your tracks. In the end you have only one commandment: "Do What Thou Wilt." You may take in people who haven't tracked you, but I have, and I'm sick of the malicious dissembling.
Jesus warned again and again not to judge the things of the spirit by material measures. "What profit it a man if he gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his immortal soul.?" He also warned against false prophets. When you condemn the institutions of the Church you condemn St. Augustine, Saint Thomas (whom you invoke incessantly in your eagerness to spill the blood of babies), St. Francis, Saint Claire, The Little Flower, Saint Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, John Vianny, Saint Catherine, Julian of Norwich, and the rest of a vast army of holy people. What do you offer in their place? Proteus the shapeshifter. Whatever drives you, it is not from God. At least you aren't pretending to be Catholic anymore.
If I sound testy, I am. The only thing that interests you in the last analysis is finding a stick, any stick, to beat the Church with. The Epistles to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That is the ancient faith of the Church and it will never change for you or anybody else.
Remember, man, dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.
Richard
Once again under the guise of honest inquiry you prosecute your war against First Things and the Catholic Church. And the reason you do that is that they proclaim that the kingdom of God has dominion over the various concupiscences of Brettongarcia/Reston/Joe/Joe the Person/Joe the Human Person and all the other aliases you have contrived to cover your tracks. In the end you have only one commandment: "Do What Thou Wilt." You may take in people who haven't tracked you, but I have, and I'm sick of the malicious dissembling.
Jesus warned again and again not to judge the things of the spirit by material measures. "What profit it a man if he gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his immortal soul.?" He also warned against false prophets. When you condemn the institutions of the Church you condemn St. Augustine, Saint Thomas (whom you invoke incessantly in your eagerness to spill the blood of babies), St. Francis, Saint Claire, The Little Flower, Saint Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, John Vianny, Saint Catherine, Julian of Norwich, and the rest of a vast army of holy people. What do you offer in their place? Proteus the shapeshifter. Whatever drives you, it is not from God. At least you aren't pretending to be Catholic anymore.
If I sound testy, I am. The only thing that interests you in the last analysis is finding a stick, any stick, to beat the Church with. The Epistles to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That is the ancient faith of the Church and it will never change for you or anybody else.
Remember, man, dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return.
Richard
11.3.2010 | 10:21pm
Rod Blaine says:
> the South more Catholic than the North, at any point in U.S. History???? Did I read that correctly??
Chris, the Vatican supported the Confederacy in the Civil War, and after Jefferson Davis was defeated and imprisoned, the Pope sent him a crown of thorns in sympathy. Fr Neuhaus himself wrote on this, on this very site, some years ago. You might also want to read a few RadTrad Catholic sites and see who they hold up as the ideal of an agrarian, traditional Christian society. Hint: They do not like Abraham Lincoln.
I know, this surprised me too. The fact the KKK was anti-Catholic as well as anti-Negro has tended in hindsight to mask this.
Sandra Miesel, a well-known Catholic novelist and historian, has written that the US struggle both for and against slavery was largely between rial factions of Protestants, with Catholics largely sitting it out.
Chris, the Vatican supported the Confederacy in the Civil War, and after Jefferson Davis was defeated and imprisoned, the Pope sent him a crown of thorns in sympathy. Fr Neuhaus himself wrote on this, on this very site, some years ago. You might also want to read a few RadTrad Catholic sites and see who they hold up as the ideal of an agrarian, traditional Christian society. Hint: They do not like Abraham Lincoln.
I know, this surprised me too. The fact the KKK was anti-Catholic as well as anti-Negro has tended in hindsight to mask this.
Sandra Miesel, a well-known Catholic novelist and historian, has written that the US struggle both for and against slavery was largely between rial factions of Protestants, with Catholics largely sitting it out.
11.4.2010 | 9:22am
Richard says:
Rod Blaine,
I looked into the history of the Church and slavery some time ago and found it to be more complicated than I then had time to cope with. There have been some shining moments and some dismal ones. On the whole, it is not a record to make the sons and daughters of Mother Church proud. Lucifer is an equal opportunity corrupter.
Best,
Richard
I looked into the history of the Church and slavery some time ago and found it to be more complicated than I then had time to cope with. There have been some shining moments and some dismal ones. On the whole, it is not a record to make the sons and daughters of Mother Church proud. Lucifer is an equal opportunity corrupter.
Best,
Richard
11.5.2010 | 11:14am
Amy R says:
NeilT brings up something I've wondered about too - if Hispanic Catholics, in ever greater numbers, are largely voting for pro-abortion candidates, in what way are they "reinvigorating" the Catholic church? I am not a Hispanic Catholic, but if I were, I would be ashamed to know this. Certainly in Colorado, virtually entire parishes voted for pro-abortion "Catholic" candidates who were parish members, entirely disregarding the Church's stance on abortion, in this election and the last!
11.14.2010 | 5:38am
Charles Collins says:
Just a few notes. Jim Bowie coverted to Catholicism when he married a Mexican national (sadly she died of cholera some years before the Revolution) - he was considered somewhat devout unto his death.
One comment says the Texans did not think about independence until after the massacres at Goliad and the Alamo. The Declaration of Independence was signed on March 2 - which was during the battle of the Alamo, and three weeks before the Goliad massacre - which was probably influenced by the aforementioned declaration.
Mexico was a military dictatorship at the time, and a fairly new country - its claim on what is now the American Southwest was not very strong (heck, the State of Virginia claimed all the land west of it to the Pacific). It was a time of revolution - if the Mexican one was justified, then so was the Texas one, which was less than 20 years later.
Same with the Mexican-American war - was it a war of "conquest"? Maybe - but the land the US "took" was barely Mexican - it had been Spanish less than a generation before, a good deal of it was officially ceded to the Republic of Texas in 1836 (admitedly under duress, but that's a chance you take when you are the dictator of a country, and lead your own troops in battle), and the majority of the population in the ceded territories wanted to be part of the United States (thanks to the large scale American/European immigration into those areas, especially California).
At the end of the day, Mexico wanted to take Texas back, and we were going to go to war with them - better to do it on our timing, than theirs.
As a final point, we conquered the entire country, but only took the bits which Mexican law did not reach, and paid them for it. As victims of a "war of conquest", Mexico did not do too badly.
One comment says the Texans did not think about independence until after the massacres at Goliad and the Alamo. The Declaration of Independence was signed on March 2 - which was during the battle of the Alamo, and three weeks before the Goliad massacre - which was probably influenced by the aforementioned declaration.
Mexico was a military dictatorship at the time, and a fairly new country - its claim on what is now the American Southwest was not very strong (heck, the State of Virginia claimed all the land west of it to the Pacific). It was a time of revolution - if the Mexican one was justified, then so was the Texas one, which was less than 20 years later.
Same with the Mexican-American war - was it a war of "conquest"? Maybe - but the land the US "took" was barely Mexican - it had been Spanish less than a generation before, a good deal of it was officially ceded to the Republic of Texas in 1836 (admitedly under duress, but that's a chance you take when you are the dictator of a country, and lead your own troops in battle), and the majority of the population in the ceded territories wanted to be part of the United States (thanks to the large scale American/European immigration into those areas, especially California).
At the end of the day, Mexico wanted to take Texas back, and we were going to go to war with them - better to do it on our timing, than theirs.
As a final point, we conquered the entire country, but only took the bits which Mexican law did not reach, and paid them for it. As victims of a "war of conquest", Mexico did not do too badly.
The US of A was overwhelmingly founded by Protestants; the Framers of the Declaration and Constitution were overwhelming Protestant; the first 34 presidents until Kennedy were Protestants; no Catholic presidents at all.
Why did the Protestant country, America, do so much better than the Catholic countries? Why were their "fruits" so much better?
That is an interesting question. Protestants said it was partially because 1) Catholic hierarchialism, fixation on the Pope, meant that Catholics did not learn individualism; did not learn the individual creativity and responsibility necessary for Democracy. While it was said that 2) the Catholic belief in miraculous objects - relics, the bones of saints, holy water - essentially was a syncretistic corruption of Christianity, by elements of magic, magical thinking. That hindered more practical modes of thought.