“The American River Ganges” Rising
December 10, 2010
Melissa Musick Nussbaum and L. Martin Nussbaum
The cartoon below appeared, with an accompanying article, in Harper’s magazine. The article is entitled “The Priests and the Children.” The cartoon shows a group of children huddled behind a single adult protector along the banks of a river. The children are weeping. Some are down on their knees in supplication. Some are peeking out from behind their lone defender’s back. All of them look fearful.
The children are trapped on the shore as strange reptile-human hybrids emerge from the water. They are Roman Catholic bishops, crawling onto land with stubby legs; their vestments stippled like alligator hide. Their miters are maws, opening to reveal a double row of sharp teeth dripping with water—or, perhaps, blood. Above each gaping snout, a single jeweled eye shines, alive, but not human. The faces of the bishops beneath the mouth-miters are not, however, reptilian, but simian. Their features are dark and heavy, their brows low. The cartoon suggest that these monsters have come to devour the children.
When do you think this editorial cartoon and its accompanying article appeared? In 2002, when the articles and cartoons about the Catholic sex abuse crisis reached a crescendo? They are, rather, from the September 30, 1871 issue of Harper’s. Thomas Nast drew the cartoon. Eugene Lawrence wrote the article, addressing the threat to America’s children posed by the establishment and support of Catholic schools in New York City.
“To destroy our free schools, and perhaps our free institutions, has been for many years the constant aim of the extreme section of the Romish Church,” Lawrence wrote in his article. Romish and, in particular, Jesuit, influence on New York’s school system—as Catholic (read: Irish) politicians came to sit on school boards and other city councils—had already lead to alarming results: “They [Catholics] required that the Bible should be wholly disused in popular education. . . . And in several Catholic schools the Bible has never been read for twenty years.” Additionally, “The Protestant teacher was often made to feel the impertinences of his ignorant masters.”
The effects of an entirely separate, Romish-controlled school system, Lawrence warns, would be catastrophic:
“Our treasury rifled; our credit shaken; the poor laborer asking vainly for his honest wages day after day; the rich official reveling in disreputable gains; an enormous debt heaped upon us we know not how; our schools decaying, our teachers cowering before their Catholic masters; our press, when it ventures to complain, threatened with violence or insulted by offered bribes; the interests of the city neglected, its honorable reputation gone.”
With the exception of the charge that Catholics do not allow the teaching of the Bible in school, the critique has nothing to do with curriculum or method. The critique is of foreign corruption and ignorance, of secret dealings among the keepers of a secret rite, of financial ruin and social collapse, of bullies and the hapless bullied mob.
Nast needs few words; his sketch is a nightmare in pen and ink. There is only this caption, “The American River Ganges,” suggesting not only the foreign, but a land so distant from most Americans as to be wholly other, completely alien. In his book, American Catholic: the Saints and Sinners Who Built America’s Most Powerful Church, historian Charles R. Morris calls “The American River Ganges,” “Perhaps the most brilliantly poisonous of Thomas Nast’s popular anti-Catholic cartoons.”
Nast and Lawrence were not alone in their fear of “the Romish Church.” In 1834, a young woman named Rebecca Reed published Six Months in a Convent, her account of sexual deviancy at an Ursuline convent in Charleston, Massachusetts from which she claimed to have escaped.
On August 10, 1834, famous Congregationalist pastor, Lyman Beecher, the father of Harriet Beecher Stowe, preached a sermon entitled “The Devil and the Pope of Rome,” in which he singled out the Ursuline sisters of Charleston. The next day, a mob attacked the Ursuline convent.
In his book, Morris describes the August 11 attack. After being told by a “formidable woman” who “met them at the gate” to disperse or she would have the bishop summon “twenty thousand Irishmen at his command in Boston,” they stormed the gate, “rampaging from room to room, smashing furniture and china, and setting the rooms on fire. Drunken rowdies put on nuns' habits and danced lewdly around bonfires of books and furniture.” The fire company arrived but did not intervene. The nuns and the novices escaped through the back gate, running for their lives. The mob then spread through Charlestown, attacking and burning a number of Irish homes.
Books about sexual deviancy among Catholic priests and nuns were popular in the nineteenth century. Maria Monk, published her Awful Disclosures of the Hotel Dieu Convent of Montreal, or The Secrets of the Black Nunnery Revealed in 1836. Morris estimates it sold 300,000 copies before the Civil War. “It has been called the Uncle Tom’s Cabin of anti-Catholicism,” Morris writes, “or the anti-Catholic equivalent of the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, not so long ago thought to be permanently discredited, is now enjoying a resurgence of popularity, particularly in Islamic countries. Like the threatening images of the Protocols, the images of foreign, secretive, power hungry, and sexually deviant Catholic cabals go underground in some decades, only to re-emerge in others.
One hundred and twenty years later, the cartoons of reptile-human hybrids, bishops on the hunt for America’s children, have reappeared. Nast’s trope of the alien, not quite human, Catholic has come out of hibernation to be printed in newspapers and magazines all over the United States and the world.
The 1871 cartoon and article were published as a warning against the establishment of a Catholic school system in New York City. Gerald Scarfe’s 2009 cartoon suggests those fears were prescient. The cartoon shows a ghostly cassock-clad priest. Flame-like streaks of yellow climb from the hem of his cassock. His eyes are lidded in the same burning yellow. His hands are claws. Beneath a full moon, he stands, ready to push open a door marked “Boys’ Dormitory.”
In 2002, Paul Conrad depicted “St. Pedophile’s” Catholic Church, with the caption, “Suffer the little children to come unto me.” Conrad joins many other cartoonists in using the name “St. Pedophilia’s Church,” or a variant of it, for their work.
The cartoonist publishing under the moniker Signe drew a 2002 cartoon in which a priest, dressed in clerical blacks and white Roman collar, sits on a cot behind bars. The caption reads, “CELL-IBATE.” In another cartoon—which appeared in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune—the Roman collar is shown floating above a metal chastity belt.
A favorite trope remains Nast’s bishop’s miter, transformed into reptilian jaws. A variation on that theme shows Pope Benedict XVI wearing his tooth-lined miter. Or another which depicts a leering priest and a howling child emerging from the top of the pope’s miter. The miter is squashed low on Benedict’s forehead, giving him a simian appearance. Beneath the picture is Benedict’s “question.” “Did I ever tell you I was a member of the Hitler Youth?”
Another favored theme is the vestment itself, suggesting that, underneath its folds, dangerous and deviant acts are at work. In Gerald Scarfe’s cartoon of 2010, the unnamed episcopal figure is a grinning skeleton. In one dead hand he holds a crucifix, on which is hung the body of a child. Beneath his skirts, three damned priests, one drawn with devil horns and pointed ears, clutch their screaming victims, all boys. The scrawled caption reads, “HELL.”
In Milt Priggee’s 2004 cartoon, an unnamed bishop strides forward, smoke from his censor rising just above the devil’s tail snaking out from underneath his vestments. In another Prigee cartoon a mitered and vested bishop is face to face with the devil. Standing amidst the fires of hell, the devil says, “Funny meeting you here.” The bishop, his eyes covered by the miter, responds, “Not really.”
Some might argue that nativist hysteria is quite a different thing from the revelation of the real menace of priest perpetrators. But consider this snapshot of the sexual abuse of children in the United States: the 2009 Annual Report prepared for the Catholic bishops by an independent auditor identifies an average of 21 allegations of childhood sexual abuse per year in the American Catholic Church for the current decade, with this number dropping to six allegations in 2009. The 2007 Associated Press investigation identifies 2570 public school teachers who, from 2001 through 2005, had their teaching licenses “taken away, denied, surrendered voluntarily, or restricted” as a result of sexual misconduct with minors—an average of 514 per year. If the flood of hateful cartoons is a response to a true threat, where are the cartoons featuring first grade teachers, their incisors dripping blood, their clawed hands reaching for the cowering children?
Images of a “foreign” faith and its medieval accouterments continues to alarm the American public. And newspapers, far from being silenced by threats of violence or bribes as Lawrence suspected they would be, continue to provide outlets for these vile images. The American River Ganges still rises, its current fed by the runoff of ignorance and fear.
Melissa Musick Nussbaum is a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter and the author of six books and numerous articles. L. Martin Nussbaum is an attorney who advocates on behalf of religious institutions nationwide. They have been married for thirty-six years.
The USCCB’s 2009 Annual Report can be found here. More information about the 2007 Associated Press investigation can be found here.
Comments:
12.10.2010 | 12:30pm
Robert says:
Such arguments as above, by "Joe the Human," are worthless. They involve a whopping example of the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc": there were many other factors - geographical, socialogical, etc. - in the settling of the Americas other than religion that influenced and divergences in the political and economic development of Latin and North America (one of which being the Protestant extermination of native peoples - Catholic preferred to convert them). The writer also committs the fallacy of special pleading: in the year 1000, by his line of argument, we would have to ask, "Why are Muslim societies so superior to Christian ones?" and then draw the invalid conclusion that Islam must be superior to Christianity. Who knows, in the year 2500, people might be asking why Catholic Brazil is so much more successful than the Protestant US? And besides, from a genuinly Christian point of view, material success is no indication of spiritual superiority. This is a Calvinist perversion of the true message of the Gospel.
12.10.2010 | 12:40pm
pentamom says:
Robert, I was with you up to your last sentence.
"This is a Calvinist perversion of the true message of the Gospel. "
This trope that holding that material success is an indication of spiritual superiority is a feature of Calvinism is something that was created a couple of generations ago by a very confused sociologist, and has proved to be as enduring as any scientific or sociological myth in history. You won't find anything like this in actual Calvinist theology. Calvinists actually do read the Psalms, after all.
For the record.
"This is a Calvinist perversion of the true message of the Gospel. "
This trope that holding that material success is an indication of spiritual superiority is a feature of Calvinism is something that was created a couple of generations ago by a very confused sociologist, and has proved to be as enduring as any scientific or sociological myth in history. You won't find anything like this in actual Calvinist theology. Calvinists actually do read the Psalms, after all.
For the record.
12.10.2010 | 12:45pm
Mike says:
Joe the Human -
Do the math on this one and your questions will be answered. Whereas the Spanish and French (Catholics) in the New World attempted to work with the native populations, trying to convert them mostly, the Protestants in most cases took to exterminating them since they viewed them as "savages" and beyond any hope of salvation. Certainly the Spanish and French did engage in military conflict with the native peoples, but it pales in comparison to the genocide leveled by Protestants in America on the native population. The Protestant South benefited enormously economically by enslaving millions of Africans for over two centuries, contributing significantly to America's build-up of wealth.
With millions exterminated and/or enslaved, wealth can certainly be built-up and concentrated in the remaining "free" population.
The French Jesuit (Catholic) missionaries were especially successful as advocates for the native peoples of North America, their human rights and their dignity.
Catholic societies in the New World were made up largely of native peoples who preferred to live in traditional, mostly agrarian ways. They were not concerned with the build-up of wealth and power for the most part. The Church did not try to enslave them in factories, or force them into industry but respected their right to live more simple lives. Calvinism took no root there, thankfully.
"Catholicism" did not found Mexico and South America. What a hideously uninformed remark, Joe. Spanish and Portugese, who just happened to be Catholics, colonized those regions. They, of course, brought with them their unique culture and expression of Catholicism.
The ideas you espouse in your comments hearken back to the "Leyenda Negra" or "Black Legend" of Catholics in the New World. Look that up and let your eyes be opened sir. You will benefit enormously from reading the book "Those Terrible Middle Ages" by Prof. Regine Pernoud. Rather than making up your own ideas about Catholicism and Civilization, get the facts.
Western Civilization was and has always been the legacy of the Catholic Church.
Do the math on this one and your questions will be answered. Whereas the Spanish and French (Catholics) in the New World attempted to work with the native populations, trying to convert them mostly, the Protestants in most cases took to exterminating them since they viewed them as "savages" and beyond any hope of salvation. Certainly the Spanish and French did engage in military conflict with the native peoples, but it pales in comparison to the genocide leveled by Protestants in America on the native population. The Protestant South benefited enormously economically by enslaving millions of Africans for over two centuries, contributing significantly to America's build-up of wealth.
With millions exterminated and/or enslaved, wealth can certainly be built-up and concentrated in the remaining "free" population.
The French Jesuit (Catholic) missionaries were especially successful as advocates for the native peoples of North America, their human rights and their dignity.
Catholic societies in the New World were made up largely of native peoples who preferred to live in traditional, mostly agrarian ways. They were not concerned with the build-up of wealth and power for the most part. The Church did not try to enslave them in factories, or force them into industry but respected their right to live more simple lives. Calvinism took no root there, thankfully.
"Catholicism" did not found Mexico and South America. What a hideously uninformed remark, Joe. Spanish and Portugese, who just happened to be Catholics, colonized those regions. They, of course, brought with them their unique culture and expression of Catholicism.
The ideas you espouse in your comments hearken back to the "Leyenda Negra" or "Black Legend" of Catholics in the New World. Look that up and let your eyes be opened sir. You will benefit enormously from reading the book "Those Terrible Middle Ages" by Prof. Regine Pernoud. Rather than making up your own ideas about Catholicism and Civilization, get the facts.
Western Civilization was and has always been the legacy of the Catholic Church.
12.10.2010 | 1:08pm
Joe the Human says:
Careful consideration, finds that many more factors were in-common between North and South America, than previously thought. For example, today we are finding that the natural resource situation, in North v. Centralo/South America was very similar. Mexico had lots of oil; they just didn't know it.
The only really different thing? Was indeed, the North was re-founded by Protestants; the South, by Catholics.
Nor is it true that Islam was more successful than Europe ... ever. Or certainly not long-term.
Don't like the argument "by their fruits you shall know them"? Read your BIble, and weep.
By the way, what did our founders think? Washington's troops celebrated "Pope Day"; which consisted of burning the Pope in effigy.
Richard: what you're doing is called "Denial," in Psychology.
The only really different thing? Was indeed, the North was re-founded by Protestants; the South, by Catholics.
Nor is it true that Islam was more successful than Europe ... ever. Or certainly not long-term.
Don't like the argument "by their fruits you shall know them"? Read your BIble, and weep.
By the way, what did our founders think? Washington's troops celebrated "Pope Day"; which consisted of burning the Pope in effigy.
Richard: what you're doing is called "Denial," in Psychology.
12.10.2010 | 1:42pm
pentamom says:
"The only really different thing? Was indeed, the North was re-founded by Protestants; the South, by Catholics."
If you define "only really different thing" in such a way that you can only get one answer, then yes. Ethnicity, climate, the goals of the colonizing kingdoms, the types of individual people establishing the early colonies, the timelines on which they were founded (the South being nearly a century earlier in its beginnings than the North) with all the relevant historical and technological background -- those aren't "real differences," if you don't want them to be.
If you define "only really different thing" in such a way that you can only get one answer, then yes. Ethnicity, climate, the goals of the colonizing kingdoms, the types of individual people establishing the early colonies, the timelines on which they were founded (the South being nearly a century earlier in its beginnings than the North) with all the relevant historical and technological background -- those aren't "real differences," if you don't want them to be.
12.10.2010 | 1:51pm
SDG says:
"Don't like the argument 'by their fruits you shall know them'?"
(a) It's not an "argument"; (b) Jesus is speaking of "knowing" INDIVIDUALS (false prophets), not civilizations or religions; and (c) "fruit" refers to good or evil WORKS, not economic prosperity.
Sacred scripture is SACRED. Don't abuse God's word by claiming its authority for your own very different ideas.
(a) It's not an "argument"; (b) Jesus is speaking of "knowing" INDIVIDUALS (false prophets), not civilizations or religions; and (c) "fruit" refers to good or evil WORKS, not economic prosperity.
Sacred scripture is SACRED. Don't abuse God's word by claiming its authority for your own very different ideas.
12.10.2010 | 2:00pm
Robert says:
To pentamom: I stand corrected on Calvinism. I am actually not at all hostile to many forms of evangelical Protestantism, pace some of what I said in my post. I believe that Protestants are our brothers and sisters in Christ and that much of what the preach is very good. I just have no patience for half-baked "grand theories" of history and arogant religious triumphalism as peddled by so-called "Joe the Human."
12.10.2010 | 2:17pm
Assistant Village Idiot says:
Uh-uh. You let Joe the Human get you off-topic. You answered him well on his tangent, but 'twere better to have dismissed the tangent altogether.
The attacks on Catholicism are but one aspect of the attack on Christianity in general, focused on a large and prominent group. The Protestants who join in it do not see they are sawing off their own branch as well.
It should be no surprise that wolves hide in sheep's clothing. What possible benefit would there be in wearing wolves' clothing? We should expect that any group which has a good reputation - scout leaders, coaches, clergy, teachers - will be used as a disguise for the wicked. Our failure to recognise this and be vigilant, our laziness in believing that "someone else" was monitoring the behavior of those entrusted with children, has left children unprotected.
Catholics are indeed being blamed out of proportion to the reality, as one can easily see by comparing the numbers above, or reflecting on other scandals that have come to light in other churches and organizations. The growing interest in lawsuits, which in the case of schools the taxpayers may be on the hook for, may be the secular punishment, as the Assyrians were of old.
The attacks on Catholicism are but one aspect of the attack on Christianity in general, focused on a large and prominent group. The Protestants who join in it do not see they are sawing off their own branch as well.
It should be no surprise that wolves hide in sheep's clothing. What possible benefit would there be in wearing wolves' clothing? We should expect that any group which has a good reputation - scout leaders, coaches, clergy, teachers - will be used as a disguise for the wicked. Our failure to recognise this and be vigilant, our laziness in believing that "someone else" was monitoring the behavior of those entrusted with children, has left children unprotected.
Catholics are indeed being blamed out of proportion to the reality, as one can easily see by comparing the numbers above, or reflecting on other scandals that have come to light in other churches and organizations. The growing interest in lawsuits, which in the case of schools the taxpayers may be on the hook for, may be the secular punishment, as the Assyrians were of old.
12.10.2010 | 2:29pm
The Moz says:
The haters have nothing better to offer and no positive alternatives, so they rant and rave and accuse and try to tear down, but "me thinks they doth protest too much".
12.10.2010 | 2:31pm
cricket says:
Hey, lay off Joe a little. Anecdotal evidence suggests he has a point. I'm both the most Catholic and the laziest person at my place of employment.
12.10.2010 | 2:33pm
Joe the Human Person says:
SDG: nope. Much of the time, God was speaking not just of individuals, but whole "nations" and "peoples," like the tribes, and Israel. Yes, the Bible is a SACRED text; so be sure to read it thoroughly. As it turns out, current Theology is discovering many things in it, that people didn't see before.
RObert: my "triumphalism," is offered in direct response to Catholics; for and from whom, by the way, the term "triumphalism" was coined. What could be more triumphalist, than the "one true Church"? By the way Robert: are you saying religion has no effect, on the way a nation flourishes? That being "Catholic" had nothing to do with the behavior of the Spainish invaders? Are you arguing that religion is irrelevant?
Penta: The similarities between North and SA, are far closer than many have thought; making a cross-cultural/geographical comparison very useful here. Today especially , we are finding that CA/SA has many more resources than formerly thought: PEMEX oil is currently the lifeblood of Mexico; Brazillian wood, forests, similarly. The timeline is SLIGHTLY different; we can expect an absolute symmetry. But all in all, there are enough common factors to consider North vs. Central/South America, as an interesting, even important case, for looking to see how much difference a religion makes, after all.
RObert: my "triumphalism," is offered in direct response to Catholics; for and from whom, by the way, the term "triumphalism" was coined. What could be more triumphalist, than the "one true Church"? By the way Robert: are you saying religion has no effect, on the way a nation flourishes? That being "Catholic" had nothing to do with the behavior of the Spainish invaders? Are you arguing that religion is irrelevant?
Penta: The similarities between North and SA, are far closer than many have thought; making a cross-cultural/geographical comparison very useful here. Today especially , we are finding that CA/SA has many more resources than formerly thought: PEMEX oil is currently the lifeblood of Mexico; Brazillian wood, forests, similarly. The timeline is SLIGHTLY different; we can expect an absolute symmetry. But all in all, there are enough common factors to consider North vs. Central/South America, as an interesting, even important case, for looking to see how much difference a religion makes, after all.
12.10.2010 | 2:44pm
LUKE1732 says:
One need only review the career paths of the Apostles and many others in the early church to see what fruits an authentic Christian can expect. Which is relevant to both the original topic and to Joe's tangent.
12.10.2010 | 2:51pm
SDG says:
Joe: The Gospel context is sufficient rebuttal. What the Bible does "much of the time" doesn't trump what Jesus is saying in Matthew 7:16 and parallels. Anyone who can read can see Jesus is saying "You will know true or false teachers by their evil deeds," not "You will know true or false religions by the economic prosperity of their colonies."
12.10.2010 | 2:52pm
Michael says:
Assistant Village Idiot,
“It should be no surprise that wolves hide in sheep's clothing. What possible benefit would there be in wearing wolves' clothing? We should expect that any group which has a good reputation - scout leaders, coaches, clergy, teachers - will be used as a disguise for the wicked. Our failure to recognise this and be vigilant, our laziness in believing that "someone else" was monitoring the behavior of those entrusted with children, has left children unprotected.”
Yes, well put. The wicked will put on sheep’s clothing, and we must be vigilant.
The second and greater scandal in the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis is that one shepherd after another passed the wolf to the next fold.
Contra Nussbaum, we must be grateful to the press both Roman Catholic (National Catholic Reporter) and secular (Boston Globe) for shaming the shepherds into doing their jobs
“It should be no surprise that wolves hide in sheep's clothing. What possible benefit would there be in wearing wolves' clothing? We should expect that any group which has a good reputation - scout leaders, coaches, clergy, teachers - will be used as a disguise for the wicked. Our failure to recognise this and be vigilant, our laziness in believing that "someone else" was monitoring the behavior of those entrusted with children, has left children unprotected.”
Yes, well put. The wicked will put on sheep’s clothing, and we must be vigilant.
The second and greater scandal in the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis is that one shepherd after another passed the wolf to the next fold.
Contra Nussbaum, we must be grateful to the press both Roman Catholic (National Catholic Reporter) and secular (Boston Globe) for shaming the shepherds into doing their jobs
12.10.2010 | 3:02pm
SDG says:
Parallelism lapse: Of course that should read "You will know true or false teachers by their good or evil deeds."
12.10.2010 | 3:06pm
Mooga says:
"Some might argue that nativist hysteria is quite a different thing from the revelation of the real menace of priest perpetrators."
I buy that argument. When critics attack the Church, they aim exclusively at the hieararchy. Some go after certain doctrines or disciplines, like mandatory priestly celibacy or the restriction of women from the priesthood, but none of them has spoken harshly about Catholics as individuals. Nobody's tried to argue that more Catholics in the world (or in the country) will somehow increase the incidence of pedophilia or gender discimination. So, yes, many of the attacks are intellectually lazy and downright tasteless, but they're a far cry ffrom torch-and-pitchfork stuff.
I buy that argument. When critics attack the Church, they aim exclusively at the hieararchy. Some go after certain doctrines or disciplines, like mandatory priestly celibacy or the restriction of women from the priesthood, but none of them has spoken harshly about Catholics as individuals. Nobody's tried to argue that more Catholics in the world (or in the country) will somehow increase the incidence of pedophilia or gender discimination. So, yes, many of the attacks are intellectually lazy and downright tasteless, but they're a far cry ffrom torch-and-pitchfork stuff.
12.10.2010 | 3:29pm
Michael says:
Assistant Village Idiot,
“It should be no surprise that wolves hide in sheep's clothing. What possible benefit would there be in wearing wolves' clothing? We should expect that any group which has a good reputation - scout leaders, coaches, clergy, teachers - will be used as a disguise for the wicked. Our failure to recognise this and be vigilant, our laziness in believing that "someone else" was monitoring the behavior of those entrusted with children, has left children unprotected.”
Yes, well put. The wicked will put on sheep’s clothing, and we must be vigilant.
The second and greater scandal in the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis is that one shepherd after another passed the wolf to the next fold.
Contra Nussbaum, we should be grateful to the press both Roman Catholic (National Catholic Reporter) and secular (Boston Globe) for shaming the shepherds into doing their jobs.
“It should be no surprise that wolves hide in sheep's clothing. What possible benefit would there be in wearing wolves' clothing? We should expect that any group which has a good reputation - scout leaders, coaches, clergy, teachers - will be used as a disguise for the wicked. Our failure to recognise this and be vigilant, our laziness in believing that "someone else" was monitoring the behavior of those entrusted with children, has left children unprotected.”
Yes, well put. The wicked will put on sheep’s clothing, and we must be vigilant.
The second and greater scandal in the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis is that one shepherd after another passed the wolf to the next fold.
Contra Nussbaum, we should be grateful to the press both Roman Catholic (National Catholic Reporter) and secular (Boston Globe) for shaming the shepherds into doing their jobs.
12.10.2010 | 4:37pm
Mike Melendez says:
"...priest predators" is the combination that helps betray the intent. As a lector, I am required to fill out a CORI form every year and study short articles provided to train me to vigilance on possible predators whether or not they are priests. There is nothing peculiar to priests that make them predators. The schools, public and private, are known to harbor predators as well. Teachers have even greater access to the young than priests. Yet, all efforts to include them in the broader effort to reduce predation are prevented. I have yet to hear the combination "teacher predators".
There are those who expect priests to be saints. Indeed, they should be held to high professional and personal standards by themselves and the Church. At the same time, we must recognize that all priests are human like you, me, and even Joe the Human.
There are those who expect priests to be saints. Indeed, they should be held to high professional and personal standards by themselves and the Church. At the same time, we must recognize that all priests are human like you, me, and even Joe the Human.
12.10.2010 | 5:02pm
Mooga says:
"All of which required shifting authority from one monarch or Pope at the top,ndividuals, and local authority"
What era are we talking about here? The pope didn't declare himself infallible unti the late nineteenth century -- after many of these polemics were written. Back during the Renaissance, the papacy was much weaker, in practice as well as in theory. Popes had to go to war just to keep their thrones. Only a century before the Puritans set sail for Massachurssetts with their famous Calvinist work ethic, Pope Clement was literally forced to deny King Henry his annulment by the Holy Roman emperor, Catherine of Aragon's nephew, who went on to sack Rome.
What Catholicism never had was any type of prosperity gospel. Tevye said, "There's no shame in being poor, but there's no honor in it, either." Catholics would say the same thing about the rich. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's no sign of divine favor. For all that, Catholics have taken to American capitalism quite well, as either Joe Kennedy or Bill Buckley would be happy to tell you.
What era are we talking about here? The pope didn't declare himself infallible unti the late nineteenth century -- after many of these polemics were written. Back during the Renaissance, the papacy was much weaker, in practice as well as in theory. Popes had to go to war just to keep their thrones. Only a century before the Puritans set sail for Massachurssetts with their famous Calvinist work ethic, Pope Clement was literally forced to deny King Henry his annulment by the Holy Roman emperor, Catherine of Aragon's nephew, who went on to sack Rome.
What Catholicism never had was any type of prosperity gospel. Tevye said, "There's no shame in being poor, but there's no honor in it, either." Catholics would say the same thing about the rich. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's no sign of divine favor. For all that, Catholics have taken to American capitalism quite well, as either Joe Kennedy or Bill Buckley would be happy to tell you.
12.10.2010 | 5:31pm
reader says:
Do you have a link for this 2007 AP report? There is no working link in the Resources.
12.10.2010 | 7:34pm
Richard says:
I have always held that the Devil works both sides of the street and this excellent article documents my conviction. There are gross offenders on both sides of this story. I don't want to go further than that because it will certainly stimulate a flame war that does little good.
Michael, I suppose you noticed that one of the contributors WAS a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. If I valued that paper's role in the scandal, I would take reflective notice.
Joe, the roles of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches in the foundation and spreading of Western Civilization have both been perfectly colossal. It would take a library to tell the whole tale. Catholicism and Protestantism both have their strengths and have worked together, if not always amicably, to make the modern world (I do not deny that some of your points about the specific role of Protestantism in the formation of modernism are correct, but the necessary qualifiers are nowhere to be found). You hate the Catholic Church because it says no to destructive desire, as shown by your quite repetitive posts for months on a variety of topics. That's one of the reasons I have little patience for your cartoon like analysis of the rise of the West.
It is worth noting that there are astute analysts who see the financial future of the world in Central and South America and Asia, not Europe and the U.S. In the history of the race America is to date a blip in the history (though one I admire). Let's see how things pan out.
The one thing that does shock me about this article is that there are some who cannot see that some of these cartoons are vicious to the point of being demented.
Best,
Richard
Michael, I suppose you noticed that one of the contributors WAS a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. If I valued that paper's role in the scandal, I would take reflective notice.
Joe, the roles of both the Catholic and Protestant Churches in the foundation and spreading of Western Civilization have both been perfectly colossal. It would take a library to tell the whole tale. Catholicism and Protestantism both have their strengths and have worked together, if not always amicably, to make the modern world (I do not deny that some of your points about the specific role of Protestantism in the formation of modernism are correct, but the necessary qualifiers are nowhere to be found). You hate the Catholic Church because it says no to destructive desire, as shown by your quite repetitive posts for months on a variety of topics. That's one of the reasons I have little patience for your cartoon like analysis of the rise of the West.
It is worth noting that there are astute analysts who see the financial future of the world in Central and South America and Asia, not Europe and the U.S. In the history of the race America is to date a blip in the history (though one I admire). Let's see how things pan out.
The one thing that does shock me about this article is that there are some who cannot see that some of these cartoons are vicious to the point of being demented.
Best,
Richard
12.10.2010 | 8:03pm
Mark VA says:
Joe the Human wrote:
"By the way, what did our founders think? Washington's troops celebrated "Pope Day"; which consisted of burning the Pope in effigy".
I believe this is a reference to an attempted celebration of the Guy Fawkes Day by some in the Revolutionary Army. Joe the Human gets this completely, and I mean, completely, wrong. Our first President condemned this attempt using severe language:
Order in Quarters issued by General George Washington, November 5, 1775:
"As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada."
"By the way, what did our founders think? Washington's troops celebrated "Pope Day"; which consisted of burning the Pope in effigy".
I believe this is a reference to an attempted celebration of the Guy Fawkes Day by some in the Revolutionary Army. Joe the Human gets this completely, and I mean, completely, wrong. Our first President condemned this attempt using severe language:
Order in Quarters issued by General George Washington, November 5, 1775:
"As the Commander in Chief has been apprized of a design form’d for the observance of that ridiculous and childish custom of burning the Effigy of the pope–He cannot help expressing his surprise that there should be Officers and Soldiers in this army so void of common sense, as not to see the impropriety of such a step at this Juncture; at a Time when we are solliciting, and have really obtain’d, the friendship and alliance of the people of Canada, whom we ought to consider as Brethren embarked in the same Cause. The defence of the general Liberty of America: At such a juncture, and in such Circumstances, to be insulting their Religion, is so monstrous, as not to be suffered or excused; indeed instead of offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address public thanks to these our Brethren, as to them we are so much indebted for every late happy Success over the common Enemy in Canada."
12.10.2010 | 10:58pm
FW Ken says:
The second and greater scandal in the Roman Catholic sex abuse crisis is that one shepherd after another passed the wolf to the next fold.
Agreed. In fact, I would say it's the greater problem, since it enabled the first, and is part of a greater problem of acculturation. Bishops leaned on questionable psychology to choose ordinands and then to address dysfunctional behaviors. They acted in concert with social norms (yes, hiding sex offenses was a norm before Oprah made it entertainment) rather than the protect and heal the flock. Bishops became corporate executives rather than shepherd.
It's also worth noting that as the presence of deviants is common in the teaching profession (and all professions with access to children), so schools have been notorious about moving miscreant teachers from district to district.
we should be grateful to the press both Roman Catholic (National Catholic Reporter) and secular (Boston Globe) for shaming the shepherds into doing their jobs.
Also agreed. However, if the housecleaning the Church is getting enables the larger society to ignore the larger social problem, that's not so good.
Finally, I have to comment that Joe's delight over (protestant) American prosperity assumes that rich is good. Yes! America, where a million unborn babies are murdered in the womb annually, where narcissistic consumption defines the economy, lives are defined by possessions, marriage is reduced to cheap sentimentality and self-interest, and millions resort to drugs (of the prescribed and street types both) to ease the pain of existential emptiness. If you really want to credit all that to protestantism, it's all yours Joe. Myself, I think it's more complicated than that, but whatever that, we definititely have different ideas of what it means to be human.
Agreed. In fact, I would say it's the greater problem, since it enabled the first, and is part of a greater problem of acculturation. Bishops leaned on questionable psychology to choose ordinands and then to address dysfunctional behaviors. They acted in concert with social norms (yes, hiding sex offenses was a norm before Oprah made it entertainment) rather than the protect and heal the flock. Bishops became corporate executives rather than shepherd.
It's also worth noting that as the presence of deviants is common in the teaching profession (and all professions with access to children), so schools have been notorious about moving miscreant teachers from district to district.
we should be grateful to the press both Roman Catholic (National Catholic Reporter) and secular (Boston Globe) for shaming the shepherds into doing their jobs.
Also agreed. However, if the housecleaning the Church is getting enables the larger society to ignore the larger social problem, that's not so good.
Finally, I have to comment that Joe's delight over (protestant) American prosperity assumes that rich is good. Yes! America, where a million unborn babies are murdered in the womb annually, where narcissistic consumption defines the economy, lives are defined by possessions, marriage is reduced to cheap sentimentality and self-interest, and millions resort to drugs (of the prescribed and street types both) to ease the pain of existential emptiness. If you really want to credit all that to protestantism, it's all yours Joe. Myself, I think it's more complicated than that, but whatever that, we definititely have different ideas of what it means to be human.
12.11.2010 | 1:43am
Rick says:
"Teachers have even greater access to the young than priests. Yet, all efforts to include them in the broader effort to reduce predation are prevented."
Mike, what school districts are you familiar with? Every teacher in our public school district has to undergo "child protection" training. I also had to go through such a course to work with our local Boy Scout troop.
Beyond that, though, there is a fundamental problem with trying to compare priests and teachers as though they were on a level playing field. Priests have been endowed with an otherworldly aura that would be alien to any public school teacher. Historically, they have been considered men "set apart", cloistered to one degree or another in a special community of men, inhabiting a rarified spiritual estate that traditionally made them the object of popular awe. When did you ever hear an English or math teacher referred to as "an ontologically superior being"? ("I have the authority to change reality!" our parish priest recently announced to us.)
This tradition of an exclusive priestly brotherhood has been blended, in recent history, with a most interesting trend. My wife graduated from Holy Cross in the seventies. A classmate and good friend of hers felt called to the priesthood and entered a seminary upon graduation. She ran into him some time later, and he explained why he had just left the seminary. It turned out that he was the only member of his class who was not a homosexual. He felt he just didn't belong there.
Recently, we invited Bill, a lay worker in our church, and his wife to have dinner at our house. In the course of conversation, he revealed that he had entered a Franciscan seminary in the nineties. He was finally called for a conference with his spiritual advisor. After some hemming and hawing, the advisor explained that, well, it was better to get some things out in the open. It concerned our friend's sexual orientation. The seminary was, the advisor said, in effect a homosexual community, and Bill, seemed to be, well, straight, and did he think he would fit in? As it turned out, he didn't, which was why he and his wife were sitting at our dinner table.
I can't help feeling that this evolution of the priesthood into a homosexual dominated profession, obviously encouraged and facilitated by the celibacy provision, is at the root of the current sexual abuse scandal. I somehow doubt that the lack of a comparable scandal concerning married Protestant ministers can be attributed to the fact that they have not been targeted by anti-Protestant bigots.
Mike, what school districts are you familiar with? Every teacher in our public school district has to undergo "child protection" training. I also had to go through such a course to work with our local Boy Scout troop.
Beyond that, though, there is a fundamental problem with trying to compare priests and teachers as though they were on a level playing field. Priests have been endowed with an otherworldly aura that would be alien to any public school teacher. Historically, they have been considered men "set apart", cloistered to one degree or another in a special community of men, inhabiting a rarified spiritual estate that traditionally made them the object of popular awe. When did you ever hear an English or math teacher referred to as "an ontologically superior being"? ("I have the authority to change reality!" our parish priest recently announced to us.)
This tradition of an exclusive priestly brotherhood has been blended, in recent history, with a most interesting trend. My wife graduated from Holy Cross in the seventies. A classmate and good friend of hers felt called to the priesthood and entered a seminary upon graduation. She ran into him some time later, and he explained why he had just left the seminary. It turned out that he was the only member of his class who was not a homosexual. He felt he just didn't belong there.
Recently, we invited Bill, a lay worker in our church, and his wife to have dinner at our house. In the course of conversation, he revealed that he had entered a Franciscan seminary in the nineties. He was finally called for a conference with his spiritual advisor. After some hemming and hawing, the advisor explained that, well, it was better to get some things out in the open. It concerned our friend's sexual orientation. The seminary was, the advisor said, in effect a homosexual community, and Bill, seemed to be, well, straight, and did he think he would fit in? As it turned out, he didn't, which was why he and his wife were sitting at our dinner table.
I can't help feeling that this evolution of the priesthood into a homosexual dominated profession, obviously encouraged and facilitated by the celibacy provision, is at the root of the current sexual abuse scandal. I somehow doubt that the lack of a comparable scandal concerning married Protestant ministers can be attributed to the fact that they have not been targeted by anti-Protestant bigots.
12.11.2010 | 5:53am
RobB says:
From a Protestant admirer of many aspects of the RCC (but still avowedly Protestant):
The outrage in the public of the abuse and coverup scandals may arise in part, or from some quarters, because people generally have higher expectations of the clergy than of the laity or the non-religious. And this may be a good thing because it shows that the priesthood is taken seriously, and taken at its word that the priest's duty is to help all of us know God and his truth. When the reaction to a priest's malfeasance is considered the same as that of a public schoolteacher's. that will not be a good sign, I don't think. I know some criticism is attacks from those opposed to Christianity in general and the Catholic church in particular, but not all (as some have noted here).
Here's a word of advice from a friend: Please stop comparing the rate of abuse by priests to that of public school teachers and saying "Where's the outrage?". I think it actually demeans the priesthood to do so, by suggesting that the same standards should apply to both. Priests are human like everyone else, yes, but still it's more an outrage when a representative of God abuses a child than when a representative of the state does. The priest adds spiritual damage to the physical and mental/emotional damage done by the teacher.
The outrage in the public of the abuse and coverup scandals may arise in part, or from some quarters, because people generally have higher expectations of the clergy than of the laity or the non-religious. And this may be a good thing because it shows that the priesthood is taken seriously, and taken at its word that the priest's duty is to help all of us know God and his truth. When the reaction to a priest's malfeasance is considered the same as that of a public schoolteacher's. that will not be a good sign, I don't think. I know some criticism is attacks from those opposed to Christianity in general and the Catholic church in particular, but not all (as some have noted here).
Here's a word of advice from a friend: Please stop comparing the rate of abuse by priests to that of public school teachers and saying "Where's the outrage?". I think it actually demeans the priesthood to do so, by suggesting that the same standards should apply to both. Priests are human like everyone else, yes, but still it's more an outrage when a representative of God abuses a child than when a representative of the state does. The priest adds spiritual damage to the physical and mental/emotional damage done by the teacher.
12.11.2010 | 10:16am
Joe the Human says:
Why do some hate the Church? Priests assure us, as Richard duly repeats to us, that it is because everyone wants to sin ... and priests are telling them not to. But that's not it. It's because our churches pretend to be perfect ... even as they lie, and deceive millions. With false promises of "miracles," and so forth. Its because their priests should behave by a higher standard than others; but your priests are molesting little boys. Even as, far worse, all your bishops knew anout it ... and lied to cover it up.
How did it happen? What is the larger problem with the Church, that caused this? The larger problem is indeed, its hierarchical, anti-democratic nature. the Church had always patronized others. It presented its head as " Pope";" Pope," from "Pappa," or "father"- of us all. Often Popes were in nearly absolute control in Medici Italy. While elsewhere, they exercised a great amount of power, over ardent believers particularly. Enough to motivate them to leave their countries, to invade the East, in the Crusades. And then to invade South America.
Conservative Catholicism especially, still supports the traditional, central authority of the Pope; suggesting that its recent validation of "infallibility" was just the formalization, of what the Church always had. Which was in effect a violently hierarchical power structure; one where Catholics felt honored to ... kiss the Pope's ring. Where the entire worldwide religion, is rigidly run from one location: the Vatican. So that even modern Bishops have less personal discretion than one might think.
Finally, it is this extreme centralization of authority - even patronizing authority - most historians say, that is the reason why Protestantism did so much better, worldwide, in its "fruits." God promised not just "spiritual" fruits, but real economic prosperity, to those who understood and followed him rightly. And by that - Biblical - standard, Protestants were much more favored by God, that Catholics. The reason Protesrtants did better, founding America and Democracy, was that the Catholic over-centralization of authority, was not good. It was the former, ancient regime. One of the longstanding reasons that Protestantism rebelled against Catholicism, was that Protestantism argued that the "great commission" to preach, "freedom of worship," was not just controlled by St. peter, but was given to all the disciples ... and to potentially, many different churches.
And it was that over-centralization and patronization, that not only held the Church back, in the Rise of the Middle Class, and the Machine Age; in part, it also created the recent molestation scandal. The problem was that children and mothers, were trained to all-too-blind obedience, to central authority; so that when they heard 'signs" that "father" was abusing their child, they were blind to the sings. And could not see. They were in Denial.
It was also this tradition of despotic, monarchial authority, that opposed Democracy; and for that matter, helped create slavery in the New World. The north, was founded by Protestants, like the Purians. Who sought religious "freedom," not blind obedience to a monarchial central authority. But the Souithern colony, at Jamestown (named for the Catholic Restoration king James?), included originally 30 Catholics; trained to Obedience. And their tradition, quickly established plantation slavery in the American South. And especially say French Cathollic Lousiana, New Orleans.
In the North parts of America, Protestants spoke of "freedom," and opposed monarches. And opposed en-slaving patriarchs, monarches, and Popes. And they founded Democracy in America. Washington might hafve officially for a moment critized those who were burnign the Pope in effigy - since it was not timely; the Frehnc catholics were our allies for a moment. But... Protestant England was often at war with Catholic France and Spain; in part on reigious grounds. And in the name of Democracy vs. political and religious monarches.
As Protestants founded America, meanwhile in South America, after the Catholic Conquistadores slaughtered lots of Indicans spiritually looking for their gold and silver (if available), they then quickly reduced the ramaining Indians, to the condition of slavery; especially the infamous "peonage" system. Obviously, we are talking about a great deal of spiritual superiority here.
The Church loves to say we do not follow it, because we want to sin. But that's not it; we don't join it, because we do not want to sin - as it does. Those who follow it all-too-faithfully, have been lead into one immoral act, after another.
How did it happen? What is the larger problem with the Church, that caused this? The larger problem is indeed, its hierarchical, anti-democratic nature. the Church had always patronized others. It presented its head as " Pope";" Pope," from "Pappa," or "father"- of us all. Often Popes were in nearly absolute control in Medici Italy. While elsewhere, they exercised a great amount of power, over ardent believers particularly. Enough to motivate them to leave their countries, to invade the East, in the Crusades. And then to invade South America.
Conservative Catholicism especially, still supports the traditional, central authority of the Pope; suggesting that its recent validation of "infallibility" was just the formalization, of what the Church always had. Which was in effect a violently hierarchical power structure; one where Catholics felt honored to ... kiss the Pope's ring. Where the entire worldwide religion, is rigidly run from one location: the Vatican. So that even modern Bishops have less personal discretion than one might think.
Finally, it is this extreme centralization of authority - even patronizing authority - most historians say, that is the reason why Protestantism did so much better, worldwide, in its "fruits." God promised not just "spiritual" fruits, but real economic prosperity, to those who understood and followed him rightly. And by that - Biblical - standard, Protestants were much more favored by God, that Catholics. The reason Protesrtants did better, founding America and Democracy, was that the Catholic over-centralization of authority, was not good. It was the former, ancient regime. One of the longstanding reasons that Protestantism rebelled against Catholicism, was that Protestantism argued that the "great commission" to preach, "freedom of worship," was not just controlled by St. peter, but was given to all the disciples ... and to potentially, many different churches.
And it was that over-centralization and patronization, that not only held the Church back, in the Rise of the Middle Class, and the Machine Age; in part, it also created the recent molestation scandal. The problem was that children and mothers, were trained to all-too-blind obedience, to central authority; so that when they heard 'signs" that "father" was abusing their child, they were blind to the sings. And could not see. They were in Denial.
It was also this tradition of despotic, monarchial authority, that opposed Democracy; and for that matter, helped create slavery in the New World. The north, was founded by Protestants, like the Purians. Who sought religious "freedom," not blind obedience to a monarchial central authority. But the Souithern colony, at Jamestown (named for the Catholic Restoration king James?), included originally 30 Catholics; trained to Obedience. And their tradition, quickly established plantation slavery in the American South. And especially say French Cathollic Lousiana, New Orleans.
In the North parts of America, Protestants spoke of "freedom," and opposed monarches. And opposed en-slaving patriarchs, monarches, and Popes. And they founded Democracy in America. Washington might hafve officially for a moment critized those who were burnign the Pope in effigy - since it was not timely; the Frehnc catholics were our allies for a moment. But... Protestant England was often at war with Catholic France and Spain; in part on reigious grounds. And in the name of Democracy vs. political and religious monarches.
As Protestants founded America, meanwhile in South America, after the Catholic Conquistadores slaughtered lots of Indicans spiritually looking for their gold and silver (if available), they then quickly reduced the ramaining Indians, to the condition of slavery; especially the infamous "peonage" system. Obviously, we are talking about a great deal of spiritual superiority here.
The Church loves to say we do not follow it, because we want to sin. But that's not it; we don't join it, because we do not want to sin - as it does. Those who follow it all-too-faithfully, have been lead into one immoral act, after another.
12.11.2010 | 12:01pm
sanpietrini says:
Melissa and Martin - thank you very much for unearthing some very important history.
The AP story can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html
One commentator a while back (completely different subject) claimed the readership of First Things was "dysfunctional"; I prefer "diverse." But, in any case, I am a lost to think of any other human invention that has lasted as long as the Catholic Church. And yes, every day, I thank God for the Priest who mentioned First Things to me; I can't think of a single secular teacher who has had such a profound impact on my life.
The AP story can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html
One commentator a while back (completely different subject) claimed the readership of First Things was "dysfunctional"; I prefer "diverse." But, in any case, I am a lost to think of any other human invention that has lasted as long as the Catholic Church. And yes, every day, I thank God for the Priest who mentioned First Things to me; I can't think of a single secular teacher who has had such a profound impact on my life.
12.11.2010 | 12:28pm
Maria V. says:
Agree with @ Richard that the cartoons are scandalous , pornographic and cause of calumny - fact that it is in a column in First Things makes one wonder if there are wolves in sheep's clothing in places where one does not expect !
Having read how gazing at eyes of our Lord is a remedy to erase bad pictures, here is good site for same - of the picture of Divine Mercy -from congregation of St.Faustina - http://www.faustina-message.com/index.htm
Psalm 109 has some harsh words for those who are cause for calumny !
We have words of the great saint Padre Pio - 'it would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than without the Holy Mass ' .
Mary our Mother, our Lady of Guadalupe , free us from the false gods of money , power and self will and lead us to The True God !
P.S - The Marians have a good article on the miraculous events of Guadalupe - what an amzing wealth of events that has possibly granted many an eternal soul the inestimable wealth of being in heaven !
Our Lord entrusted the Holy Mysteries to the Apostles and taught them the rubrics of same after His Resurrection - St.John alludes to same 'There are many things that He did which , if written down , the wwhole world itself canot contain !' and good to remember that The Father had given Moses ample directives in format of worship and most of Old Testament is in preparing His people , to be able to participate in the Heavenly Liturgy worthily which was to come with the Lord's Presence , at every Holy Mass ..
As to those who have left the seminary and make accusations , unsure if their perceptions are distorted , in the cause of self interest !
Now , true , The Church possibly need more Father identity and relationship - this, may be esp. even in relationship with our Lord , who is One with The Father ..and thus to thwart enemy plans , to use hungers in this area as a portal for deviances !
Refraining from media evils is also a better understood area now a days , to help better in the battles !
As to those who fall, there are the merciful words our Lord gave
St.Faustina - ' when they repent, they draw down more graces than if they had not fallen ' ..; true , none can afford the sin of presumption , to take for granted that they would be given a chance to repent ; the enemy can be very clever , in making one fall into despair , hardness of hearts etc :
In a country after two major wars and loss of fathers and the related flood of sexual identity crises , could it be that the occasions of repenatnce of the sons in The Church are also being used by the mysterious plans of our Merciful Father ...who possibly also intends to tend Her onto a better Father relationship , in The Holy Spirit , through intercession of our Mother ..and thus help to eradicate this plague , not just from The Church but from many others too ..
'One saint can affect the destiny of the whole world ' and The Church has been blessed to have many who have been cause of pleading down His mercy ..even on the rich and the powerful ..and those who have been blessed to serve the latter still often grateful when they recall the words of how the greatest in the Kingdom are servants of the others ..and how hard it could be for the rich ..
True, made up of sinners in need of mercy , those who are members of The Church could have done many things better .. and posibly have contributed to much good as well as evil ...
May our hearts be moved to plead for mercy when faced with weaknesses and gratitude as well as humility that our capacity to judge from appearences can be a tool of the enemy who , after all did dare to challenge our Lord tha it could grant Him all riches , for worshipping it - it does not know what real wealth is !
Having read how gazing at eyes of our Lord is a remedy to erase bad pictures, here is good site for same - of the picture of Divine Mercy -from congregation of St.Faustina - http://www.faustina-message.com/index.htm
Psalm 109 has some harsh words for those who are cause for calumny !
We have words of the great saint Padre Pio - 'it would be easier for the world to survive without the sun than without the Holy Mass ' .
Mary our Mother, our Lady of Guadalupe , free us from the false gods of money , power and self will and lead us to The True God !
P.S - The Marians have a good article on the miraculous events of Guadalupe - what an amzing wealth of events that has possibly granted many an eternal soul the inestimable wealth of being in heaven !
Our Lord entrusted the Holy Mysteries to the Apostles and taught them the rubrics of same after His Resurrection - St.John alludes to same 'There are many things that He did which , if written down , the wwhole world itself canot contain !' and good to remember that The Father had given Moses ample directives in format of worship and most of Old Testament is in preparing His people , to be able to participate in the Heavenly Liturgy worthily which was to come with the Lord's Presence , at every Holy Mass ..
As to those who have left the seminary and make accusations , unsure if their perceptions are distorted , in the cause of self interest !
Now , true , The Church possibly need more Father identity and relationship - this, may be esp. even in relationship with our Lord , who is One with The Father ..and thus to thwart enemy plans , to use hungers in this area as a portal for deviances !
Refraining from media evils is also a better understood area now a days , to help better in the battles !
As to those who fall, there are the merciful words our Lord gave
St.Faustina - ' when they repent, they draw down more graces than if they had not fallen ' ..; true , none can afford the sin of presumption , to take for granted that they would be given a chance to repent ; the enemy can be very clever , in making one fall into despair , hardness of hearts etc :
In a country after two major wars and loss of fathers and the related flood of sexual identity crises , could it be that the occasions of repenatnce of the sons in The Church are also being used by the mysterious plans of our Merciful Father ...who possibly also intends to tend Her onto a better Father relationship , in The Holy Spirit , through intercession of our Mother ..and thus help to eradicate this plague , not just from The Church but from many others too ..
'One saint can affect the destiny of the whole world ' and The Church has been blessed to have many who have been cause of pleading down His mercy ..even on the rich and the powerful ..and those who have been blessed to serve the latter still often grateful when they recall the words of how the greatest in the Kingdom are servants of the others ..and how hard it could be for the rich ..
True, made up of sinners in need of mercy , those who are members of The Church could have done many things better .. and posibly have contributed to much good as well as evil ...
May our hearts be moved to plead for mercy when faced with weaknesses and gratitude as well as humility that our capacity to judge from appearences can be a tool of the enemy who , after all did dare to challenge our Lord tha it could grant Him all riches , for worshipping it - it does not know what real wealth is !
12.11.2010 | 1:20pm
Robert Zeh says:
The appropriate comparison isn't the rate of abuse by priests to that of any other group; the appropriate comparison is the cover up rate of bishops as compared to the coverup rate by say, school districts.
With upwards of 40,000 priests in the U.S. I expect some abusers. But I'd like to think that the Church could manage to find 400 bishops who would not engage in coverups.
With upwards of 40,000 priests in the U.S. I expect some abusers. But I'd like to think that the Church could manage to find 400 bishops who would not engage in coverups.
12.11.2010 | 2:21pm
Don Roberto says:
Clearly all men are fallen and in societies where sexual slavery (pornography) and human sacrifice (abortion) are "legal," we should not be surprised by related depravity. That said, "to whom much is given . . ." Pedophile teachers should merely face the gibbet; priests, the eternal abyss. "Better that he who leads even one of these little ones astray cast himself into the sea with a great millstone fastened to his neck." The apostles were given the power to loose *and* to bind. I must ask why anyone would think, given all we see (over and over through history), that neglect of the latter does not imperil the Perfect Bride of Christ.
12.11.2010 | 3:22pm
Mooga says:
How did it happen? What is the larger problem with the Church, that caused this? The larger problem is indeed, its hierarchical, anti-democratic nature. the Church had always patronized others. It presented its head as " Pope";" Pope," from "Pappa," or "father"- of us all. Often Popes were in nearly absolute control in Medici Italy. While elsewhere, they exercised a great amount of power, over ardent believers particularly. Enough to motivate them to leave their countries, to invade the East, in the Crusades. And then to invade South America.
Like I said earlier, you know Jack about the political realities of Renaissance Italy. For one thing, there was no Medici Italy; there was a Medici Florence, to be sure. And when the Medicis did manage to get a couple of their boys elected pope it was possible to speak of a Medici Rome. But neither the family's control nor the papacy's ever approached absolute-ness. Both had to contend with Holy Roman emperors, kings of France and Spain, and the Della Rovere family in Naples, to name just a few players. Often, it was the monarchs who cracked the whip over the pontiff. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, French and Italian revolutionary armies treated popes even more harshly. You're right that no one thought up papal infallibility out of thin air, but it was made a doctrine in order to remedy a longstanding weakness, not formalize a longstanding power.
As for the Church's being anti-democratic, well, I wouldn't put it quite that way. I think it's fairer to say that the Church and the Founding Fathers have two different sets of priorities. The Founders aimed at individual freedom; the Church, at individual dignity. Jefferson believed Truth would emerge from the Marketplace of Ideas (though he didn't use the phrase); the Church believes that Truth has already emerged. Now, that doesn't mean that most modern-day Catholics would put Generalissimo Franco in the White House. Rather, from what I've gathered, they believe in leaving most questions to the will of the populace, while keeping a few off the table altogether.
Conservative Catholicism especially, still supports the traditional, central authority of the Pope; suggesting that its recent validation of "infallibility" was just the formalization, of what the Church always had. Which was in effect a violently hierarchical power structure; one where Catholics felt honored to ... kiss the Pope's ring. Where the entire worldwide religion, is rigidly run from one location: the Vatican. So that even modern Bishops have less personal discretion than one might think.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. Call me a cynic, but I've always figured that most American conservative Catholics are ultramontanists of convenience. They supported John Paul II so enthusiastically because he opposed the Soviet Union; they transferred their loyalty to Benedict because he backed them up on abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research. If a pope came along and soft-pedaled these isssues, or better, if he condemned U.S. foreign policy more stridently than John Paul cared to do, most would claim the sanctuary of their consciences and ignore him. This is exactly what William F. Buckley did when John XXIII started issuing social-justice encylicals.
Like I said earlier, you know Jack about the political realities of Renaissance Italy. For one thing, there was no Medici Italy; there was a Medici Florence, to be sure. And when the Medicis did manage to get a couple of their boys elected pope it was possible to speak of a Medici Rome. But neither the family's control nor the papacy's ever approached absolute-ness. Both had to contend with Holy Roman emperors, kings of France and Spain, and the Della Rovere family in Naples, to name just a few players. Often, it was the monarchs who cracked the whip over the pontiff. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, French and Italian revolutionary armies treated popes even more harshly. You're right that no one thought up papal infallibility out of thin air, but it was made a doctrine in order to remedy a longstanding weakness, not formalize a longstanding power.
As for the Church's being anti-democratic, well, I wouldn't put it quite that way. I think it's fairer to say that the Church and the Founding Fathers have two different sets of priorities. The Founders aimed at individual freedom; the Church, at individual dignity. Jefferson believed Truth would emerge from the Marketplace of Ideas (though he didn't use the phrase); the Church believes that Truth has already emerged. Now, that doesn't mean that most modern-day Catholics would put Generalissimo Franco in the White House. Rather, from what I've gathered, they believe in leaving most questions to the will of the populace, while keeping a few off the table altogether.
Conservative Catholicism especially, still supports the traditional, central authority of the Pope; suggesting that its recent validation of "infallibility" was just the formalization, of what the Church always had. Which was in effect a violently hierarchical power structure; one where Catholics felt honored to ... kiss the Pope's ring. Where the entire worldwide religion, is rigidly run from one location: the Vatican. So that even modern Bishops have less personal discretion than one might think.
I wouldn't be so sure about this. Call me a cynic, but I've always figured that most American conservative Catholics are ultramontanists of convenience. They supported John Paul II so enthusiastically because he opposed the Soviet Union; they transferred their loyalty to Benedict because he backed them up on abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research. If a pope came along and soft-pedaled these isssues, or better, if he condemned U.S. foreign policy more stridently than John Paul cared to do, most would claim the sanctuary of their consciences and ignore him. This is exactly what William F. Buckley did when John XXIII started issuing social-justice encylicals.
12.11.2010 | 3:48pm
Mooga says:
Doggone me, I forgot to off Joe's words with quotation marks. The first and fourth paragraphs are his, the rest are mine.
12.11.2010 | 4:19pm
Richard says:
Joe,
Tell Benedict what an iron griip he has over the bishops, religious, and laity. He'll be laughing for a week. In fact, it is the fact that Church claims to be the representative of the authority of Christ on earth that keeps me Catholic. I don't want to make up my own church, because I am not even the dismal shadow of a god.
As for your historical analyses, they are really a mess. So as not to belabor the point, let me take one example. The British made a bloody fortune in the maritime end of the slave trade. The hymn "Amazing Grace" was written by a repentant British slaver. To their everlasting credit, the British had a change of heart, decided that slavery was wrong, and used their fleet to interdict the shipping of slaves all over the world. But then there was the Raj and the opium trade with China (which is almost too ugly to relate). History is a challenge to those who want to divide the race neatly into good guys and bad guys.
Let's take an example of a Catholic contribution to modernity that is out of favor because of the great damage it did to native populations, but it is revolutionary nevertheless. When Columbus, Magellan and others transnavigated and explored the globe, they radically changed forever our picture of the structure of the world and the diversity of humanity. It was a stunning event--one of the greatest intellectual revolutions in the history of the world and the most important contribution to geography and ethnography ever, one could argue. And it was done by Catholics and moderated by the Church. Did it have ugly dimensions? You bet. But it helped to lay the foundation for global modernity.
Some advice, which I've given before. Before you launch off into sweeping historical generalizations, do your homework. Otherwise again and again you will be handed your head by other more critical posters. This has happened to me many times, and now I look before I leap. I still sometimes land in disaster, but not nearly so often as before.
Your characterization of the Church has not progressed much beyond the malign fantasies of Maria Monk. If you MUST attack the Church, you can do a much more robust job than that.
Best,
Richard
Tell Benedict what an iron griip he has over the bishops, religious, and laity. He'll be laughing for a week. In fact, it is the fact that Church claims to be the representative of the authority of Christ on earth that keeps me Catholic. I don't want to make up my own church, because I am not even the dismal shadow of a god.
As for your historical analyses, they are really a mess. So as not to belabor the point, let me take one example. The British made a bloody fortune in the maritime end of the slave trade. The hymn "Amazing Grace" was written by a repentant British slaver. To their everlasting credit, the British had a change of heart, decided that slavery was wrong, and used their fleet to interdict the shipping of slaves all over the world. But then there was the Raj and the opium trade with China (which is almost too ugly to relate). History is a challenge to those who want to divide the race neatly into good guys and bad guys.
Let's take an example of a Catholic contribution to modernity that is out of favor because of the great damage it did to native populations, but it is revolutionary nevertheless. When Columbus, Magellan and others transnavigated and explored the globe, they radically changed forever our picture of the structure of the world and the diversity of humanity. It was a stunning event--one of the greatest intellectual revolutions in the history of the world and the most important contribution to geography and ethnography ever, one could argue. And it was done by Catholics and moderated by the Church. Did it have ugly dimensions? You bet. But it helped to lay the foundation for global modernity.
Some advice, which I've given before. Before you launch off into sweeping historical generalizations, do your homework. Otherwise again and again you will be handed your head by other more critical posters. This has happened to me many times, and now I look before I leap. I still sometimes land in disaster, but not nearly so often as before.
Your characterization of the Church has not progressed much beyond the malign fantasies of Maria Monk. If you MUST attack the Church, you can do a much more robust job than that.
Best,
Richard
12.11.2010 | 5:37pm
Jim Bell says:
****Do you have a link for this 2007 AP report? There is no working link in the Resources.****
Here's a link to the full story in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html
Here's a link to the full story in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100144.html
12.11.2010 | 6:03pm
Maria V. says:
One reason Islam is allowed in our midst could be to help some to learn from the way they are expected to fear and honor their prophet , inspite of ...and at what price !
As to papal infallibilty , like all timely dogmas The Church is blessed with , is to help her children in these confusing times , to measure the extent of lukewarmness and hardness of hearts in faith matters - two traits that have caused much mayhem ; it also helps to reassure them that the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against her can be trusted , even while her temporal role seems not so direct !
As to the missteps among Bishops with regard to the scandal , it is unlikley that they would have had the kind of tight guidelines in place now if not for the crisis that reached a certain mass and thank God that it is in place , to hopefully serve as a beacon for those in other situations too !
Let us hope too that The Church would help many to unleash the arsenal of spiritual warfare weapons that would make any foorball game a boring event in comparison , which any one who participates in the Holy Mass with faith are already aware of ! and thus help to pull many more from the enemy clutches , to reign down the peace of good will from good hearts of mercy and truth !
As to papal infallibilty , like all timely dogmas The Church is blessed with , is to help her children in these confusing times , to measure the extent of lukewarmness and hardness of hearts in faith matters - two traits that have caused much mayhem ; it also helps to reassure them that the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against her can be trusted , even while her temporal role seems not so direct !
As to the missteps among Bishops with regard to the scandal , it is unlikley that they would have had the kind of tight guidelines in place now if not for the crisis that reached a certain mass and thank God that it is in place , to hopefully serve as a beacon for those in other situations too !
Let us hope too that The Church would help many to unleash the arsenal of spiritual warfare weapons that would make any foorball game a boring event in comparison , which any one who participates in the Holy Mass with faith are already aware of ! and thus help to pull many more from the enemy clutches , to reign down the peace of good will from good hearts of mercy and truth !
12.11.2010 | 10:40pm
Matthew Walther says:
"But the Souithern colony, at Jamestown (named for the Catholic Restoration king James?)"
Joe the Human:
Your posts are bizarre and ahistorical. You reveal yourself to lack a fifth grade knowledge of American and English history. Jamestown was founded in 1607 and was named for James I of England. James II, the "Catholic Restoration King" to whom you refer, was not even living when the colony was founded. . . But then again, to know that you would have to know that the word "Restoration" in your heard phrase refers to the restoration of the monarchy following the death of Oliver Cromwell and the deposing of his son Richard in 1658 and 1600 respectively. Hell, just "wiki" all of this if you have to. . .
Joe the Human:
Your posts are bizarre and ahistorical. You reveal yourself to lack a fifth grade knowledge of American and English history. Jamestown was founded in 1607 and was named for James I of England. James II, the "Catholic Restoration King" to whom you refer, was not even living when the colony was founded. . . But then again, to know that you would have to know that the word "Restoration" in your heard phrase refers to the restoration of the monarchy following the death of Oliver Cromwell and the deposing of his son Richard in 1658 and 1600 respectively. Hell, just "wiki" all of this if you have to. . .
12.12.2010 | 8:14am
Mark VA says:
Joe the Human wrote:
"But the Souithern colony, at Jamestown (named for the Catholic Restoration king James?), included originally 30 Catholics; trained to Obedience. And their tradition, quickly established plantation slavery in the American South."
It is a fact that Jamestown resupply ships brought German and Polish artisans to help steady the struggling colony. It's also a safe bet that at least some, if not all, of the Polish artisans were Catholic (I'm not sure as to the religion of the Germans - mixture of Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist, and Catholic?). At any rate, based on this, Joe seems to be proposing that the cause of slavery in what became the South, was the Catholic religion of those Poles.
Joe, this is creative - in some unsettled, strange, Fellini movie way, very creative. Let's call it "The Catholic virus" hypothesis. Have you actually read something that proposes this link?
"But the Souithern colony, at Jamestown (named for the Catholic Restoration king James?), included originally 30 Catholics; trained to Obedience. And their tradition, quickly established plantation slavery in the American South."
It is a fact that Jamestown resupply ships brought German and Polish artisans to help steady the struggling colony. It's also a safe bet that at least some, if not all, of the Polish artisans were Catholic (I'm not sure as to the religion of the Germans - mixture of Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist, and Catholic?). At any rate, based on this, Joe seems to be proposing that the cause of slavery in what became the South, was the Catholic religion of those Poles.
Joe, this is creative - in some unsettled, strange, Fellini movie way, very creative. Let's call it "The Catholic virus" hypothesis. Have you actually read something that proposes this link?
12.12.2010 | 9:42am
Douglas Johnson says:
I gave a quick look to Joe the Human's posts and various responses. I've seen some good points going both ways. In a sense I have no dog in this fight; I'm a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.
I'm sure there's much I disagree with that Joe said, but OF COURSE America's Protestant foundation has everything to do with what this nation is today--both the good and the bad, and both in and outside the (declining) mainline Protestant churches. This observation has been made by every observer from Washington, to Tocqueville, to Lincoln.
I'll also add a quick story. My congregation was discussing the awful nationalism that infects so much of the Orthodox Church faithful around the world. My priest, in total agreement, noted how blessed we are to be Orthodox in America where we can benefit from the Protestant tradition that is so far removed from that.
I'm sure there's much I disagree with that Joe said, but OF COURSE America's Protestant foundation has everything to do with what this nation is today--both the good and the bad, and both in and outside the (declining) mainline Protestant churches. This observation has been made by every observer from Washington, to Tocqueville, to Lincoln.
I'll also add a quick story. My congregation was discussing the awful nationalism that infects so much of the Orthodox Church faithful around the world. My priest, in total agreement, noted how blessed we are to be Orthodox in America where we can benefit from the Protestant tradition that is so far removed from that.
12.12.2010 | 10:37am
Joe the Human says:
Brits also made money from slaving; but fairly early, historically, growing sentiment for giving power to the commoners, or Parliament - and soon the People - would make Brits among the first in the world, to promote Democracy .. and ban slavery. If the hym "Amazing Grace" was written by an ex-slaver, then note that after all, he was a Brit ... renouncing slavery. America also renounced slavery formally, rather early ... relative to the Catholic world.
So who held on to slavery,so late? Not the more Protestant part of the US; that was the more anti-slavery North. It was the more Catholic south - Jamestown includng many Catholics - that was trained to serf-like obedience, to a central monarch. And that was therefore far more congenial to ... slavery.
Especially, Catholic South America is famous for retaining slavery, in the infamous peonage system.
Slavish obedience to a central authority or monarch, has advantages ... and disadvantages too. If your monarch is perfect, great; if not, you follow him into the pit.
(Note that I advanced the Catholiuc leanings of JAmes I parenthetically; and with a question mark. Still, James I, king since 1603, did however propose an alliance/marriage with an heir, and Catholic Spain. He was also the very author of the "divine right of kings" doctrine)
Is excessive obedience to a central authority, typical of Catholics? Less so of liberals; very common among conservatives. Listen to Maria above, urging papal infalliblity.
And so I am suggesting that it is that very, Catholic obedience to central leaders, that is the problem. Catholics, 1) children and adults, will follow their leaders ... even when they are obviously wrong. This2) furthermore kept them in tolkin-like serfdom, far later than others. And 3) they will historically have been found to cling, longer than others, to political systems that over-stress blind obedience to central bosses, too; like slavery.
As they did particularly, in South America.
So who held on to slavery,so late? Not the more Protestant part of the US; that was the more anti-slavery North. It was the more Catholic south - Jamestown includng many Catholics - that was trained to serf-like obedience, to a central monarch. And that was therefore far more congenial to ... slavery.
Especially, Catholic South America is famous for retaining slavery, in the infamous peonage system.
Slavish obedience to a central authority or monarch, has advantages ... and disadvantages too. If your monarch is perfect, great; if not, you follow him into the pit.
(Note that I advanced the Catholiuc leanings of JAmes I parenthetically; and with a question mark. Still, James I, king since 1603, did however propose an alliance/marriage with an heir, and Catholic Spain. He was also the very author of the "divine right of kings" doctrine)
Is excessive obedience to a central authority, typical of Catholics? Less so of liberals; very common among conservatives. Listen to Maria above, urging papal infalliblity.
And so I am suggesting that it is that very, Catholic obedience to central leaders, that is the problem. Catholics, 1) children and adults, will follow their leaders ... even when they are obviously wrong. This2) furthermore kept them in tolkin-like serfdom, far later than others. And 3) they will historically have been found to cling, longer than others, to political systems that over-stress blind obedience to central bosses, too; like slavery.
As they did particularly, in South America.
12.12.2010 | 10:48am
roger says:
Joe the Human,
You can tell you are scoring bullseyes by the shrillness of the responses.
For any serious person to argue that the Catholic church has been anything other than an obstacle to human progress is laughable. Despite the efforts and contributions of individual Catholics, the Church establishment has been anti-human, anti-intellectual, anti-liberty and arguably anti-life, as defined by the clear biological truths all around us. The nonsensical doctrines of "immaculate conception" , resurrection from the dead and the offer of "afterlife" are all well established ruses used by scam mongers throughout history.
The truth of your argument that the countries you mention that are dominated by the Catholic Church and are, in consequence, backward, ignorant, poor and oppressed has not been addressed at all by the apologists for absolutism.
In this the Catholic Church is a brother to Islam.
Matthew Walther: "the death of Oliver Cromwell and the deposing of his son Richard in 1658 and 1600 respectively". Really? I would "wiki" that again if I were you.
You can tell you are scoring bullseyes by the shrillness of the responses.
For any serious person to argue that the Catholic church has been anything other than an obstacle to human progress is laughable. Despite the efforts and contributions of individual Catholics, the Church establishment has been anti-human, anti-intellectual, anti-liberty and arguably anti-life, as defined by the clear biological truths all around us. The nonsensical doctrines of "immaculate conception" , resurrection from the dead and the offer of "afterlife" are all well established ruses used by scam mongers throughout history.
The truth of your argument that the countries you mention that are dominated by the Catholic Church and are, in consequence, backward, ignorant, poor and oppressed has not been addressed at all by the apologists for absolutism.
In this the Catholic Church is a brother to Islam.
Matthew Walther: "the death of Oliver Cromwell and the deposing of his son Richard in 1658 and 1600 respectively". Really? I would "wiki" that again if I were you.
12.12.2010 | 11:07am
Thomas says:
If you want to discuss "relative fruits," then look to Western civilization. After Rome fell and the dark ages descended, who kept the flame of civilization alive? Roman Catholicism. Bishops and priests took up the slack and administrated secular life, while the flames of learning were kept alive in monasteries throughout the world. Roman Catholicism has been the custodian of civilization for 2,000 years. What has protestantism done? Prattle on for a few centuries with bad theology, spread their heresies and schisms throughout the world, ultimately to apostasy from the most basic tenets of faith due to the rise of the modernist heresy.
"By their fruits, you shall know them." So, take that fruit and chew on it!
"By their fruits, you shall know them." So, take that fruit and chew on it!
12.12.2010 | 5:21pm
Matthew Walther says:
Roger:
Are you suggesting that Cromwell did not die in 1958? Or that Richard was not deposed in 1660?
Obviously a typing error in my original response to M. le Human is responsible for my writing "1600" -- how could Richard be deposed when Oliver was only a year old?
All of this balductum from obvious trolls like Mssrs. the Human and "roger" makes credible the idea of a subscribers' only comments section.
Are you suggesting that Cromwell did not die in 1958? Or that Richard was not deposed in 1660?
Obviously a typing error in my original response to M. le Human is responsible for my writing "1600" -- how could Richard be deposed when Oliver was only a year old?
All of this balductum from obvious trolls like Mssrs. the Human and "roger" makes credible the idea of a subscribers' only comments section.
12.12.2010 | 6:33pm
Richard says:
Thomas,
While I have some sympathy with your exasperation with Protestantism and my own problems with Luther and Calvin, Joe is right about certain vital contributions of Protestantism to Western Civilization, including democratization, individualism of the responsible sort, the industrial revolution, and the further articulation and institutionalization of human rights (Catholics played a role, but Protestants were key pioneers). For starters. It's done some serious mischief, but so has every movement in human history.
Best,
Richard
While I have some sympathy with your exasperation with Protestantism and my own problems with Luther and Calvin, Joe is right about certain vital contributions of Protestantism to Western Civilization, including democratization, individualism of the responsible sort, the industrial revolution, and the further articulation and institutionalization of human rights (Catholics played a role, but Protestants were key pioneers). For starters. It's done some serious mischief, but so has every movement in human history.
Best,
Richard
12.12.2010 | 7:50pm
Mark VA says:
Joe the Human and Roger:
Are you gentlemen at all aware that there is a Roman Catholic country that had practised, for centuries, an electoral monarchy? And that its primate (i .e. the chief cardinal of that country) served as an Inter Rex, while the new king was being elected? And that each and every Inter Rex, and there were many of them, always handed over the secular power to the newly elected king?
Gentlemen, you do a disservice to Protestantism by attempting to so pitifully pit it against Roman Catholicism, in this public square.
I urge both Catholics and Protestants of good will who comment here, to show solidarity in response to these provocations. Our Lord prayed that we be one, and this is an opportunity for us to follow up, in a small way, on that prayer.
To the authors of this article - perhaps some things, like one hundred and forty year old cartoons, should be assigned to the oblivion.
Are you gentlemen at all aware that there is a Roman Catholic country that had practised, for centuries, an electoral monarchy? And that its primate (i .e. the chief cardinal of that country) served as an Inter Rex, while the new king was being elected? And that each and every Inter Rex, and there were many of them, always handed over the secular power to the newly elected king?
Gentlemen, you do a disservice to Protestantism by attempting to so pitifully pit it against Roman Catholicism, in this public square.
I urge both Catholics and Protestants of good will who comment here, to show solidarity in response to these provocations. Our Lord prayed that we be one, and this is an opportunity for us to follow up, in a small way, on that prayer.
To the authors of this article - perhaps some things, like one hundred and forty year old cartoons, should be assigned to the oblivion.
12.12.2010 | 8:27pm
Richard says:
Roger,
The extraordinary historical illiteracy in your diatribe against the Catholic Church indicates a density of ignorance that I have learned to leave alone. It is as impenetrable as granite. But I am unwilling to leave you without a remedy, if you will but take it (my guess is that you will not). Google "quodlibeta" and follow the prompts to both the blog and the forum. There you will learn that almost everything you believe about Catholicism is wrong.
Joe, I am not denying the brilliance of the Protestant moment. But it was founded on the bedrock of Catholic Christianity and retains some of what coherence it has from the Catholic example. You too could stand to peruse quodlibeta, but will not. Your ignorance about Catholic culture is stupifying.
North and South America are very different cases with very different dynamics. Huge numbers of Indios and mestizos remained in Latin America for the simple reason that the Southerners did not kill all of their indigenes, like my fellow countrymen. That complicated the evolution of S.A. immensely. To this day sociopolitical integration remains a problem (witness Bolivia). Talk to some intelligent Latin American citizens about Yankee superiority. You will get an earful. And it remains to be seen if a nation of individualists will either atomize into anarchy, or, as Nietzsche feared, subside into a herd of last men. The mediocrity of contemporary American culture does not hearten me. Nor do folks like yourself posing as our best and brightest.
The virtues and vices of the rise of Western Individualism are so intertwined that they are difficult to extricate. The rhetoric of freedom is heady because everyone wants their own way, even if it is the wrong way. I repeat, the Western moment is historically very new. Let's see how it unfolds.
Your simplistic sloganeering compels me to at least animadvert to the rest of the story. Noble Britain built the greatest empire (read tyranny over subject people) the modern world has seen. "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire." It had to be compelled to give up its vast holdings by two horrendous world wars. No change of heart about it. The modern individualistic West has shown an avaricious selfishness that is the scandal of the rest of the world (which, in their ways, are not one whit better). The United States is widely hated, even by its friends, as a domineering hyperpower, and its difficulties are being extensively cheered. We may well be surpassed by more communal cultures that take our tricks (science and technology, market economy, rule of law) and return to a more cooperative model of human socialization. I don't know and you don't either. Britain is not an encouraging sign of the future. A colleague of mine, a black professor who specializes in African history and is a world traveller, spent a week in London a couple of years ago and was shaken. He told me that he wasn't just horrified, he was frightened. In every sense.
What I do know is that you gravitate toward a form of Christianity that least impedes your will. I am content to bend my knee to the King of Kings. And if you think that my faith is blind, you don't know me very well.
Richard
The extraordinary historical illiteracy in your diatribe against the Catholic Church indicates a density of ignorance that I have learned to leave alone. It is as impenetrable as granite. But I am unwilling to leave you without a remedy, if you will but take it (my guess is that you will not). Google "quodlibeta" and follow the prompts to both the blog and the forum. There you will learn that almost everything you believe about Catholicism is wrong.
Joe, I am not denying the brilliance of the Protestant moment. But it was founded on the bedrock of Catholic Christianity and retains some of what coherence it has from the Catholic example. You too could stand to peruse quodlibeta, but will not. Your ignorance about Catholic culture is stupifying.
North and South America are very different cases with very different dynamics. Huge numbers of Indios and mestizos remained in Latin America for the simple reason that the Southerners did not kill all of their indigenes, like my fellow countrymen. That complicated the evolution of S.A. immensely. To this day sociopolitical integration remains a problem (witness Bolivia). Talk to some intelligent Latin American citizens about Yankee superiority. You will get an earful. And it remains to be seen if a nation of individualists will either atomize into anarchy, or, as Nietzsche feared, subside into a herd of last men. The mediocrity of contemporary American culture does not hearten me. Nor do folks like yourself posing as our best and brightest.
The virtues and vices of the rise of Western Individualism are so intertwined that they are difficult to extricate. The rhetoric of freedom is heady because everyone wants their own way, even if it is the wrong way. I repeat, the Western moment is historically very new. Let's see how it unfolds.
Your simplistic sloganeering compels me to at least animadvert to the rest of the story. Noble Britain built the greatest empire (read tyranny over subject people) the modern world has seen. "The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire." It had to be compelled to give up its vast holdings by two horrendous world wars. No change of heart about it. The modern individualistic West has shown an avaricious selfishness that is the scandal of the rest of the world (which, in their ways, are not one whit better). The United States is widely hated, even by its friends, as a domineering hyperpower, and its difficulties are being extensively cheered. We may well be surpassed by more communal cultures that take our tricks (science and technology, market economy, rule of law) and return to a more cooperative model of human socialization. I don't know and you don't either. Britain is not an encouraging sign of the future. A colleague of mine, a black professor who specializes in African history and is a world traveller, spent a week in London a couple of years ago and was shaken. He told me that he wasn't just horrified, he was frightened. In every sense.
What I do know is that you gravitate toward a form of Christianity that least impedes your will. I am content to bend my knee to the King of Kings. And if you think that my faith is blind, you don't know me very well.
Richard
12.13.2010 | 1:42am
Michael says:
Richard,
You wrote, “Michael, I suppose you noticed that one of the contributors WAS a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. If I valued that paper's role in the scandal, I would take reflective notice”
Thanks. I did notice, but I didn’t mention it. Martha remains a reporter as far as I know, but she’s new to me. NCR was the first to break the scandal in 1985, and I was reacting to the anti-press edge that I was hearing in the Nussbaums’ article. I think there’s too much blaming the messenger when there should be more gratitude.
As I read through the rest of the comments, I’m grateful for you holding onto the line of sanity. As you know, I disagree with some of your positions, but you’re the only one on this thread who has a complex view of history. Most everyone else is trying to simplify it so they can easily ascribe blame. I’d like to see a smarter ecumenism where different Christian traditions could work more fruitfully with each other without all the nonsense.
Keep them sane!
You wrote, “Michael, I suppose you noticed that one of the contributors WAS a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. If I valued that paper's role in the scandal, I would take reflective notice”
Thanks. I did notice, but I didn’t mention it. Martha remains a reporter as far as I know, but she’s new to me. NCR was the first to break the scandal in 1985, and I was reacting to the anti-press edge that I was hearing in the Nussbaums’ article. I think there’s too much blaming the messenger when there should be more gratitude.
As I read through the rest of the comments, I’m grateful for you holding onto the line of sanity. As you know, I disagree with some of your positions, but you’re the only one on this thread who has a complex view of history. Most everyone else is trying to simplify it so they can easily ascribe blame. I’d like to see a smarter ecumenism where different Christian traditions could work more fruitfully with each other without all the nonsense.
Keep them sane!
12.13.2010 | 10:59am
Richard says:
Michael,
Thank you for your nuanced post. As for blaming the messenger, you might review some of those cartoons. In respect to those papers like the Globe and the Times who seem to me to have been motivated by a desire not to heal but to destroy, I am not as positive as you are. Father Benedict Groeschel of EWTN put it best for me when he said that the motives of some of the press were hostile and destructive, "but we handed them the sword." I repeat, there were wrongdoers on both sides, though I agree with you that the greater blame lies in the Church. There is much more to be said in explanation of the reasons the Church acted as it did, but this is not the time.
As for the rest of your post, thank God some one gets it. In this thread I have been pushed into having to choose to argue for one side or the other of idiotic counterpositions--The Church is a malign, mindless robot master or the Church is the shining hero of history in every respect--both positions are poppycock. Likewise, I must choose between affirming that the Protestant movement is the source of all good in the modern world or the rot that is ruining the race--bovine excrement both.
Rather than launch into a complex argument for why all these positions are toxic fungus, let me tell a little story.
A couple of years ago as one of my duties in an RCIA Mystagogia class (instruction for adult converts, round two), I gave a presentation on the Church from Pentecost to the present. Since I am not Jaroslav Pelikan, it was a huge undertaking. As I worked through the material, I came to see that canned history of either a pro or an anti Church ilk breaks down in the face of the facts. I saw the great strengths of both the conservative and liberal readings of Church history (and raised some eyebrows in the process) In particular, I came to see why the Church resisted the liberal movement so long (they were rudely treated when they tried to cooperate, there are real problems with liberalism, and some of the high churchmen had limited, rigid souls). Vatican II was a pastoral conclave which (from my point of view) solved some problems and created others. And so it goes.
History is much more complex than the human mind (and that refers only to the evidence, never mind what actually happened), and simple propositions are utterly insufficient to describe the way things happened, even to the extent that we can ascertain it. The only adequate historians will be ruthlessly fair minded and self-critical, patient, massively informed, and dedicated to an endless quest to going deeper still. Oh, and of course he/she must be at least methodologically intelligent.
There will be no doubt more self confident, facile posts in this thread by people who are too ignorant to know they are ignorant (and hopefully plenty by wiser sorts, too). When I face a post written by someone who is manifestly caught in a web of urban myth and black legend, I shudder. I don't know where to begin, or if I should. This is not to claim God-like wisdom or rectitude for myself. But I generally know what I don't know. As Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry says somewhere, "A Man should know his limitations." The trick is, finding out those limitations often involves a thorough education in the school of hard knocks and the learning of the ages that it takes a lot of sticktoitivity to undergo. Some have it. Some don't.
A word about Maria. She has been criticized in this thread as an example of mindless Catholic obedience to authority. I see in her rather an utter openness to and trust in God that Jesus called for when he said that those who do not become as little children will never enter the kingdom of God. She may be the holiest poster in the First Things threads.
Best,
Richard
Thank you for your nuanced post. As for blaming the messenger, you might review some of those cartoons. In respect to those papers like the Globe and the Times who seem to me to have been motivated by a desire not to heal but to destroy, I am not as positive as you are. Father Benedict Groeschel of EWTN put it best for me when he said that the motives of some of the press were hostile and destructive, "but we handed them the sword." I repeat, there were wrongdoers on both sides, though I agree with you that the greater blame lies in the Church. There is much more to be said in explanation of the reasons the Church acted as it did, but this is not the time.
As for the rest of your post, thank God some one gets it. In this thread I have been pushed into having to choose to argue for one side or the other of idiotic counterpositions--The Church is a malign, mindless robot master or the Church is the shining hero of history in every respect--both positions are poppycock. Likewise, I must choose between affirming that the Protestant movement is the source of all good in the modern world or the rot that is ruining the race--bovine excrement both.
Rather than launch into a complex argument for why all these positions are toxic fungus, let me tell a little story.
A couple of years ago as one of my duties in an RCIA Mystagogia class (instruction for adult converts, round two), I gave a presentation on the Church from Pentecost to the present. Since I am not Jaroslav Pelikan, it was a huge undertaking. As I worked through the material, I came to see that canned history of either a pro or an anti Church ilk breaks down in the face of the facts. I saw the great strengths of both the conservative and liberal readings of Church history (and raised some eyebrows in the process) In particular, I came to see why the Church resisted the liberal movement so long (they were rudely treated when they tried to cooperate, there are real problems with liberalism, and some of the high churchmen had limited, rigid souls). Vatican II was a pastoral conclave which (from my point of view) solved some problems and created others. And so it goes.
History is much more complex than the human mind (and that refers only to the evidence, never mind what actually happened), and simple propositions are utterly insufficient to describe the way things happened, even to the extent that we can ascertain it. The only adequate historians will be ruthlessly fair minded and self-critical, patient, massively informed, and dedicated to an endless quest to going deeper still. Oh, and of course he/she must be at least methodologically intelligent.
There will be no doubt more self confident, facile posts in this thread by people who are too ignorant to know they are ignorant (and hopefully plenty by wiser sorts, too). When I face a post written by someone who is manifestly caught in a web of urban myth and black legend, I shudder. I don't know where to begin, or if I should. This is not to claim God-like wisdom or rectitude for myself. But I generally know what I don't know. As Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry says somewhere, "A Man should know his limitations." The trick is, finding out those limitations often involves a thorough education in the school of hard knocks and the learning of the ages that it takes a lot of sticktoitivity to undergo. Some have it. Some don't.
A word about Maria. She has been criticized in this thread as an example of mindless Catholic obedience to authority. I see in her rather an utter openness to and trust in God that Jesus called for when he said that those who do not become as little children will never enter the kingdom of God. She may be the holiest poster in the First Things threads.
Best,
Richard
12.13.2010 | 11:25am
Tess says:
Joe the Human,
You may have points, you may not. But you are missing the larger picture here. The Catholic Church is infallible on issues of faith and morals, not economics. Protestants were the first to accept divorce. They were the first to accept artificial contraception. Both of these "errors" have led directly to dissolution of the family unit, abortion and the gay marriage issue. The Anglican Church will vote to accept gay marriage next year. Protestant theology has led directly to the destruction of the Christian culture of Europe and the United States. That is the "fruit" of the Protestant Reformation, my friends.
You may have points, you may not. But you are missing the larger picture here. The Catholic Church is infallible on issues of faith and morals, not economics. Protestants were the first to accept divorce. They were the first to accept artificial contraception. Both of these "errors" have led directly to dissolution of the family unit, abortion and the gay marriage issue. The Anglican Church will vote to accept gay marriage next year. Protestant theology has led directly to the destruction of the Christian culture of Europe and the United States. That is the "fruit" of the Protestant Reformation, my friends.
12.13.2010 | 11:59am
Ned says:
Here's my two cents in the style of contemporary American (brief and to the point) with some Gen-X thrown in: Before the Protestant Reformation what was that period in history called? Anyone? Oh yeah - the Renaissance. The height of scientific and cultural achievement - together as one. Nothing like it before and nothing like it since. When the Western World was Catholic - period - when the Truth permeated everything, we had the Renaissance. Then comes Luther and Calvin and we get garbage, and it's been here ever since. You want a thoroughly Protestant world - welcome to America.
12.13.2010 | 12:10pm
Joe the Human says:
Why were the Protestants who founded America, so concerned about the rising tide of Catholics in America? In large part, it was because Catholics are sworn, by oath, to honor and follow their leaders, including especially the Pope; who lives in Italy, In another nation outside of America, and American interests.
Just how blindly have Catholics followed their leaders, their popes and Bishops - even when their leaders seemed clearly wrong? One case in point would be 1) the recent molestation scandal; where most Catholics religiously followed and believed, the 400 American bishops. Who assured us that we have an all-but-perfect, “holy”Church - and in effect thus denied , “whitewashed” the fact that priests were sexually molesting boys and girls.
Just how blindly, faithfully, will Catholics follow their flawed leaders? Even when their leaders are clearly wrong? After the recently-exposed deception of American Catholics, by essentially all of the 400 American bishops, probably the best Historical example,would be 2) this moment: the moment in 1095AD, when Pope Urban II urged all of Christendom, to go to war to save the Holy Sepulcher, and save Jerusalem. Thus beginning the two hundred years of war and tensions with the Middle East, that became known as “the Crusades”; 1095-1291 CE.
Catholics have made some serious mistakes. In contrast, the United States of America, was clearly founded by WASPS: White, Anglo Saxon Protestants. And though they now and then made mistakes – and indeed encouraged themselves and others, to expose the “beam in their own eyes” - all America owes them a favorable glance now. A look at the system of thought that was, after all, so tremendously fruitful; that was in fact, the very foundation of a country as great, as the country many of us proudly (most of the time)live in: the United States of America.
Catholics especially, should very, very carefully and humbly, respectfully, consider Protestantism; and the foundation, the countries, that it built. That it built - often over and against, the studied and often physical opposition from the Pope, and the Church. (As when Catholic Spain, sailed against Protestant England in 1588; partially on the grounds of religious differences. And with the aim of ending Protestantism, by force of arms).
Specifically by the way, what was the one aspect of Catholicism, that our Protestant founders most often criticized? It was Catholics' over-dependence on centralized , over-traditional - “popish” - control. Which worked against the “freedom” and “individuality,” self-determination, the inventiveness, that was not only the essence of 1) the Protestant Reformation, and 2) the rise of the Middle Class, 3) and the Industrial Revolution; but was also at the same time, 4) the very heart of Democracy itself.
END
Just how blindly have Catholics followed their leaders, their popes and Bishops - even when their leaders seemed clearly wrong? One case in point would be 1) the recent molestation scandal; where most Catholics religiously followed and believed, the 400 American bishops. Who assured us that we have an all-but-perfect, “holy”Church - and in effect thus denied , “whitewashed” the fact that priests were sexually molesting boys and girls.
Just how blindly, faithfully, will Catholics follow their flawed leaders? Even when their leaders are clearly wrong? After the recently-exposed deception of American Catholics, by essentially all of the 400 American bishops, probably the best Historical example,would be 2) this moment: the moment in 1095AD, when Pope Urban II urged all of Christendom, to go to war to save the Holy Sepulcher, and save Jerusalem. Thus beginning the two hundred years of war and tensions with the Middle East, that became known as “the Crusades”; 1095-1291 CE.
Catholics have made some serious mistakes. In contrast, the United States of America, was clearly founded by WASPS: White, Anglo Saxon Protestants. And though they now and then made mistakes – and indeed encouraged themselves and others, to expose the “beam in their own eyes” - all America owes them a favorable glance now. A look at the system of thought that was, after all, so tremendously fruitful; that was in fact, the very foundation of a country as great, as the country many of us proudly (most of the time)live in: the United States of America.
Catholics especially, should very, very carefully and humbly, respectfully, consider Protestantism; and the foundation, the countries, that it built. That it built - often over and against, the studied and often physical opposition from the Pope, and the Church. (As when Catholic Spain, sailed against Protestant England in 1588; partially on the grounds of religious differences. And with the aim of ending Protestantism, by force of arms).
Specifically by the way, what was the one aspect of Catholicism, that our Protestant founders most often criticized? It was Catholics' over-dependence on centralized , over-traditional - “popish” - control. Which worked against the “freedom” and “individuality,” self-determination, the inventiveness, that was not only the essence of 1) the Protestant Reformation, and 2) the rise of the Middle Class, 3) and the Industrial Revolution; but was also at the same time, 4) the very heart of Democracy itself.
END
12.13.2010 | 3:33pm
Fred says:
it's funny that Joe the human talk about how more successful is US than the Catholics countries...(which is not true, by the way), but the point is, what he consider success is only related to materialism. The American society, as Peter Kreeft states is in free falling. Moral is subject to comfort and money. Protestant countries are so successful that the suicide rates have been increasing dramatically since the fifties as well as Assassination (Abortion). We love comfort so much, that we decide to invent as many "protestant churches" as possible, in order to find the one that fit our desires. Otherwise, we change until we find the one. Is like changing TV channels. Where is the success on that?
12.13.2010 | 3:33pm
Michael says:
Richard,
You’re welcome.
I agree with you that the cartoons are heinous and cultivate hateful stereotypes. If Catholics were a minority, I’d worry more. And if the bishops and the pope would address the cover-up as well as the abuse, I think the issue would die away more quickly. They’re getting it though, and Benedict is doing a fairly good job now.
The motivations of the Globe and the Times don’t bother me so much. I’m just happy they helped end the cover-up. Smart moves by the hierarchy could even give the Globe and Times some unintended consequences they might not like! In the meantime, Catholics from the right need to stop blaming the media and homosexuality, and Catholics from the left need to stop blaming celibacy and even the fact of a hierarchy for the crisis. All institutions like to keep secrets.
I empathize with your feeling of being tugged between “idiotic counterpositions.” I’m never sure which current to push against. Your comment about shuddering at the web of urban myth and black legend is right on.
I love your RCIA story. I’ve got a couple like that. And your reading of the history of liberalism and the Roman Catholic Church sounds similar to what I’ve picked up from my less thorough and wide-ranging reading.
I’m not sure why you mentioned Maria’s posts. I don’t recall responding to them.
We’re working different sides of the fence, Richard, but these chats restore my faith that these divides make sense from some perspective we don’t have yet.
It’s always a pleasure.
You’re welcome.
I agree with you that the cartoons are heinous and cultivate hateful stereotypes. If Catholics were a minority, I’d worry more. And if the bishops and the pope would address the cover-up as well as the abuse, I think the issue would die away more quickly. They’re getting it though, and Benedict is doing a fairly good job now.
The motivations of the Globe and the Times don’t bother me so much. I’m just happy they helped end the cover-up. Smart moves by the hierarchy could even give the Globe and Times some unintended consequences they might not like! In the meantime, Catholics from the right need to stop blaming the media and homosexuality, and Catholics from the left need to stop blaming celibacy and even the fact of a hierarchy for the crisis. All institutions like to keep secrets.
I empathize with your feeling of being tugged between “idiotic counterpositions.” I’m never sure which current to push against. Your comment about shuddering at the web of urban myth and black legend is right on.
I love your RCIA story. I’ve got a couple like that. And your reading of the history of liberalism and the Roman Catholic Church sounds similar to what I’ve picked up from my less thorough and wide-ranging reading.
I’m not sure why you mentioned Maria’s posts. I don’t recall responding to them.
We’re working different sides of the fence, Richard, but these chats restore my faith that these divides make sense from some perspective we don’t have yet.
It’s always a pleasure.
12.13.2010 | 3:58pm
Lizzy says:
The 'cartoon' of the bishops is utterly repellent and shows such a deliberate hatred of the Catholic faith. However, if one reads the arguments for and against infant baptism between Baptists and Presbyterians from about the same period, for example, one finds the same rancorous, uncharitable expressions used against each other. Being Protestant means being antagonistic---an us against them attitude that is deeply ingrained in a faith system whose original purpose was uniting many divergent, fractious individuals in fighting the 'evil' Roman Catholic Church. You never, ever see just one Baptist church in a community. They are constantly breaking away and forming new churches because of quarrels, animosity and scriptural interpretations. As a convert to Catholicism from Presbyterianism, one of the greatest differences I noted among Catholics was their tolerance and respect for their Protestant brothers and sisters. Protestantism was founded on bigotry and prejudice...anti this and anti that. The Catholic church was founded by our Savior Jesus Christ on the shoulders of Peter and the Apostles, countless martyrs and saints. It was for love. I love Pope Benedict XVI because I have read his books, listened to him and gotten to know and respect him, so it is all the more shocking to see cartoons mocking this saintly man. It frightens me that there are people in this world that can actually believe such evil. As Jesus said, If the world hates you, it is because they hated me first"...in other words, it means the Catholic church is really rattling Satan's cage.
12.13.2010 | 4:44pm
Robert says:
Random Comments: Ask any "Protestant Christian" what he or she is "protesting" and you willl not get an answer. The Scriptures tell us that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church of Peter". The Church has many enemies both within and without. One example of the "gates of Hell" is those Judas' within, such a abusive priests. The Church will purge itself of those 5th. Columinists, but these defects will not destroy the Church, only strengthen it. It is constantly growing inspite of its enemies. Even today, the Anglo-Catholic movement of Bishops, priests, parishes, Dioceses is testament of the desire of so-called "protesters" to rejoin the original Church. I am one of those Anglos that returned 55 years ago, even at that time not knowing what I was "protesting" except being told that Papism was evil. This "Joe Humanism" reminds me of those who want Christ removed from Christmas and replace with something called Holiday Enlightened Humanism. What should we call Christmas Day, Dec. 25? THE HOLIDAY????
12.13.2010 | 5:16pm
One guy says:
Maybe I'm a bit thick today, but I don't understand the point that the authors of the above column are making. That today's newspaper reporters are the equivalent of Thomas Nast and Eugene Lawrence? The last paragraph says that newspapers "continue to provide outlets for these vile images." Which newspapers? What images?
The last line is even more provocative: "The American River Ganges still rises, its current fed by the runoff of ignorance and fear." But who exactly is spreading the ignorance and fear? Every reporter who wrote about sex abuse? Were all the reports wrong -- simply the result of anti-Catholic bias?
The authors included a lot of fascinating history about the vile anti-Catholicism of the 1800s. But then they try to link this history to modern misdeeds without bothering to spell out what they're saying. Who exactly is guilty of what?
Melissa Nussbaum works for NCR, which covered sex abuse more aggressively than any secular newspaper. Is NCR the modern equivalent of Nast and Lawrence? What exactly are we saying here?
The last line is even more provocative: "The American River Ganges still rises, its current fed by the runoff of ignorance and fear." But who exactly is spreading the ignorance and fear? Every reporter who wrote about sex abuse? Were all the reports wrong -- simply the result of anti-Catholic bias?
The authors included a lot of fascinating history about the vile anti-Catholicism of the 1800s. But then they try to link this history to modern misdeeds without bothering to spell out what they're saying. Who exactly is guilty of what?
Melissa Nussbaum works for NCR, which covered sex abuse more aggressively than any secular newspaper. Is NCR the modern equivalent of Nast and Lawrence? What exactly are we saying here?
12.13.2010 | 5:28pm
R. T. Neary says:
It is surprising that the term pedophile is still being used instead of ephebophile. The Boston Globe Spotlight team, because of the concentration of homosexuals in their power structure, were taken back that after the Geogan case, when research started to reveal almost every case involved adolescent male victims. They spun their word usage to give the impression that acts were perpetrated on young children, and they continue to use such language to support this perception.. The John Jay study affirmed that it involved 80% homosexual activity. Those who knew some of the predator priests, after the fact saw the true nature of what was going on.
12.13.2010 | 5:44pm
RayC55 says:
When is someone going to be bold enough to take on the teachers unions and their protection of teacher molestations? Currently,approximately 7,300 teachers in NYC are enjoying their salary and benefits in "rubber rooms"
12.13.2010 | 5:56pm
Richard says:
Michael,
The comments on Maria were addressed to another party. I enjoyed your post. As for our friendly differences, let me repeat a line I like to give my students on the necessity for memory and dynamism, tradition and change: "Where there is no continuity there is no self; where there is no change there is no life."
Best,
R.
The comments on Maria were addressed to another party. I enjoyed your post. As for our friendly differences, let me repeat a line I like to give my students on the necessity for memory and dynamism, tradition and change: "Where there is no continuity there is no self; where there is no change there is no life."
Best,
R.
12.13.2010 | 5:59pm
R. T. Neary says:
It is surprising that the term pedophile is still being used instead of ephebophile. The Boston Globe Spotlight team, because of the concentration of homosexuals in their power structure, were taken back after the Geogan case, when research started to reveal almost every case involved adolescent male victims. They spun their word usage to give the impression that acts were perpetrated on young children, and they continue to use such language to support this perception.. The John Jay study affirmed that it involved 80% homosexual activity. Those who knew some of the predator priests, after the fact saw the true nature of what was going on.
12.13.2010 | 6:51pm
Longbow says:
Joe the Human wrote: "God promised not just "spiritual" fruits, but real economic prosperity, to those who understood and followed him rightly."
I am curious where it is that God promised such economic prosperity and how that concept corresponds with scrupture passages like Luke 6:20-26 and Mark 10:17-29?
I am curious where it is that God promised such economic prosperity and how that concept corresponds with scrupture passages like Luke 6:20-26 and Mark 10:17-29?
12.13.2010 | 7:53pm
roger says:
Richard,
Thank you for the lead to “quodlibeta”, I shall read this blog.
What you and your brothers and sisters in faith seem unable to comprehend is that religions are man made political organizations organized for the purpose of achieving power. The Christian church does this by manipulating the natural anxieties that humans are subject to, particularly fear of death, of lust and the insecurities caused by our profound ignorance of the situation we find ourselves in. Priests offer simplistic solutions to profoundly difficult questions, “it is the work of God”. I don’t know how the universe was formed and neither do you, nor Stephen Hawking, or the Pope. It is incomprehensible to me that an otherwise intelligent person would believe in the existence of a deity.
We certainly agree that the European colonization’s of North and South America had different dynamics; let’s examine one: The English colonists landed in North America from the early 1600’s on, the first university founded in the Colonies was Harvard, in 1640. By the war of independence there were seven universities, all of them now “Ivy League” and today recognized as some of the World’s finest institutions of learning.
Brazil was first colonized by the Portuguese in the 1560’s. Brazil’s first university opened its doors in 1928. Why this difference? The difference is that the English were Protestant and the Portuguese Catholic. It is a truism in Brazil that had the country been colonized by the English instead of the Portuguese, Brazil would be a great country now.
You talk of the annihilation of the indigenous people of North America, well there are more of them now than at any time in history so it seems a poor sort of campaign that our forefathers waged.
The British Empire was mostly a trade empire, and while some great abuses did occur the World is a better place now as a result of the BE.
The only imperial ambitions that were frustrated by two world wars were German and Japanese.
The United States is universally envied, that is why it is disliked. Our difficulties arouse schadenfreude amongst friends and enemies but see them appeal to US when they need help that only the US can provide.
“A more cooperative model”? You mean socialism? Britain and it’s problems are more the result of the adoption of a “more cooperative model” than the societal structures based on individualism and private property that made Britain (and the US) great.
So your colleague was frightened in post Christian London was he? During many trips (for the commissioning of automation systems) I made to super Catholic Mexico I was frightened too, warned not to go outside the factory compounds for fear of gangs intent on robbery, ransom or kidnapping for the harvesting of body parts, wonderful place your Church has created.
Best wishes.
Thank you for the lead to “quodlibeta”, I shall read this blog.
What you and your brothers and sisters in faith seem unable to comprehend is that religions are man made political organizations organized for the purpose of achieving power. The Christian church does this by manipulating the natural anxieties that humans are subject to, particularly fear of death, of lust and the insecurities caused by our profound ignorance of the situation we find ourselves in. Priests offer simplistic solutions to profoundly difficult questions, “it is the work of God”. I don’t know how the universe was formed and neither do you, nor Stephen Hawking, or the Pope. It is incomprehensible to me that an otherwise intelligent person would believe in the existence of a deity.
We certainly agree that the European colonization’s of North and South America had different dynamics; let’s examine one: The English colonists landed in North America from the early 1600’s on, the first university founded in the Colonies was Harvard, in 1640. By the war of independence there were seven universities, all of them now “Ivy League” and today recognized as some of the World’s finest institutions of learning.
Brazil was first colonized by the Portuguese in the 1560’s. Brazil’s first university opened its doors in 1928. Why this difference? The difference is that the English were Protestant and the Portuguese Catholic. It is a truism in Brazil that had the country been colonized by the English instead of the Portuguese, Brazil would be a great country now.
You talk of the annihilation of the indigenous people of North America, well there are more of them now than at any time in history so it seems a poor sort of campaign that our forefathers waged.
The British Empire was mostly a trade empire, and while some great abuses did occur the World is a better place now as a result of the BE.
The only imperial ambitions that were frustrated by two world wars were German and Japanese.
The United States is universally envied, that is why it is disliked. Our difficulties arouse schadenfreude amongst friends and enemies but see them appeal to US when they need help that only the US can provide.
“A more cooperative model”? You mean socialism? Britain and it’s problems are more the result of the adoption of a “more cooperative model” than the societal structures based on individualism and private property that made Britain (and the US) great.
So your colleague was frightened in post Christian London was he? During many trips (for the commissioning of automation systems) I made to super Catholic Mexico I was frightened too, warned not to go outside the factory compounds for fear of gangs intent on robbery, ransom or kidnapping for the harvesting of body parts, wonderful place your Church has created.
Best wishes.
12.13.2010 | 10:51pm
Robert says:
"Catholicism founded Mexico and South America" Well, Catholicism founded Europe also. I don't think Catholicism by itself is to blame of the underdeveloped economies of Mexico and South America. There was a stark "Separation of Church and State" enacted in 1857 in Mexico by then president Benito Juarez that started a downhill of demoralization and secularization of Mexico with increasing state corruption culminating in today's narco wars.
I think it was the absolute separation of church and state turned into animosity that separated governance and morality trashing the culture.
United States has had traditionally a good relation of church and state combining religious ethics with governance (do the right thing) that favorably affected business and the economy.
But a process of stark separation of church and state started since the late 50's. We are seeing the results of that process and we'll see more as "do the right thing" becomes less and less important.
I think it was the absolute separation of church and state turned into animosity that separated governance and morality trashing the culture.
United States has had traditionally a good relation of church and state combining religious ethics with governance (do the right thing) that favorably affected business and the economy.
But a process of stark separation of church and state started since the late 50's. We are seeing the results of that process and we'll see more as "do the right thing" becomes less and less important.
12.14.2010 | 9:23am
paula says:
Now.....write a negative article about Judiasm OR Islam..... Not that brave are you??????? The powers that be are able to denigrate Catholics because most Catholics won't fight back; they don't even know (or will admit) that they are STILL second class citizens in this country.
12.14.2010 | 10:49am
MK says:
I can't help feeling that this evolution of the priesthood into a homosexual dominated profession, obviously encouraged and facilitated by the celibacy provision, is at the root of the current sexual abuse scandal.
Say what? So you're saying that if the celibacy rule were removed, homosexual priests would suddenly become heterosexual? Or are you saying that they would remain homosexual, but would be free to have have homsexual relations because they are no longer required to remain celibate?
Either argument is ludicrous.
Say what? So you're saying that if the celibacy rule were removed, homosexual priests would suddenly become heterosexual? Or are you saying that they would remain homosexual, but would be free to have have homsexual relations because they are no longer required to remain celibate?
Either argument is ludicrous.
12.14.2010 | 11:42am
Richard says:
Roger,
As for Quodlibeta, you're welcome. As for the invitation to more culture wars, been here, done this. This wrangling is eating up my life and I have other things to do.
However, I want to illustrate why I find THIS particular discussion so easy to pass up. In your post, you contrast the forwardness of university foundation in Anglo-Saxon America with the extreme backwardness of university foundation in Catholic South America (e.g. first university of Brazil claimed to have opened in 1928). Well, I checked Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation
The list of South American foundations was stunningly at variance with your claims:
Latin America and the Caribbean
* Americas: Officially: National University of San Marcos, Perú, 1551. In continuous operation since its foundation on May 12, 1551. It is the oldest continuously operating university in the Americas.
* Peru: National University of San Marcos, Lima, May 12, 1551, as Royal and Pontifical University of San Marcos, "dean university of America” (the oldest, and the first "official"), since it is the only university on the American continent that survives, uninterruptedly, since the 16th century
* Mexico: National Autonomous University of Mexico, September 21, 1551, as Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico (in 1920 changes its name to National Autonomous University of Mexico, when has given it the freedom to define its own curriculum and manage its own budget without interference from the government).[18]
* Dominican Republic: Santo Tomas de Aquino University, Santo Domingo, founded by papal bull in 1538, and by royal bull in 1747. Today it operates as the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo. (Due to a 90 year hiatus from 1824-1914, it is not the oldest continuously operating university in America). Many historians suggest that the Universidad de Santo Domingo and the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo are different universities.
* Colombia: Saint Thomas Aquinas University, 1580
* Argentina: National University of Córdoba, 1613
* Ecuador: Central University of Ecuador, 1622, 19 May, as Real y Pontificia Universidad de San Gregorio Magno
* Chile: Universidad de Chile, 1622, 19 August, as Universidad de Santo Tomás de Aquino, then Real Universidad de San Felipe (1738)
* Bolivia: Royal and Pontificial Major University of St. Francis Xavier of Chuquisaca, 1624
* Guatemala: Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, 1676
* Venezuela: Central University of Venezuela, 1721
* Cuba: Universidad de La Habana, 1728
* Brazil:Real Academia de Artilharia, Fortificação e Desenho, 1699; Faculdade de Direito de Olinda, 1827; Faculdade de Direito do Lgo São Francisco, 1827
* Honduras: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, 1847
* Paraguay: Universidad Nacional de Asunción, 1889
* Puerto Rico: University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras 1903
* Jamaica: University of the West Indies, Mona 1948 and University of Technology, Jamaica 1958
* Surinam: Anton de Kom University, 1968
* Grenada: St. George's University, 1976
* Dominica: Ross University, 1978
In other words, there were universities in the south before the Mayflower hit Plymouth Rock.
By the way, the author points out that the university system as it exists today was founded by (Catholic) Europe and lists the first university as the University of Bologna, opened by Papal Charter in 1088.
Given the ignorance of Catholic Culture evident in your post, I'd rather not palaver.
For the Record:
I respect the cultures and peoples of North, Central, and South America.
I respect reasoned Atheism as an intellectual position.
To those who do not respect my Theism, I say:
That's your problem, not mine.
Best,
Richard
As for Quodlibeta, you're welcome. As for the invitation to more culture wars, been here, done this. This wrangling is eating up my life and I have other things to do.
However, I want to illustrate why I find THIS particular discussion so easy to pass up. In your post, you contrast the forwardness of university foundation in Anglo-Saxon America with the extreme backwardness of university foundation in Catholic South America (e.g. first university of Brazil claimed to have opened in 1928). Well, I checked Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in_continuous_operation
The list of South American foundations was stunningly at variance with your claims:
Latin America and the Caribbean
* Americas: Officially: National University of San Marcos, Perú, 1551. In continuous operation since its foundation on May 12, 1551. It is the oldest continuously operating university in the Americas.
* Peru: National University of San Marcos, Lima, May 12, 1551, as Royal and Pontifical University of San Marcos, "dean university of America” (the oldest, and the first "official"), since it is the only university on the American continent that survives, uninterruptedly, since the 16th century
* Mexico: National Autonomous University of Mexico, September 21, 1551, as Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico (in 1920 changes its name to National Autonomous University of Mexico, when has given it the freedom to define its own curriculum and manage its own budget without interference from the government).[18]
* Dominican Republic: Santo Tomas de Aquino University, Santo Domingo, founded by papal bull in 1538, and by royal bull in 1747. Today it operates as the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo. (Due to a 90 year hiatus from 1824-1914, it is not the oldest continuously operating university in America). Many historians suggest that the Universidad de Santo Domingo and the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo are different universities.
* Colombia: Saint Thomas Aquinas University, 1580
* Argentina: National University of Córdoba, 1613
* Ecuador: Central University of Ecuador, 1622, 19 May, as Real y Pontificia Universidad de San Gregorio Magno
* Chile: Universidad de Chile, 1622, 19 August, as Universidad de Santo Tomás de Aquino, then Real Universidad de San Felipe (1738)
* Bolivia: Royal and Pontificial Major University of St. Francis Xavier of Chuquisaca, 1624
* Guatemala: Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, 1676
* Venezuela: Central University of Venezuela, 1721
* Cuba: Universidad de La Habana, 1728
* Brazil:Real Academia de Artilharia, Fortificação e Desenho, 1699; Faculdade de Direito de Olinda, 1827; Faculdade de Direito do Lgo São Francisco, 1827
* Honduras: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, 1847
* Paraguay: Universidad Nacional de Asunción, 1889
* Puerto Rico: University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras 1903
* Jamaica: University of the West Indies, Mona 1948 and University of Technology, Jamaica 1958
* Surinam: Anton de Kom University, 1968
* Grenada: St. George's University, 1976
* Dominica: Ross University, 1978
In other words, there were universities in the south before the Mayflower hit Plymouth Rock.
By the way, the author points out that the university system as it exists today was founded by (Catholic) Europe and lists the first university as the University of Bologna, opened by Papal Charter in 1088.
Given the ignorance of Catholic Culture evident in your post, I'd rather not palaver.
For the Record:
I respect the cultures and peoples of North, Central, and South America.
I respect reasoned Atheism as an intellectual position.
To those who do not respect my Theism, I say:
That's your problem, not mine.
Best,
Richard
12.14.2010 | 12:38pm
roger says:
Richard,
You are confusing seminaries with universities.
I don't want to palaver either, you and I will never agree.
Happy holidays
You are confusing seminaries with universities.
I don't want to palaver either, you and I will never agree.
Happy holidays
12.14.2010 | 2:38pm
Mark VA says:
Roger:
Your posts show a lack of basic historical knowledge. Thomas E. Woods Jr, in his excellent introductory book "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization", provides a handy description of the breakdown in the awarding of university charters (p. 48) in pre-Reformation Europe. Briefly, there were eighty one universities in Europe prior to the Reformation. Of these:
- 33 had a papal charter;
- 15 had a royal or imperial charter;
- 20 had both charters;
- 13 had no charter.
Thus, 65% of all pre-Reformation universities possessed a papal charter. As for South American universities, it's strange to suggest that all of the universities Richard listed are seminaries.
Regrading Mexico, while it is true that most of the population is Catholic, it is also true that the party that had been ruling them for seven decades (PRI - Institutional Revolutionary Party) is anything but. It is a socialist party. There's the rub.
You're grasping at straws.
Your posts show a lack of basic historical knowledge. Thomas E. Woods Jr, in his excellent introductory book "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization", provides a handy description of the breakdown in the awarding of university charters (p. 48) in pre-Reformation Europe. Briefly, there were eighty one universities in Europe prior to the Reformation. Of these:
- 33 had a papal charter;
- 15 had a royal or imperial charter;
- 20 had both charters;
- 13 had no charter.
Thus, 65% of all pre-Reformation universities possessed a papal charter. As for South American universities, it's strange to suggest that all of the universities Richard listed are seminaries.
Regrading Mexico, while it is true that most of the population is Catholic, it is also true that the party that had been ruling them for seven decades (PRI - Institutional Revolutionary Party) is anything but. It is a socialist party. There's the rub.
You're grasping at straws.
12.15.2010 | 6:19am
Mike Melendez says:
"Grasp at straws; do you people have any idea of the damage you have caused?
I feel physically sick just talking to you."
Oh, no! Catholics are all those vile, limited humans, full of sin. Unlike ... wait we're all human, not a god among us. And that's what Christianity teaches; no, make that Jesus teaches.
----
And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
----
Mark 2:17
I believe Protestants buy into this one. I suspect Atheists do not. But then atheist history looks pretty human to me.
Maybe the problem is that we spend so much time finding sin in others that we can no longer see it in ourselves.
I feel physically sick just talking to you."
Oh, no! Catholics are all those vile, limited humans, full of sin. Unlike ... wait we're all human, not a god among us. And that's what Christianity teaches; no, make that Jesus teaches.
----
And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
----
Mark 2:17
I believe Protestants buy into this one. I suspect Atheists do not. But then atheist history looks pretty human to me.
Maybe the problem is that we spend so much time finding sin in others that we can no longer see it in ourselves.
12.15.2010 | 6:24am
MK says:
Roger,
Yes, it is clear to all that we should be less "Catholic" and more like you. You are a fine example of what it means to be a "good human being". If only all of "us" were filled with hatred, rage and rudeness like yourself, and less like some fictional loon that promoted peace and love, the world would be a much better place. I see that now. Don't know what we were thinking. Bad, evil Catholics. Shame on us.
Yes, it is clear to all that we should be less "Catholic" and more like you. You are a fine example of what it means to be a "good human being". If only all of "us" were filled with hatred, rage and rudeness like yourself, and less like some fictional loon that promoted peace and love, the world would be a much better place. I see that now. Don't know what we were thinking. Bad, evil Catholics. Shame on us.
12.15.2010 | 6:33am
MK says:
I find it ironic, Roger, that you're sort are the first to tout separation of Church and State, yet when we point out that it is the State and NOT the Church that oppresses these countries, you want to know why the Church is responsible.
No answer to your question? How many ways must we say that the governments of these countries are responsible for their state of affairs, not their Faith choice? It's not that we haven't answered your questions, it's that you don't like our answers.
I don't know if you've noticed, but there are no Catholic Theocracies. Comparing apples and oranges might make a great fruit salad, but it does not produce sound arguments.
Claiming that the Philippines is poor and oppressed because it is Catholic is like claiming it is poor and oppressed because all of the people there have legs. Yes, they all have legs, drink water, and many are Catholic; but none of these are the cause of their oppression.
No answer to your question? How many ways must we say that the governments of these countries are responsible for their state of affairs, not their Faith choice? It's not that we haven't answered your questions, it's that you don't like our answers.
I don't know if you've noticed, but there are no Catholic Theocracies. Comparing apples and oranges might make a great fruit salad, but it does not produce sound arguments.
Claiming that the Philippines is poor and oppressed because it is Catholic is like claiming it is poor and oppressed because all of the people there have legs. Yes, they all have legs, drink water, and many are Catholic; but none of these are the cause of their oppression.
12.15.2010 | 8:26am
Richard says:
Roger,
I will address your post when I have time to prepare a reply both thorough and civil. At this moment I have pressing business--exams to write, papers to grade, students to coach, on a looming deadline.
I have done some research that does not support your generalizations. It will take a lot of analysis and summary to put it in postable form. This could take some time but be patient. You will find the results relevant and (as I did) at times quite surprising. Whether your feelings will change is another matter. Hume famously wrote that the intellect is the servant of the passions. Too true.
Best,
Richard
I will address your post when I have time to prepare a reply both thorough and civil. At this moment I have pressing business--exams to write, papers to grade, students to coach, on a looming deadline.
I have done some research that does not support your generalizations. It will take a lot of analysis and summary to put it in postable form. This could take some time but be patient. You will find the results relevant and (as I did) at times quite surprising. Whether your feelings will change is another matter. Hume famously wrote that the intellect is the servant of the passions. Too true.
Best,
Richard
12.15.2010 | 12:27pm
Richard says:
I do not find Roger's last post in the thread. I know that there were expressions of extreme anger in his language, but he feels moral outrage and that can cause incautious outbursts.
If the moderators have buried the post for this reason, I hope that they will restore it in its proper sequence. If you must remove sentences of extreme heat, do so and mark the omissions with periods to mark ellipsis. The questions Roger asks are hard-hitting, valid ones, and represent widely held views. Catholic countries fare much better comparatively on prosperity and happiness scales than he seems to realize, but there are horrors in the Catholic world like the so often disappeared street children of Brazil and the sex scandals of the Irish church. If I saw the whole Church as he does I would be gone in a hearbeat. Let us at least have a full airing of the issues.
Best,
Richard
If the moderators have buried the post for this reason, I hope that they will restore it in its proper sequence. If you must remove sentences of extreme heat, do so and mark the omissions with periods to mark ellipsis. The questions Roger asks are hard-hitting, valid ones, and represent widely held views. Catholic countries fare much better comparatively on prosperity and happiness scales than he seems to realize, but there are horrors in the Catholic world like the so often disappeared street children of Brazil and the sex scandals of the Irish church. If I saw the whole Church as he does I would be gone in a hearbeat. Let us at least have a full airing of the issues.
Best,
Richard
12.15.2010 | 10:26pm
Richard says:
Roger,
As expected, the task of documenting the error of the stereotype of all Catholic countries as poor, oppressed, stagnant, and hopeless is a herculean one. I will do best to approach it in stages. Exhitit A follows, a report released by the Brookings Institute today on the extraordinary optimism and progressiveness of the countries of Catholic South America. It demolishes the view that the subcontinent is a slough of despond. Not all is wine and rose--one of the biggest spectres is the fear of violence, but the overall tone is amazingly hopeful, and far more confident than that in the U.S.:
Latin America's Hour of Optimism: On the Results of Latinobarómetro 2010
Latin America, Polling and Public Opinion, Foreign Policy, International Relations
Kevin Casas-Zamora, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Latin America Initiative
The Brookings Institution
Remove PrintE-mailShare
DeliciousDiggFacebookGoogleLinkedInLiveNewsvineStumbleUponYahooTwitter.
December 13, 2010 —
As has been the case for the past 15 years, Santiago-based polling firm Latinobarómetro has recently released the results of its 2010 survey, spanning 17 Latin American countries, more than 20,000 interviews, and a wide range of topics, from the state of the economy to politics and foreign affairs. At this point, Latinobarómetro has become one of Latin America’s most important sources of self-knowledge, as well as an inevitable reference point in the region’s policy debates. Any short opinion piece will fail to do justice to the wealth of information generated by this edition of the survey. However, I would use the next paragraphs to comment on four particularly salient issues raised by this new batch of results.
The first is the remarkable optimism underscored by the survey. Latin Americans seem to think that they never had it so good. There is plenty of good news in these results, the most important of which conveys the strides democracy has made to become “the only game in town” in Latin America. Today, 61% of Latin Americans prefer democracy to any other political system, up from 54% three years ago. This is the first time that this figure has gone up four consecutive years in Latinobarómetro. Equally noteworthy is the fact that 44% of respondents claim to be satisfied with the way democracy works in their countries, a repeat of the 2009 figure and the highest number since the series began in 1996. While other indicators –including the perception that democracy favors the interest of the wealthy few (60% say it does)—remain problematic, the poll’s findings with regards to democratic attitudes are remarkably positive. As the survey’s report rightly maintains, democratic consolidation is not about huge leaps forward in political attitudes but about the accumulation of small positive changes. While the adoption of a democratic routine in the region is, in many ways, the product of a three-decade long process, it is very clear that the past few years have been crucial in crystallizing this trend. Economic contraction notwithstanding –the 2009 recession caused the region’s GDP to fall 1.9%— since 2003 Latin America has had the best cycle of economic growth in nearly fifty years, one that has pulled more than forty million people out of poverty and thrust them into the middle classes. Even more remarkably, over the past decade, income inequality –the region’s bitter trademark—has fallen in 15 out of 18 Latin American countries, partly due to significant increases in social outlays and the adoption of many innovative policies. Simply put, the combination of sustained economic growth and aggressive social policies, able to make a dent on poverty and inequality, has proven to be a very powerful tonic for democracy. Not only has it bolstered up support for democracy and popular satisfaction with it, but also made democracy more resilient. The last few years have built up a reservoir of political good will that allows democracy to withstand crises –such as the 2009 economic slump—with far greater ease.
Another positive development concerns the region’s sense of progress, the fact that many more people feel that their countries are moving forward (39% today, up from 27% a decade ago). However, here the story is more complicated, for the poll highlights a clear divide between South America, on the one hand, and Central America and Mexico, on the other. South American countries are far more optimistic about the future. Generally speaking, their economies have recovered very well from the global economic crisis and are growing faster than those in the other group. But there is more to this. Rightly or wrongly, South American countries seem to think that they have sorted out their integration into the global economy. They are big providers of raw materials and stand to benefit mightily from Asia’s economic expansion, and they know it. With the exception of Panama, Central America and Mexico still retain unresolved question on how to mitigate their enormous dependence on the U.S. economy, on how to cope with China’s manufacturing competition, and on how to be globally competitive. Add to this the twin issues of violence and organized crime, which afflict them with particular intensity, and these societies have real reasons to remain wary about their future.
The second issue is about political pragmatism and consensus. If the much-hyped talk about Latin America’s turn to the Left was never very compelling, at this point it really makes little sense. What Latinobarómetro 2010 clearly shows is a region that has converged towards the center of the spectrum. A region-wide consensus on what good governance is all about seems to have emerged, and it does not matter much whether candidates hail from the Left or the Right. There is a sort of “Consensus of Brasilia” that contends that good governance is, first, about being elected in free and fair elections; second, it is about paying close attention to macroeconomic equilibriums, and being aware that playing fast and loose with them is a very bad idea; and third, it is about implementing aggressive social policies, able to combat both poverty and inequality.
The admission of all these things amounts to a massive intellectual and political shift in Latin America. Latin American societies are slaying fairly big dragons that have arrested their development for a very long time.
Alas, these are not the only dragons that matter. The question now is whether Latin America will seize the current cycle of optimism and economic expansion to tackle the very difficult tasks that are still pending. Three of them are particularly important:
· Solving the fiscal question: Outside Brazil, tax revenue in Latin America (18.4% of GDP on average) is just too low to provide for the public goods on which social justice and capitalist accumulation depend;
· Raising the productivity of economies: This is about improving the region’s dismal situation in the realms of infrastructure, public education and scientific innovation;
· Last but not least, reducing the current, very serious, levels of crime and violence, on which more below.
It is to be hoped that Latin America will take advantage of the current favorable winds to tackle these huge, unresolved issues, and that its societies and political elites will come to certain basic agreements on what needs to be done about them. The region has had many a favorable cycle before, and we, Latin Americans, have too often let them go to waste. Let us hope to break that curse this time around.
The third point is about crime and violence. Crime is the one dark cloud that mars the optimistic outlook conveyed by the survey. Assertions that crime is the region’s most pressing problem have grown five-fold over the past 15 years in Latinobarómetro. The anxieties surrounding crime in Latin America are simply extraordinary. Only 1 in 10 Latin Americans claims not to fear the possibility of being victim of a violent crime. There are plenty of reasons for this. Latin America’s murder rate is more than three times as high as the murder rate for the world as a whole. Moreover, as Latinobarómetro has routinely reported, roughly one third of the region’s population, 200 million people approximately, are victims of a criminal deed, either directly or in their immediate family, every year. This is a social calamity by any standard and one that can only be expected to have political consequences.
A recent study conducted by political scientist José Miguel Cruz, from Vanderbilt University, shows that support for democracy is visibly affected by high perceptions of insecurity as well as by opinions of the government’s success or failure in fighting against crime (José Miguel Cruz, “The impact of violent crime on the political culture of Latin America: The special case of Central America,” in Mitchell Seligson, ed., Challenges to Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evidence from the Americas Barometer 2006-2007, Nashville, LAPOP - Vanderbilt University, 2008). Even more troubling is the finding that Latin Americans cite crime as the problem that could most easily motivate them to justify a coup d’etat. According to Cruz, 47% of the region’s population would be willing to endure a return to authoritarianism, if such a step would help to tackle public insecurity. The threshold for defecting from democracy is lower with insecurity than it is with any other social challenge in the region.
There is no mystery here: people, generally speaking, do prefer dictatorship to chaos. This is not cheap alarmism. Some years ago, Nancy Bermeo, of Oxford University, wrote a very interesting paper that showed that the one consistent factor in the breakdown of democracies in interwar Europe was a widespread perception that public order was unravelling. The dictators who seized control of Europe’s failed democracies in the interwar years were a very diverse lot. What united them all was their promise to restore order (Nancy Bermeo, “Getting mad or going mad? Citizens, scarcity and the breakdown of democracy in interwar Europe”, Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California – Irvine, 1997).
Latin American societies, policy makers and political leaders must heed this warning seriously. This means overcoming the troubling sense of perplexity that one finds throughout the region, i.e. the sense that no one really knows what to do about the challenge of crime. It is, to be fair, a truly vexing problem with multiple causes. But solutions do exist. Latin America itself has recently seen successful crime reduction experiences, particularly at the local level, in places like Bogota and Sao Paulo, which provide very clear clues as to what should be done to turn the situation around. The evidence suggests that successful experiences have rather little to do with the iron-fisted policies that have become a feature of political discourse in the region, especially during campaign cycles. The best instances of crime reduction illustrate that good solutions entail combining “zero tolerance” for crime with “zero tolerance” for social exclusion and marginalization. Latinobarómetro 2010 clearly suggests that, as of today, the issue of crime is, by far, the biggest weakness of democratic consolidation in Latin America.
The fourth issue is about Venezuela and support for democracy. For a few years now, one of the most striking findings of Latinobarómetro has been the sharp increase in support for democracy detected in Venezuela and, also, to a lesser extent, in Bolivia and Ecuador. With 84% of Venezuelans voicing their preference for democracy over any other political system, Venezuela exhibits levels of support for democracy that dwarf even those of nations like Uruguay and Costa Rica, which have historically topped regional results for this indicator. This phenomenon demands more attention than it has received. Whatever misgivings one may have about the political situation in Venezuela, it has to be recognized that the presence of President Hugo Chávez has conferred considerable dynamism to debates on democracy in Latin America. In fact, looking back, one cannot help but to notice the extent to which discussions on democracy and on social policies in Latin America over the past decade have been framed by the Venezuelan experience.
Chávez’s Venezuela has, at times, afforded us a good example, at others, a bad example, at yet others, a consummate warning. The good example comes from recognizing that all these leaders –Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa— paid attention to an unmet demand for political participation and representation from groups in their countries that rightly felt disenfranchised. In all likelihood, it is their success in giving voice to these constituencies that is at the heart of spiking figures of support for democracy. Whatever else we may say about them, these leaders have proven able to bring forth more inclusive democracies, albeit not ones that are very good at checking the exercise of political power. It is here, of course, where good meets bad in the Venezuelan example. Chávez has enriched our democratic debate by reminding us of the simple point that it is not enough to open up the political system and be elected democratically – governing democratically is also essential. This implies respecting checks and balances, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the whole range of civil and political liberties that define democracies worthy of that name. Finally, and perhaps fundamentally, Chávez’s Venezuela has also provided a cautionary tale, one which has been instrumental in convincing Latin American economic elites that they can live, and live very well indeed, with a more moderate, pragmatic and gradualist Left, capable of setting in motion progressive social policies. In short, Chávez has served as a warning to elites that they would be very wise to coexist with Lula and his ilk.
Latin America’s democrats should thus be careful not to dismiss the legacy of Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution outright, because on close inspection its recent contribution to democracy in the region may not have been small at all. In any case, it ought to be borne in mind that the final page of the Venezuelan process has not yet been written, and perhaps the more enlightened aspects of Chávez’s revolution will eventually prevail. Who knows? For someone living through the Jacobin phase of the French Revolution, it would have been difficult to imagine that something positive would come out of all the horror. But here comes to mind the famous quip attributed to Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai, when asked in the 1970s about the effects of the French Revolution. With China’s 4,000 years behind him, Zhou simply replied, “It’s too soon to say.” Perhaps Venezuelans, and Bolivians and Ecuadorians may still end up getting what the great Venezuelan jurist Pedro Nikken has said most people in his country ultimately seek: something more socially advanced than what they once had, but more democratic than what they now have.
I have no particular interest in becoming a cheerleader for Hugo Chávez’s revolution, but will nonetheless share the insight that this year’s Latinobarómetro figures allowed me to glean: namely that, whatever the unsavory aspects of the Venezuelan process, and however paradoxically, the emergence of the “Consensus of Brasilia” in Latin America owes more to Commander Chávez than we usually care to admit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Best,
Richard
As expected, the task of documenting the error of the stereotype of all Catholic countries as poor, oppressed, stagnant, and hopeless is a herculean one. I will do best to approach it in stages. Exhitit A follows, a report released by the Brookings Institute today on the extraordinary optimism and progressiveness of the countries of Catholic South America. It demolishes the view that the subcontinent is a slough of despond. Not all is wine and rose--one of the biggest spectres is the fear of violence, but the overall tone is amazingly hopeful, and far more confident than that in the U.S.:
Latin America's Hour of Optimism: On the Results of Latinobarómetro 2010
Latin America, Polling and Public Opinion, Foreign Policy, International Relations
Kevin Casas-Zamora, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Latin America Initiative
The Brookings Institution
Remove PrintE-mailShare
DeliciousDiggFacebookGoogleLinkedInLiveNewsvineStumbleUponYahooTwitter.
December 13, 2010 —
As has been the case for the past 15 years, Santiago-based polling firm Latinobarómetro has recently released the results of its 2010 survey, spanning 17 Latin American countries, more than 20,000 interviews, and a wide range of topics, from the state of the economy to politics and foreign affairs. At this point, Latinobarómetro has become one of Latin America’s most important sources of self-knowledge, as well as an inevitable reference point in the region’s policy debates. Any short opinion piece will fail to do justice to the wealth of information generated by this edition of the survey. However, I would use the next paragraphs to comment on four particularly salient issues raised by this new batch of results.
The first is the remarkable optimism underscored by the survey. Latin Americans seem to think that they never had it so good. There is plenty of good news in these results, the most important of which conveys the strides democracy has made to become “the only game in town” in Latin America. Today, 61% of Latin Americans prefer democracy to any other political system, up from 54% three years ago. This is the first time that this figure has gone up four consecutive years in Latinobarómetro. Equally noteworthy is the fact that 44% of respondents claim to be satisfied with the way democracy works in their countries, a repeat of the 2009 figure and the highest number since the series began in 1996. While other indicators –including the perception that democracy favors the interest of the wealthy few (60% say it does)—remain problematic, the poll’s findings with regards to democratic attitudes are remarkably positive. As the survey’s report rightly maintains, democratic consolidation is not about huge leaps forward in political attitudes but about the accumulation of small positive changes. While the adoption of a democratic routine in the region is, in many ways, the product of a three-decade long process, it is very clear that the past few years have been crucial in crystallizing this trend. Economic contraction notwithstanding –the 2009 recession caused the region’s GDP to fall 1.9%— since 2003 Latin America has had the best cycle of economic growth in nearly fifty years, one that has pulled more than forty million people out of poverty and thrust them into the middle classes. Even more remarkably, over the past decade, income inequality –the region’s bitter trademark—has fallen in 15 out of 18 Latin American countries, partly due to significant increases in social outlays and the adoption of many innovative policies. Simply put, the combination of sustained economic growth and aggressive social policies, able to make a dent on poverty and inequality, has proven to be a very powerful tonic for democracy. Not only has it bolstered up support for democracy and popular satisfaction with it, but also made democracy more resilient. The last few years have built up a reservoir of political good will that allows democracy to withstand crises –such as the 2009 economic slump—with far greater ease.
Another positive development concerns the region’s sense of progress, the fact that many more people feel that their countries are moving forward (39% today, up from 27% a decade ago). However, here the story is more complicated, for the poll highlights a clear divide between South America, on the one hand, and Central America and Mexico, on the other. South American countries are far more optimistic about the future. Generally speaking, their economies have recovered very well from the global economic crisis and are growing faster than those in the other group. But there is more to this. Rightly or wrongly, South American countries seem to think that they have sorted out their integration into the global economy. They are big providers of raw materials and stand to benefit mightily from Asia’s economic expansion, and they know it. With the exception of Panama, Central America and Mexico still retain unresolved question on how to mitigate their enormous dependence on the U.S. economy, on how to cope with China’s manufacturing competition, and on how to be globally competitive. Add to this the twin issues of violence and organized crime, which afflict them with particular intensity, and these societies have real reasons to remain wary about their future.
The second issue is about political pragmatism and consensus. If the much-hyped talk about Latin America’s turn to the Left was never very compelling, at this point it really makes little sense. What Latinobarómetro 2010 clearly shows is a region that has converged towards the center of the spectrum. A region-wide consensus on what good governance is all about seems to have emerged, and it does not matter much whether candidates hail from the Left or the Right. There is a sort of “Consensus of Brasilia” that contends that good governance is, first, about being elected in free and fair elections; second, it is about paying close attention to macroeconomic equilibriums, and being aware that playing fast and loose with them is a very bad idea; and third, it is about implementing aggressive social policies, able to combat both poverty and inequality.
The admission of all these things amounts to a massive intellectual and political shift in Latin America. Latin American societies are slaying fairly big dragons that have arrested their development for a very long time.
Alas, these are not the only dragons that matter. The question now is whether Latin America will seize the current cycle of optimism and economic expansion to tackle the very difficult tasks that are still pending. Three of them are particularly important:
· Solving the fiscal question: Outside Brazil, tax revenue in Latin America (18.4% of GDP on average) is just too low to provide for the public goods on which social justice and capitalist accumulation depend;
· Raising the productivity of economies: This is about improving the region’s dismal situation in the realms of infrastructure, public education and scientific innovation;
· Last but not least, reducing the current, very serious, levels of crime and violence, on which more below.
It is to be hoped that Latin America will take advantage of the current favorable winds to tackle these huge, unresolved issues, and that its societies and political elites will come to certain basic agreements on what needs to be done about them. The region has had many a favorable cycle before, and we, Latin Americans, have too often let them go to waste. Let us hope to break that curse this time around.
The third point is about crime and violence. Crime is the one dark cloud that mars the optimistic outlook conveyed by the survey. Assertions that crime is the region’s most pressing problem have grown five-fold over the past 15 years in Latinobarómetro. The anxieties surrounding crime in Latin America are simply extraordinary. Only 1 in 10 Latin Americans claims not to fear the possibility of being victim of a violent crime. There are plenty of reasons for this. Latin America’s murder rate is more than three times as high as the murder rate for the world as a whole. Moreover, as Latinobarómetro has routinely reported, roughly one third of the region’s population, 200 million people approximately, are victims of a criminal deed, either directly or in their immediate family, every year. This is a social calamity by any standard and one that can only be expected to have political consequences.
A recent study conducted by political scientist José Miguel Cruz, from Vanderbilt University, shows that support for democracy is visibly affected by high perceptions of insecurity as well as by opinions of the government’s success or failure in fighting against crime (José Miguel Cruz, “The impact of violent crime on the political culture of Latin America: The special case of Central America,” in Mitchell Seligson, ed., Challenges to Democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean: Evidence from the Americas Barometer 2006-2007, Nashville, LAPOP - Vanderbilt University, 2008). Even more troubling is the finding that Latin Americans cite crime as the problem that could most easily motivate them to justify a coup d’etat. According to Cruz, 47% of the region’s population would be willing to endure a return to authoritarianism, if such a step would help to tackle public insecurity. The threshold for defecting from democracy is lower with insecurity than it is with any other social challenge in the region.
There is no mystery here: people, generally speaking, do prefer dictatorship to chaos. This is not cheap alarmism. Some years ago, Nancy Bermeo, of Oxford University, wrote a very interesting paper that showed that the one consistent factor in the breakdown of democracies in interwar Europe was a widespread perception that public order was unravelling. The dictators who seized control of Europe’s failed democracies in the interwar years were a very diverse lot. What united them all was their promise to restore order (Nancy Bermeo, “Getting mad or going mad? Citizens, scarcity and the breakdown of democracy in interwar Europe”, Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California – Irvine, 1997).
Latin American societies, policy makers and political leaders must heed this warning seriously. This means overcoming the troubling sense of perplexity that one finds throughout the region, i.e. the sense that no one really knows what to do about the challenge of crime. It is, to be fair, a truly vexing problem with multiple causes. But solutions do exist. Latin America itself has recently seen successful crime reduction experiences, particularly at the local level, in places like Bogota and Sao Paulo, which provide very clear clues as to what should be done to turn the situation around. The evidence suggests that successful experiences have rather little to do with the iron-fisted policies that have become a feature of political discourse in the region, especially during campaign cycles. The best instances of crime reduction illustrate that good solutions entail combining “zero tolerance” for crime with “zero tolerance” for social exclusion and marginalization. Latinobarómetro 2010 clearly suggests that, as of today, the issue of crime is, by far, the biggest weakness of democratic consolidation in Latin America.
The fourth issue is about Venezuela and support for democracy. For a few years now, one of the most striking findings of Latinobarómetro has been the sharp increase in support for democracy detected in Venezuela and, also, to a lesser extent, in Bolivia and Ecuador. With 84% of Venezuelans voicing their preference for democracy over any other political system, Venezuela exhibits levels of support for democracy that dwarf even those of nations like Uruguay and Costa Rica, which have historically topped regional results for this indicator. This phenomenon demands more attention than it has received. Whatever misgivings one may have about the political situation in Venezuela, it has to be recognized that the presence of President Hugo Chávez has conferred considerable dynamism to debates on democracy in Latin America. In fact, looking back, one cannot help but to notice the extent to which discussions on democracy and on social policies in Latin America over the past decade have been framed by the Venezuelan experience.
Chávez’s Venezuela has, at times, afforded us a good example, at others, a bad example, at yet others, a consummate warning. The good example comes from recognizing that all these leaders –Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa— paid attention to an unmet demand for political participation and representation from groups in their countries that rightly felt disenfranchised. In all likelihood, it is their success in giving voice to these constituencies that is at the heart of spiking figures of support for democracy. Whatever else we may say about them, these leaders have proven able to bring forth more inclusive democracies, albeit not ones that are very good at checking the exercise of political power. It is here, of course, where good meets bad in the Venezuelan example. Chávez has enriched our democratic debate by reminding us of the simple point that it is not enough to open up the political system and be elected democratically – governing democratically is also essential. This implies respecting checks and balances, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the whole range of civil and political liberties that define democracies worthy of that name. Finally, and perhaps fundamentally, Chávez’s Venezuela has also provided a cautionary tale, one which has been instrumental in convincing Latin American economic elites that they can live, and live very well indeed, with a more moderate, pragmatic and gradualist Left, capable of setting in motion progressive social policies. In short, Chávez has served as a warning to elites that they would be very wise to coexist with Lula and his ilk.
Latin America’s democrats should thus be careful not to dismiss the legacy of Hugo Chávez’s Bolivarian revolution outright, because on close inspection its recent contribution to democracy in the region may not have been small at all. In any case, it ought to be borne in mind that the final page of the Venezuelan process has not yet been written, and perhaps the more enlightened aspects of Chávez’s revolution will eventually prevail. Who knows? For someone living through the Jacobin phase of the French Revolution, it would have been difficult to imagine that something positive would come out of all the horror. But here comes to mind the famous quip attributed to Chinese Premier Zhou En-lai, when asked in the 1970s about the effects of the French Revolution. With China’s 4,000 years behind him, Zhou simply replied, “It’s too soon to say.” Perhaps Venezuelans, and Bolivians and Ecuadorians may still end up getting what the great Venezuelan jurist Pedro Nikken has said most people in his country ultimately seek: something more socially advanced than what they once had, but more democratic than what they now have.
I have no particular interest in becoming a cheerleader for Hugo Chávez’s revolution, but will nonetheless share the insight that this year’s Latinobarómetro figures allowed me to glean: namely that, whatever the unsavory aspects of the Venezuelan process, and however paradoxically, the emergence of the “Consensus of Brasilia” in Latin America owes more to Commander Chávez than we usually care to admit.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Best,
Richard
12.16.2010 | 9:37pm
Richard says:
Roger
In this post I will give the second (and I hope the last) reply to the charge that Catholicism is a religion that brings nations poverty and despair. I have elected to concentrate on two national traits of countries around the world, happiness and affluence.
There are many surveys of national happiness online. I have chosen that of the World Database of Happiness which does ongoing research on happiness in many of the 192 countries listed as members of the general assembly of the United Nations (I assume). The study group is run by a Dutch Sociologist at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, and I picked their survey both because it seemed objective, thorough and scientifically grounded, and because it covered 146 countries, an unusually large number in such surveys.
The survey I used covered average happiness in 146 countries based on data collected from 2000-2009, on a scale from 1 to 10. I only considered Catholic those nations with more than 50% of the population listed as Catholic in demographic sources, knowing full well that often the number of real practitioners was less or far less. I know nothing about the methodology of the collection. Those interested can go to:
http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/findingreports/
RankReport_AverageHappiness.php
and
http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/index.html
I decided to sample the list by checking the top 30 countries on the happiness list and the bottom 30 countries.
Of the top 30 countries, 16 Catholic countries were listed: (1) Costa Rica, (6) Mexico, (9) Panama, (12) Columbia, (13) Luxembourg, (14) Austria, (15), Dominican Republic, (16), Ireland, (18) Brazil, (21) Argentina, (22) Belgium, (24), Guatemala, (25) Spain, (26) Venezuela, (29) Malta, and (30) Nicaragua. Of these, Mexico is now going through a time of troubles and should probably be removed from the list. The major problem there is massive criminality in the North fueled by the huge demand for illegal drugs in the United States, a fact that is not Mexico’s fault and one that galls them bitterly. The European countries on the list are going through economic turbulence because of the excesses of the EU countries, but I don’t know how to adjust for this and have left the European Catholic countries where they are.
Costa Rica, a heavily Catholic country, is listed number 1 in the world for happiness, a figure I have seen in other surveys. Many view it as an exemplary country that should be a light for the nations.
Of the bottom 30 countries on the list, 6 are Catholic: (126) The Democratic Republic of Congo, (131) Rwanda, (135) Haiti, (138) Republic of the Congo, (140) Madagascar, and (144) Burundi. I have not bothered to ascertain the religious majority in the middle states.
For the wealth of Catholic nations I used the Global Forum Survey because it was very full, including some territories (Puerto Rico, e.g.) as well as nations. They classify according to 4 categories, low income economies, lower middle-income economies, upper middle-income economies, and high-income economies. Catholic countries did well here, with a steady increase in numbers as the categories ratcheted up. I do not know the exact definition of these categories, but the curious can look up the survey at:
http://www.globalforumhealth.org/Glossary/Classification-of-countries-by-
income-level
Of 49 low income economies, 5 were Catholic, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Rwanda, and Sao Tome and Principe.
Of 54 lower middle-income economies, 14 were Catholic, Bolivia, Cape Verde, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Kiribati, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, and Timor Leste.
Of 41 upper middle-income economies, 17 were Catholic: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, Grenada, Lithuania, Mexico, Panama, Poland, Seychelles, St. Lucia, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Of 65 high-income economies, 22 were Catholic, Andorra, Aruba, Austri
a, Belgium, Equatorial Guinea, France, Guam, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Portugal, Puerto Rico, San Marino, Slovak Republic, and Spain.
Of these, I have seen elsewhere in my research that the Catholic country Luxembourg has the highest per capita income in the world.
I didn’t know what I would find when I began this research. I was surprised by how well Catholic countries did compared to the dismal expectations of many. I certainly did not uncover anything that made me sorry to be a Catholic. Nor did I come away feeling ignorant, obtuse, or cruel. Catholic countries can take their place among the peoples of the world without shame.
As for Roger’s other complaints, analysis of the sex scandal in the Church has shown that it was not due to celibacy, and that very little of it was pedophilic. It was wrong and blame and chastisement are being handed out in just measure. The Church in Ireland has done wrong, and it has rightly lost the trust of the Irish people. As one forthright Cleric put it, the Church must start from scratch to rehabilitate itself in the view of the Irish. But it should not be forgotten that the Church was a source of unity and comfort in Ireland in the hundreds of years of British occupation, sometimes brutal, and sometimes (the Irish Potato famine) criminally neglectful.
I do not take the charge that the Church hates sex seriously. There have been periods of Puritanism in the past, but the Church blesses marital sex, insisting (wisely in my view) that that is the place where sex belongs. As a matter of discipline religious are required to be celibate, but religious life is voluntary, and those whom it does not suit may and do leave.
There is no point in arguing Catholic doctrine with an atheist, since we do not share enough metaphysical common ground to make dialogue possible.
Best,
Richard
In this post I will give the second (and I hope the last) reply to the charge that Catholicism is a religion that brings nations poverty and despair. I have elected to concentrate on two national traits of countries around the world, happiness and affluence.
There are many surveys of national happiness online. I have chosen that of the World Database of Happiness which does ongoing research on happiness in many of the 192 countries listed as members of the general assembly of the United Nations (I assume). The study group is run by a Dutch Sociologist at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, and I picked their survey both because it seemed objective, thorough and scientifically grounded, and because it covered 146 countries, an unusually large number in such surveys.
The survey I used covered average happiness in 146 countries based on data collected from 2000-2009, on a scale from 1 to 10. I only considered Catholic those nations with more than 50% of the population listed as Catholic in demographic sources, knowing full well that often the number of real practitioners was less or far less. I know nothing about the methodology of the collection. Those interested can go to:
http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/findingreports/
RankReport_AverageHappiness.php
and
http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/index.html
I decided to sample the list by checking the top 30 countries on the happiness list and the bottom 30 countries.
Of the top 30 countries, 16 Catholic countries were listed: (1) Costa Rica, (6) Mexico, (9) Panama, (12) Columbia, (13) Luxembourg, (14) Austria, (15), Dominican Republic, (16), Ireland, (18) Brazil, (21) Argentina, (22) Belgium, (24), Guatemala, (25) Spain, (26) Venezuela, (29) Malta, and (30) Nicaragua. Of these, Mexico is now going through a time of troubles and should probably be removed from the list. The major problem there is massive criminality in the North fueled by the huge demand for illegal drugs in the United States, a fact that is not Mexico’s fault and one that galls them bitterly. The European countries on the list are going through economic turbulence because of the excesses of the EU countries, but I don’t know how to adjust for this and have left the European Catholic countries where they are.
Costa Rica, a heavily Catholic country, is listed number 1 in the world for happiness, a figure I have seen in other surveys. Many view it as an exemplary country that should be a light for the nations.
Of the bottom 30 countries on the list, 6 are Catholic: (126) The Democratic Republic of Congo, (131) Rwanda, (135) Haiti, (138) Republic of the Congo, (140) Madagascar, and (144) Burundi. I have not bothered to ascertain the religious majority in the middle states.
For the wealth of Catholic nations I used the Global Forum Survey because it was very full, including some territories (Puerto Rico, e.g.) as well as nations. They classify according to 4 categories, low income economies, lower middle-income economies, upper middle-income economies, and high-income economies. Catholic countries did well here, with a steady increase in numbers as the categories ratcheted up. I do not know the exact definition of these categories, but the curious can look up the survey at:
http://www.globalforumhealth.org/Glossary/Classification-of-countries-by-
income-level
Of 49 low income economies, 5 were Catholic, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Rwanda, and Sao Tome and Principe.
Of 54 lower middle-income economies, 14 were Catholic, Bolivia, Cape Verde, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Kiribati, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, and Timor Leste.
Of 41 upper middle-income economies, 17 were Catholic: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, Grenada, Lithuania, Mexico, Panama, Poland, Seychelles, St. Lucia, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Of 65 high-income economies, 22 were Catholic, Andorra, Aruba, Austri
a, Belgium, Equatorial Guinea, France, Guam, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Northern Mariana Islands, Portugal, Puerto Rico, San Marino, Slovak Republic, and Spain.
Of these, I have seen elsewhere in my research that the Catholic country Luxembourg has the highest per capita income in the world.
I didn’t know what I would find when I began this research. I was surprised by how well Catholic countries did compared to the dismal expectations of many. I certainly did not uncover anything that made me sorry to be a Catholic. Nor did I come away feeling ignorant, obtuse, or cruel. Catholic countries can take their place among the peoples of the world without shame.
As for Roger’s other complaints, analysis of the sex scandal in the Church has shown that it was not due to celibacy, and that very little of it was pedophilic. It was wrong and blame and chastisement are being handed out in just measure. The Church in Ireland has done wrong, and it has rightly lost the trust of the Irish people. As one forthright Cleric put it, the Church must start from scratch to rehabilitate itself in the view of the Irish. But it should not be forgotten that the Church was a source of unity and comfort in Ireland in the hundreds of years of British occupation, sometimes brutal, and sometimes (the Irish Potato famine) criminally neglectful.
I do not take the charge that the Church hates sex seriously. There have been periods of Puritanism in the past, but the Church blesses marital sex, insisting (wisely in my view) that that is the place where sex belongs. As a matter of discipline religious are required to be celibate, but religious life is voluntary, and those whom it does not suit may and do leave.
There is no point in arguing Catholic doctrine with an atheist, since we do not share enough metaphysical common ground to make dialogue possible.
Best,
Richard
12.17.2010 | 4:18am
Lawrence says:
I speak as a secular Jew and a cartoonist, and from the comments I have read here, there seems to be a universal loathing for us cartoonists. Of course, I'm not surprised that talentless no-nothings are quick to attack the artist because, if you ask me, they wouldn't know how to draw that good if their life depended on it. Which is a shame, because the pen is mightier than the sword, and it would behoove you to vent through your own cartoons.
12.17.2010 | 7:05am
roger says:
Richard,
Thank you for responses, clearly you have made a great effort to answer my questions. From your research we can see that there are very positive trends going on worldwide and for this we should be very grateful.
I need to apoligise to the "First Things" magazine community for my last post, it was inexcusable in content and intent.
I am angry, also I am anxious and deeply uneasy. I will explain why in a later post, at the moment I am very busy trying to squeeze a tightly bid $300k project into a $250k budget, I really need this job to go ahead so have to concentrate.
Again, thank you for the effort.
Thank you for responses, clearly you have made a great effort to answer my questions. From your research we can see that there are very positive trends going on worldwide and for this we should be very grateful.
I need to apoligise to the "First Things" magazine community for my last post, it was inexcusable in content and intent.
I am angry, also I am anxious and deeply uneasy. I will explain why in a later post, at the moment I am very busy trying to squeeze a tightly bid $300k project into a $250k budget, I really need this job to go ahead so have to concentrate.
Again, thank you for the effort.
12.17.2010 | 10:19am
Richard says:
Roger,
Thanks for your gracious reply. Everybody loses their temper from time to time when their principles are being outraged. As Milton pointed out, anger is the emotion most akin to the virtue of justice.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I cannot promise to resolve your anger, anxiousness and uneasiness, but I will at least try to address your concerns.
Best,
Richard
Thanks for your gracious reply. Everybody loses their temper from time to time when their principles are being outraged. As Milton pointed out, anger is the emotion most akin to the virtue of justice.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I cannot promise to resolve your anger, anxiousness and uneasiness, but I will at least try to address your concerns.
Best,
Richard
12.19.2010 | 5:51am
mk says:
Roger,
Since I was one of those people who was shocked by your "post" and I responded in kind, I just thought I'd add my admiration for your apology. It takes a big man to acknowledge when he is out of line. Apology noted, accepted and imitated...I too am sorry that I jumped on you. Good Luck with your "project". Looking forward to hearing "The rest of the story...". Peace.
Since I was one of those people who was shocked by your "post" and I responded in kind, I just thought I'd add my admiration for your apology. It takes a big man to acknowledge when he is out of line. Apology noted, accepted and imitated...I too am sorry that I jumped on you. Good Luck with your "project". Looking forward to hearing "The rest of the story...". Peace.
12.19.2010 | 2:25pm
roger says:
Richard,
I am angry, anxious and uneasy, but it is nothing to do with God. God either exists or he doesn’t, if he (it?) does I am sure he is not losing any sleep over my beliefs.
My concerns are to do with more local issues. I am an electrical contractor here in Florida, as such I study carefully economic trends and of course I bid for projects. What I see is worrying, there is a dearth of private investment, basically if we did not have govt. projects of one type or another we wouldn’t have much to do. My contacts in the construction community tell me that current market conditions are the worst they have seen, some of these men and women are in their sixties and seventies. Our County govt. faces the task of cutting $60M from the 2011 budget, this after three years of cuts totaling near $40M. This isn’t fat that will be cut, nor lean, we are now talking about removing bones. There is very real poverty here, but it is poverty of a very peculiar kind; there may be a leased BMW in the driveway but an empty fridge in the house. There are abandoned houses on almost every street. What Mr. Goldman referred to in his warning about commercial real estate is very apparent here, many empty properties, half vacant strip malls and lots purchased for development still vacant years later. We have always had panhandlers in Florida, attracted by the warmth and the ability to sleep rough even in winter. But now we are seeing much more evidence of destitution, beggars clearly distressed, even women with young children, although mercifully few of those as yet.
We have just seen a display of politics as usual in Washington that should dismay all of us, is there a citizen out there who seriously believes that fiscal balance can be restored without tax increases? To draw a caricature; what we get from the Federal Govt. in services is akin to us going to our local grocery supermarket and purchasing $100 of goods but paying only $60, the supermarket would borrow or create the $40 and would enter it into an account to be paid later, quite a deal, except that the supermarket would be tempted to load up our shopping cart with items that as we are not paying for, we might not pay much attention to, the checkout conversation might go like this:
“What is that in the cart?”
“That Sir, is an intercontinental stealth bomber, only $2Bn apiece, you’ll love it.”
“But I don’t want to bomb anybody, does anybody else have one?”
“No Sir, but trust us you need it.”
“And what’s this ‘Ethanol subsidies”.”
“That Sir, is actually a ransom note, we have to pay the corn producers otherwise they won’t shop in this store.”
“But wait a minute, I was in the other store last week, they are paying the same ransom, if you both refused to pay they would have to shop in one of the stores, there’s only two in town”.
“Hey what is this you’ve slipped in; “Afghanistan”.”
“That Sir, is a war.”
“Why are we at war with Afghanistan, did they attack us?”
“No sir, they did not, but they did allow Saudi Arabia to attack us.”
“Well why don’t we attack Saudi Arabia?”
“We can’t do that Sir, you don’t know them like we do, they are actually nice people and very rich, besides which we have some very lucrative side deals going, if we attacked them those deals would be in jeopardy and we can’t have that.”
“OK, OK, but you did say I didn’t have to pay for all this, right?”
“No Sir, we just said you don’t have to pay for it now. In fact you, your children, your grandchildren and possibly your great grandchildren will be paying for all this.”
And so on.
I have a fear that the US has become a militarized society, militarized societies are rarely happy or wise ones. By any peacetime historical comparison we have a bloated military, this is particularly worrying because the remedial actions that we need to take as a society may soon become impossible for a democratically elected govt. to carry out, in fact, absent a drastic change of course I predict a military coup in the US within 15 years. Brazil and Argentina (amongst others) went through this agony, I hope we can come together and do right.
Sorry if I sound overly pessimistic, but then perhaps I am just mentally ill, I do wonder sometimes.
But now it is Christmas, with the promise of redemption, the birth of the deity who will, with his own suffering relieve us of ours.
Of course I don’t believe a word of it, but the idea is beautiful.
Best wishes
I am angry, anxious and uneasy, but it is nothing to do with God. God either exists or he doesn’t, if he (it?) does I am sure he is not losing any sleep over my beliefs.
My concerns are to do with more local issues. I am an electrical contractor here in Florida, as such I study carefully economic trends and of course I bid for projects. What I see is worrying, there is a dearth of private investment, basically if we did not have govt. projects of one type or another we wouldn’t have much to do. My contacts in the construction community tell me that current market conditions are the worst they have seen, some of these men and women are in their sixties and seventies. Our County govt. faces the task of cutting $60M from the 2011 budget, this after three years of cuts totaling near $40M. This isn’t fat that will be cut, nor lean, we are now talking about removing bones. There is very real poverty here, but it is poverty of a very peculiar kind; there may be a leased BMW in the driveway but an empty fridge in the house. There are abandoned houses on almost every street. What Mr. Goldman referred to in his warning about commercial real estate is very apparent here, many empty properties, half vacant strip malls and lots purchased for development still vacant years later. We have always had panhandlers in Florida, attracted by the warmth and the ability to sleep rough even in winter. But now we are seeing much more evidence of destitution, beggars clearly distressed, even women with young children, although mercifully few of those as yet.
We have just seen a display of politics as usual in Washington that should dismay all of us, is there a citizen out there who seriously believes that fiscal balance can be restored without tax increases? To draw a caricature; what we get from the Federal Govt. in services is akin to us going to our local grocery supermarket and purchasing $100 of goods but paying only $60, the supermarket would borrow or create the $40 and would enter it into an account to be paid later, quite a deal, except that the supermarket would be tempted to load up our shopping cart with items that as we are not paying for, we might not pay much attention to, the checkout conversation might go like this:
“What is that in the cart?”
“That Sir, is an intercontinental stealth bomber, only $2Bn apiece, you’ll love it.”
“But I don’t want to bomb anybody, does anybody else have one?”
“No Sir, but trust us you need it.”
“And what’s this ‘Ethanol subsidies”.”
“That Sir, is actually a ransom note, we have to pay the corn producers otherwise they won’t shop in this store.”
“But wait a minute, I was in the other store last week, they are paying the same ransom, if you both refused to pay they would have to shop in one of the stores, there’s only two in town”.
“Hey what is this you’ve slipped in; “Afghanistan”.”
“That Sir, is a war.”
“Why are we at war with Afghanistan, did they attack us?”
“No sir, they did not, but they did allow Saudi Arabia to attack us.”
“Well why don’t we attack Saudi Arabia?”
“We can’t do that Sir, you don’t know them like we do, they are actually nice people and very rich, besides which we have some very lucrative side deals going, if we attacked them those deals would be in jeopardy and we can’t have that.”
“OK, OK, but you did say I didn’t have to pay for all this, right?”
“No Sir, we just said you don’t have to pay for it now. In fact you, your children, your grandchildren and possibly your great grandchildren will be paying for all this.”
And so on.
I have a fear that the US has become a militarized society, militarized societies are rarely happy or wise ones. By any peacetime historical comparison we have a bloated military, this is particularly worrying because the remedial actions that we need to take as a society may soon become impossible for a democratically elected govt. to carry out, in fact, absent a drastic change of course I predict a military coup in the US within 15 years. Brazil and Argentina (amongst others) went through this agony, I hope we can come together and do right.
Sorry if I sound overly pessimistic, but then perhaps I am just mentally ill, I do wonder sometimes.
But now it is Christmas, with the promise of redemption, the birth of the deity who will, with his own suffering relieve us of ours.
Of course I don’t believe a word of it, but the idea is beautiful.
Best wishes
12.20.2010 | 3:45pm
Michael says:
Richard,
You’ve presented an interesting argument here. Measuring happiness makes me uneasy in a couple of ways, including the thought that Christianity isn’t about making anyone happy. I’m also uneasy about identifying some countries as Catholic and others as Protestant. For example, Spain makes your list of Catholic countries that are both happy and prosperous, but these numbers describe post-Franco Spain, when the nation has steadfastly ignored the teachings of the church. Is Spain’s happiness and prosperity the result of being Catholic or of its turn away from Catholicism and toward secularism?
But here’s another question to play around with. Which nations in what historical periods were most actively living out the gospel? The question raises the further question of what standard we use to measure what makes a society Christian. Is it devotion? Church attendance? Good works along the lines laid out by Matthew 25? Missionary activity? Cultural achievements? Conformity of state laws to Christian doctrine? Prosperity?
Each of these measures has been proposed, and maybe some others come to mind. But if such a sociological study could be done, which measures would you choose?
Some cases come to mind. I like the energy of the Second Great Awakening. Church attendance soared, and Christian reformers set to work on abolition, women’s rights, and temperance. There were a lot of nuts, from Millerites to Carrie Nation, but the meaning of faith was very much at the center. I love Renaissance art, which is heavily religious, but I don’t think Renaissance society took Christianity quite so seriously as America during the second awakening. The great pilgrimages do little for me, though I appreciate their spirit. The crusades and the many religious wars are, of course, right off the list.
What’s on your list?
You’ve presented an interesting argument here. Measuring happiness makes me uneasy in a couple of ways, including the thought that Christianity isn’t about making anyone happy. I’m also uneasy about identifying some countries as Catholic and others as Protestant. For example, Spain makes your list of Catholic countries that are both happy and prosperous, but these numbers describe post-Franco Spain, when the nation has steadfastly ignored the teachings of the church. Is Spain’s happiness and prosperity the result of being Catholic or of its turn away from Catholicism and toward secularism?
But here’s another question to play around with. Which nations in what historical periods were most actively living out the gospel? The question raises the further question of what standard we use to measure what makes a society Christian. Is it devotion? Church attendance? Good works along the lines laid out by Matthew 25? Missionary activity? Cultural achievements? Conformity of state laws to Christian doctrine? Prosperity?
Each of these measures has been proposed, and maybe some others come to mind. But if such a sociological study could be done, which measures would you choose?
Some cases come to mind. I like the energy of the Second Great Awakening. Church attendance soared, and Christian reformers set to work on abolition, women’s rights, and temperance. There were a lot of nuts, from Millerites to Carrie Nation, but the meaning of faith was very much at the center. I love Renaissance art, which is heavily religious, but I don’t think Renaissance society took Christianity quite so seriously as America during the second awakening. The great pilgrimages do little for me, though I appreciate their spirit. The crusades and the many religious wars are, of course, right off the list.
What’s on your list?
12.20.2010 | 8:17pm
Richard says:
Michael,
The posts I compiled were, as everyone including myself knows, sociologically crude in the extreme, but they did show, I think, that Catholicism in the contemporary world cannot be declared either in psychic or economic terms, to be an unmitigated disaster. I think they did this to the satisfaction of the poster to whom they were addressed. That was all they were intended to do.
As for my "list," God help us, I'm still trying to get that straight and will be for the rest of my life. The only viewpoint that really counts is the "oculus
De," and God knows what HE thinks. Can I be more specific? How about glory, schlepping, and horror, with a lot of tepid do gooding and shabby vice thrown
in. More specific that that I am not prepared to get. I'm trying to cut down on my posting for the sake of the rest of my life and my own peace of mind.
Roger,
These are indeed hard times and they stand to get worse. The whole country, and Europe to boot, have been on an economic drunk for decades. You can't borrow from the unborn to finance luxury forever, and the bill is due. This country has an absolutely stunning natural endowment of physical resources even now, and a large, skilled population, and we will get through it, but it could take years and years and it will hurt. Changing that is far beyond my meager powers. I have seen the storm coming for about a decade, and my wife and I have paid off all our debt, spent only on necessities, and saved every loose penny. Whether that will be enough only the Creator knows.
As for U.S. defense policy and expenditures, I have two thoughts. The size and use of our armed forces is controversial and I think it better to leave each reader to hold those views that seem best. As for the share of our GDP taken up by defense spending (including everything, veterans pensions, waste cleanup, ongoing wars, the works), my back of the envelope figure for the whole shebang is 7-8% of GDP. The official figure is 4.7%. This is a factor in our expense burden, but it's far from the whole problem.
As for a military coup in the U.S., I doubt that gravely. It's not part of the culture, and the civilian control of the military is as firmly fixed a part of the national psyche as anything is. The officer corps would not support it, the troops would mutiny, and the heavily armed populace (with lots of ex military, national guard, police, hunters, etc) would never sit still for it. In the United States, the POTUS is the commander and chief of the armed forces, period.
As for depression and anxiety, they are not invariant signs of mental illness. When there are realistic exterior reasons for being depressed and anxious, these emotions are natural. A lot of people share them right now. But if they are chronic and free floating, often at odds with objective circumstances, they warrent professional evaluation. I have suffered from birth from social phobia, a condition probably involving defective serotonin reuptake mechanisms in the brain. The condition wasn't even clinically identified until the '80's and effective medication (prozac was the pioneer) wasn't developed until the early 90's. Until I was diagnosed and treated, my life was a low level living hell. If you suspect an underlying condition working beneath the normal distress that comes from living in stressful times, you might consider being evaluated by competent pros (be careful--there are fruitcakes out there). Treatment can make a huge difference in the quality of life, and the intelligent public is now educated to the point at which the stigma of mental disorders has practically disappeared.
Best,
Richard
The posts I compiled were, as everyone including myself knows, sociologically crude in the extreme, but they did show, I think, that Catholicism in the contemporary world cannot be declared either in psychic or economic terms, to be an unmitigated disaster. I think they did this to the satisfaction of the poster to whom they were addressed. That was all they were intended to do.
As for my "list," God help us, I'm still trying to get that straight and will be for the rest of my life. The only viewpoint that really counts is the "oculus
De," and God knows what HE thinks. Can I be more specific? How about glory, schlepping, and horror, with a lot of tepid do gooding and shabby vice thrown
in. More specific that that I am not prepared to get. I'm trying to cut down on my posting for the sake of the rest of my life and my own peace of mind.
Roger,
These are indeed hard times and they stand to get worse. The whole country, and Europe to boot, have been on an economic drunk for decades. You can't borrow from the unborn to finance luxury forever, and the bill is due. This country has an absolutely stunning natural endowment of physical resources even now, and a large, skilled population, and we will get through it, but it could take years and years and it will hurt. Changing that is far beyond my meager powers. I have seen the storm coming for about a decade, and my wife and I have paid off all our debt, spent only on necessities, and saved every loose penny. Whether that will be enough only the Creator knows.
As for U.S. defense policy and expenditures, I have two thoughts. The size and use of our armed forces is controversial and I think it better to leave each reader to hold those views that seem best. As for the share of our GDP taken up by defense spending (including everything, veterans pensions, waste cleanup, ongoing wars, the works), my back of the envelope figure for the whole shebang is 7-8% of GDP. The official figure is 4.7%. This is a factor in our expense burden, but it's far from the whole problem.
As for a military coup in the U.S., I doubt that gravely. It's not part of the culture, and the civilian control of the military is as firmly fixed a part of the national psyche as anything is. The officer corps would not support it, the troops would mutiny, and the heavily armed populace (with lots of ex military, national guard, police, hunters, etc) would never sit still for it. In the United States, the POTUS is the commander and chief of the armed forces, period.
As for depression and anxiety, they are not invariant signs of mental illness. When there are realistic exterior reasons for being depressed and anxious, these emotions are natural. A lot of people share them right now. But if they are chronic and free floating, often at odds with objective circumstances, they warrent professional evaluation. I have suffered from birth from social phobia, a condition probably involving defective serotonin reuptake mechanisms in the brain. The condition wasn't even clinically identified until the '80's and effective medication (prozac was the pioneer) wasn't developed until the early 90's. Until I was diagnosed and treated, my life was a low level living hell. If you suspect an underlying condition working beneath the normal distress that comes from living in stressful times, you might consider being evaluated by competent pros (be careful--there are fruitcakes out there). Treatment can make a huge difference in the quality of life, and the intelligent public is now educated to the point at which the stigma of mental disorders has practically disappeared.
Best,
Richard
12.20.2010 | 9:46pm
Richard says:
In the interest of not being misleading about U.S. defense spending, let me append the following info from the Wikipedia on same:
The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009.[18]
Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs in accordance with the law, outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays.[19] Military spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.[20]
Best,
Richard
The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 28–38% of budgeted expenditures and 42–57% of estimated tax revenues. According to the Congressional Budget Office, defense spending grew 9% annually on average from fiscal year 2000–2009.[18]
Because of constitutional limitations, military funding is appropriated in a discretionary spending account. (Such accounts permit government planners to have more flexibility to change spending each year, as opposed to mandatory spending accounts that mandate spending on programs in accordance with the law, outside of the budgetary process.) In recent years, discretionary spending as a whole has amounted to about one-third of total federal outlays.[19] Military spending's share of discretionary spending was 50.5% in 2003, and has risen steadily ever since.[20]
Best,
Richard
12.21.2010 | 11:13am
Richard says:
A correction to my penultimate post: "oculus Dei." My computer was misbehaving badly. I don't mean to be a pedant, but I AM a Classicist, after all.
Best,
Richard
Best,
Richard
3.22.2011 | 3:08am
Wiskowski Daniell says:
Thanks for your gracious reply. Everybody loses their temper from time to time when their principles are being outraged. As Milton pointed out, anger is the emotion most akin to the virtue of justice. It is to be hoped that Latin America will take advantage of the current favorable winds to tackle these huge, unresolved issues, and that its societies and political elites will come to certain basic agreements on what needs to be done about them. The region has had many a favorable cycle before, and we, Latin Americans, have too often let them go to waste. Let us hope to break that curse this time around.
In 4) contrast, Catholicism founded Mexico and South America. An instructive contrast, in comparing their relative "fruits."
Why were Protestants so much more successfu,l than Catholics?
Many have historically argued that 5) the over-hierarchical nature of Catholicism - its focus on central authority, the Pope; "Papism" - worked against the individualism - and creativity - that we neede ... for many reasons. That we needed to spark the a) Renaissance; the b) rise of the more independent materially productive Middle Class; the individual creativity needed for the c) Machine Age and d) the creation of democracy itself.
All of which required shifting authority from one monarch or Pope at the top, to individuals, and local authority.