Philip II, China, and the Great Catholic What-If
April 17, 2012
George Weigel
History being linear, “What if….?” is an unanswerable question—but always a fascinating one. What if George Washington had failed in New York in the early days of the American revolution and the rebellion had been crushed? What if Lee had heeded Longstreet, won Gettysburg, and then taken Washington, thus ending the Civil War and achieving Confederate independence? What if Charles Lindbergh had been the Republican candidate in 1940 and had defeated FDR? What if Bush vs. Gore had been decided differently in 2000?
“What if…?” questions involve more than politics, of course. What if the apostles had turned right rather than left on leaving the Holy Land, so that Christianity was first “inculturated” in a civilization (India) lacking the Greek principle of non-contradiction: Could the Church have developed a doctrinal architecture if Christianity had first been planted in a culture where something could both “be” and “not be”?
Then there is the great “What if….?” involving Christianity and China, of which I’ve only become aware, thanks to a November 2011 lecture by the distinguished historian, Hugh Thomas, published in the March 2012 issue of the British journal Standpoint.
According to Lord Thomas, a combination of Spanish conquistadors and missionaries, led by a remarkable character named Lopez de Legazpi, proposed to use the new Spanish colony of the Philippines as the launch-pad for a Spanish and Christian takeover of China—an ambition they styled la empresa de China, “the China Project.” The “’project” fired the imaginations of Legazpi’s successors, who pressed the Spanish monarch, Philip II, for permission to bring China under Spanish control. Philip, whom Hugh Thomas styles “the Great Procrastinator,” dithered, being preoccupied with rebellion in the Spanish Netherlands, and eventually cooled to the idea.
True to the original Ignatian charism, the fires of evangelical (and political) ambition were rekindled by a Jesuit, Alonso Sanchez, who went to China in 1582 and returned to the Philippines determined to revive la empresa de China. It would not be a walkover, Father Sanchez conceded; but he thought 8,000 men and 12 galleons could do the job.
And what a job it would be. For Sanchez and his supporters imagined a China filled with Christian universities and monasteries as well as Spanish forts, a China in which the Spaniards would intermarry with Chinese women (“serious, honest, retiring … and usually of great grace, beauty and discretion”) to form a new mestizo race that would be thoroughly Catholic, and from whose numbers the Gospel would then come (along with Spanish hegemony, of course) to India, Southeast Asia, Borneo, the Moluccas and Sumatra.
Yet the Great Procrastinator in the Escorial continued to, well, procrastinate, and the defeat of the Invincible Armada by Howard and Drake in 1588 gave Philip II even more reason to dither about schemes of conquest and conversion in the Far East. Eventually, as Lord Thomas concludes, “nothing was done.” The plan was never explicitly rejected. Philip II simply let it die of inattention, as consummate bureaucrats know how to do.
But what if Philip had forged ahead—and succeeded? In the 1990 encyclical, Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), John Paul II, noting that the great failure of Christian mission in the first two millennia had been in East Asia, urged that the mission ad gentes (the mission to the nations) be focused on Asia in the third millennium. But what if China had been evangelized in the 17th century and had subsequently developed a vibrant form of Catholicism that blended the best of European and Chinese talents and personalities? Might the mission ad gentes, in the third millennium, be one in which this Euro-Asian Catholicism re-evangelized the religiously arid societies of Old Europe? Might we be speculating about a Chinese pope, not as something fantastic, but as something obvious?
Hugh Thomas is old-fashioned enough to lament a lost religious, cultural and geopolitical opportunity: “Christianity did not, alas, become the dominant religion of China as it had become in New Spain.” “What if” it had, merits a moment’s speculation.
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
4.18.2012 | 3:22am
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
A different model of Christian advance without military conquest may have been possible in Japan if the Tokugawa Shogunate had not consolidated its control over all the other feudal states, followed by a ban on international commerce and Christianity as a destabilizing force. If the centuries long civil conflict had continued, both sides would have been unable to enforce an embargo on foreign contact, and would have been forced to maximize such contact in order to gain an advantage. Southern Japan, with its closer proximity to the Philippines, could have had a strong Christian faction that, once established, would have prevented an attempt at embargo, and sought to proselytize the remainder of the nation. The Japanese cultural talent for assimilation of foreign social instruments could have been unleashed three hundred years earlier. Russian Orthodoxy could have made inroads in the north as Russia developed its Siberian territories. Japanese Christians may have launched missions into Korea and China, creating an infrastructure for a new Chinese dynasty of Christians that might have more successfully resisted political domination by the European powers, and promoting a stronger Chinese push into international trade that could have led to Asian settlements on the west coast of North America. Eventually a Japanese-Chinese-Spanish Christian nation may have competed with Britain, Mexico and the new United States for control of the California gold fields and the farmlands of central California and western Oregon. The 1847 War with Mexico may have been infeasible, forcing the USA to resolve slavery without any prospect of expansion to the west, and allowing an independent Mormon buffer State of Deseret to establish itself in the remote desert oasis of the Great Salt Lake, poised between Catholic states on the west and south and the Protestant USA to the north and east. Assimilation of Native American populations in the Asian West and Mexico, and a more tolerant regime in Deseret, could have eliminated much of the Nineteenth Century story of the subjugation of the western tribal nations. And Alaska would have been Russian.
We regard known history as inevitable, but there are clearly turning points which could profoundly alter the development of events, especially during the rapid changes that occurred after the European conquest of the Americas.
We regard known history as inevitable, but there are clearly turning points which could profoundly alter the development of events, especially during the rapid changes that occurred after the European conquest of the Americas.
4.18.2012 | 7:42am
John Willems says:
Are Spanish Conquistadores really the model for missionary work? You can't deny the success the Church achieved in spreading the Gospel in Latin America, but you also cannot deny the brutality and greed which inspired the Spanish Conquistadores at that time, which the Church itself protested unceasingly. The Spanish rulers themselves had little interest in converting the natives, choosing to proclaim the gospel from a hill outside of their villages in a language they did not understand before tearing through them. The people of Central and South America were converted by the same people who went to China: missionaries from the church. Granted, the fact that Central America was under Spanish Administration may have made it easier to spread the Gospel in Mexico than in China, though the Church and the State did come to blows over the issue of slavery. I just think that conquest cannot be justified on the basis that it will allow us to convert people later.
4.18.2012 | 7:43am
Thomas R says:
I don't think it would have worked. The Ming were weak by that point, and would be conquered by the Manchu within decades, but Spanish conquest would still have been unlikely I think. Even the Manchu I think managed it by pulling off some Chinese. Even then Ming holdouts in Taiwan lasted for a few decades. The Spanish would have been offering a more radical change so I think they would have less Chinese support.
China was not the Incas or the Aztecs. As impressive as those were the Chinese had far more people and far better weapons. So this maybe borders on asking "What if the Spanish had conquered Russia."
China was not the Incas or the Aztecs. As impressive as those were the Chinese had far more people and far better weapons. So this maybe borders on asking "What if the Spanish had conquered Russia."
4.18.2012 | 9:02am
tarr says:
Conversion by the sword seems a dubious project for Christians to undertake. Should Christians really be using the spread of Islam as its model?
4.18.2012 | 11:00am
The Sanity Inspector says:
As for India, there is an ancient community of Christians on the west coast of the subcontinent, who claim St. Thomas as their founder.
As for evangelism to Asia, the most successful have been the Protestant missions to Korea. Pyongyang was once known as The Jerusalem of Asia, and South Korea is vibrantly Christian, unlike Japan, which proved to be stony soil. The muscular anglo-protestant Christianity brought there in the late 19th and through most of the 20th century, along with the attendant blessings of modern hygiene, education and medicine, must rank among the most beneficient influences ever conferred by a greater civilization to a lesser. Although of course multiculturalism forbids us to say so...
As for evangelism to Asia, the most successful have been the Protestant missions to Korea. Pyongyang was once known as The Jerusalem of Asia, and South Korea is vibrantly Christian, unlike Japan, which proved to be stony soil. The muscular anglo-protestant Christianity brought there in the late 19th and through most of the 20th century, along with the attendant blessings of modern hygiene, education and medicine, must rank among the most beneficient influences ever conferred by a greater civilization to a lesser. Although of course multiculturalism forbids us to say so...
4.18.2012 | 11:20am
A Lyttle says:
The suggestion that Indian intellectual culture lacked the principle of (non-) contradiction is a display of ignorance. As for things both being and not being at once, I think you'll find that every intellectual tradition is given to seemingly paradoxical formulae (God is three yet one, for instance), which prove to be perfectly coherent when unpacked. Not that I have any clear idea what Weigel is referring to. Nor am I quite sure how, say, Neoplatonic metaphysics differs very much from, say, Vedanta.
4.18.2012 | 1:06pm
Danel says:
Is this "what if" in search for a Spanish China or a Chinese Church?
Christianity already has a history in China that predates Western Catholicism - the Nestorian Church. Sure, it was never strictly "orthodox," but neither is the Coptic Church Chalcedonian, yet we don't speak of Catholicizing the Egyptians, do we? At least not since the age of the last Crusade. Alas, the Turks got to them first.
Perhaps what requires our attention in the 21st century is the relative isolation of the Church of the East from the rest of Christendom - which means not "evangelizing" them but rather trying to incorporate them into the greater life of the Church. But it seems the Church of Rome would first have to overcome its bureaucratic and monolithic self in favor of its more truly "catholic" self. We wouldn't want a repeat of the old "uniate" problem.
Christianity already has a history in China that predates Western Catholicism - the Nestorian Church. Sure, it was never strictly "orthodox," but neither is the Coptic Church Chalcedonian, yet we don't speak of Catholicizing the Egyptians, do we? At least not since the age of the last Crusade. Alas, the Turks got to them first.
Perhaps what requires our attention in the 21st century is the relative isolation of the Church of the East from the rest of Christendom - which means not "evangelizing" them but rather trying to incorporate them into the greater life of the Church. But it seems the Church of Rome would first have to overcome its bureaucratic and monolithic self in favor of its more truly "catholic" self. We wouldn't want a repeat of the old "uniate" problem.
4.18.2012 | 1:26pm
Dwight L. says:
Amen to Mr. Willems.
The unsettling aspect of this piece comes from the author's apparent pining away for the political-theological age of the conquistadores. Weigel seems happy to baptize imperialist violence and massive, technologically-enabled power grabs, on the grounds that the soldiers brought along priests with them, and married into the conquered races. Thank God the Spanish and Portuguese brought the Church to South and Central America, but surely we can agree that the manner in which it was done was not something we would want to repeat?
The problem with nostalgia is that it fails to make the distinctions, with regard to the past, which are incumbent upon us as creatures endowed with faith and reason.
The unsettling aspect of this piece comes from the author's apparent pining away for the political-theological age of the conquistadores. Weigel seems happy to baptize imperialist violence and massive, technologically-enabled power grabs, on the grounds that the soldiers brought along priests with them, and married into the conquered races. Thank God the Spanish and Portuguese brought the Church to South and Central America, but surely we can agree that the manner in which it was done was not something we would want to repeat?
The problem with nostalgia is that it fails to make the distinctions, with regard to the past, which are incumbent upon us as creatures endowed with faith and reason.
4.18.2012 | 4:21pm
AJ says:
So, Dwight, would you prefer the servitude/slavery/abject poverty pattern of the british & the french, as shown all over Africa and South East Asia?
The Spanish did not do sobad, after all; democracy is still a big IF in Central and South America, but it is an ingrown problem, not inherited from the Spanish.
I know; I'm from Argentina...
AJ
The Spanish did not do sobad, after all; democracy is still a big IF in Central and South America, but it is an ingrown problem, not inherited from the Spanish.
I know; I'm from Argentina...
AJ
4.18.2012 | 4:38pm
Citizen Jerry says:
And if Charles Martel hadn't stopped the Muslim invasion at Tours in 732, would the western world be speaking Arabic and reading the Koran today?
Because that's not how history was recorded, "What if?" only works in television commercials.
Because that's not how history was recorded, "What if?" only works in television commercials.
4.18.2012 | 4:40pm
Liam says:
A China thus "converted" would probably have combined the worst of both worlds and become even more imperialistically expansionist than it in fact did.
4.18.2012 | 5:05pm
Tom Renquist says:
St. Thomas in India? Andrew Walls, the great missiologist, claims that the evidence for Thomas in India is just as great as the evidence for Peter in Rome!
4.18.2012 | 5:12pm
Don Roberto says:
The conquests in Mexico and Peru were little short or miraculous, but loaded with the worst sort of peril (to their souls) for those who participated. Of course, great rewards usually require proportionately great risks.
†
†
4.18.2012 | 6:02pm
Dwight L. says:
AJ,
No--not at all. I don't mean to champion a different imperialistic model than that of the Spanish (which, you are quite right to observe, had its advantages), but rather to suggest that imperialism in general is not something to be nostalgic about. The good and the bad of history needn't be understood as indissolubly wedded. Let's learn from the excellences of the Spanish missions and try as hard as possible to avoid the disturbing policies of the 16th-17th century Spanish governments.
cheers,
--Dwight
No--not at all. I don't mean to champion a different imperialistic model than that of the Spanish (which, you are quite right to observe, had its advantages), but rather to suggest that imperialism in general is not something to be nostalgic about. The good and the bad of history needn't be understood as indissolubly wedded. Let's learn from the excellences of the Spanish missions and try as hard as possible to avoid the disturbing policies of the 16th-17th century Spanish governments.
cheers,
--Dwight
4.18.2012 | 7:10pm
Paul Austin says:
The Spanish were drunk with success from their walk-overs in the Americas. Even today, the "Western Way of War" crowd uses Cortez' victory over the Triple Alliance as evidence of overwhelming European military superiority. In fact, the Ming of the late Sixteenth Century was as powerful under the Wanli emperor as it had been under the mighty Yongle emperor who in the early Fifteenth Century used 100,000 troops to destroy the Eastern Mongols. The idea of 8,000 Spanish troops conquering China in the late Sixteenth century is a bad joke. In the time of the Army of Flanders, the best army in Europe of the late 1500s, the amount of firepower, the only possible equalizer, was very small. Most of the Army of Flanders consisted of pike regiments and horse. Field artillery (rather than siege guns) was in the early stages of development.
At the same time, Chinese development of musketry and artillery was at least equal to European practice as the Chinese defeat of Japanese arms in Korea (1592-1599)
At the same time, Chinese development of musketry and artillery was at least equal to European practice as the Chinese defeat of Japanese arms in Korea (1592-1599)
4.19.2012 | 2:58am
Rick says:
Another quite interesting question is what Chinese culture and thought would have done to Catholicism had "La Conquista Espanola de China" become a reality.
As noted above, the Nestorians were by far the earliest Christian incursion into China. When I discovered a book with a transcription in English of the Nestorian Monument during research I was doing for a class on the late Roman Empire, I was immediately struck by the way in which the Christian message had been blended with Taoist and Buddhist thought.
Among the fascinating transmutations were these gems:
In the beginning, God created the "two principles of Nature." (The yin and the yang?) When mankind fell into error, some insisted on ignoring "the duality." The Old Testament prophets became "the 24 Sages." Jesus came to rescue us by establishing his "new teaching of non-assertion, which operates silently through the Holy Spirit." He set up the standard of the "eight cardinal virtues." (The Buddha's noble eight-fold path?) His great work accomplished, Jesus "took an oar in the Vessel of Mercy and ascended to the Palace of Light. Thereby, all rational beings were conveyed across the Gulf." We know of his life because "the 27 standard works of His Sutras were preserved."
Indeed, who knows what the powerful influence of Chinese culture and thought might have done to the teachings of the Magisterium?
As noted above, the Nestorians were by far the earliest Christian incursion into China. When I discovered a book with a transcription in English of the Nestorian Monument during research I was doing for a class on the late Roman Empire, I was immediately struck by the way in which the Christian message had been blended with Taoist and Buddhist thought.
Among the fascinating transmutations were these gems:
In the beginning, God created the "two principles of Nature." (The yin and the yang?) When mankind fell into error, some insisted on ignoring "the duality." The Old Testament prophets became "the 24 Sages." Jesus came to rescue us by establishing his "new teaching of non-assertion, which operates silently through the Holy Spirit." He set up the standard of the "eight cardinal virtues." (The Buddha's noble eight-fold path?) His great work accomplished, Jesus "took an oar in the Vessel of Mercy and ascended to the Palace of Light. Thereby, all rational beings were conveyed across the Gulf." We know of his life because "the 27 standard works of His Sutras were preserved."
Indeed, who knows what the powerful influence of Chinese culture and thought might have done to the teachings of the Magisterium?
4.19.2012 | 9:06am
patricksarsfield says:
Dithering? As though Phillip II had nothing better to do with his time than to try to take on the World's largest country half a world away? In truth, Phillip II had a lot else going on of critical importance to Holy Mother Church throughout his entire reign.
As in: the War against the Turks, which resulted in the thwarting of the Turkish Effort to turn the Mediterranean into a Muslim Lake in a series of campaigns including the Siege of Malta in 1565 and the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.
Then there were the wars against Catholicism waged in France throughout the 1560s through 1595. But for Phillip's intercession on the side of the Catholic League, France may well have ended up a Huguenot country run by a Huguenot Henri IV in which the Catholic Religion would have been as poorly treated as it was in Lord Thomas's own country.
Then there was the effort by Dutch Protestants to wrest away the Benelux Countries from Spain and from Catholicism. Thanks to Phillip II and his half brother Don Juan's efforts, most of Belgium and Luxemburg and a third of the Seven Provinces have remained with Holy Mother Church, despite the efforts of the English to aid the Orangists.
Finally, there were the sleazy efforts by England's Queen Elizabeth to wage war on Spain in the name of "Protestantism" (not to mention the greed of her courtiers) that began with Francis Drake's piratical Antillean depredations in the 1560s and continued up through Elizabeth's sleazy seizure of the Spanish Payroll Fleet in 1568, more piracy throughout the 1570s and 80s and the Invasion of the Spanish Holland in 1585 right through to the raids on Cadiz and the Spanish Plate fleet that went on in the 1590s. Because he was so busy in these other efforts, Phillip had tried to maintain peace with England despite those piracies but finally went to war in 1585 when Elizabeth sent her lover Robert Dudley to Holland to lead an English expeditionary force supporting the Protestant rebels.
Phillip II gets as bad a press as Elizabeth gets a wonderful press. Neither is deserved.
As in: the War against the Turks, which resulted in the thwarting of the Turkish Effort to turn the Mediterranean into a Muslim Lake in a series of campaigns including the Siege of Malta in 1565 and the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.
Then there were the wars against Catholicism waged in France throughout the 1560s through 1595. But for Phillip's intercession on the side of the Catholic League, France may well have ended up a Huguenot country run by a Huguenot Henri IV in which the Catholic Religion would have been as poorly treated as it was in Lord Thomas's own country.
Then there was the effort by Dutch Protestants to wrest away the Benelux Countries from Spain and from Catholicism. Thanks to Phillip II and his half brother Don Juan's efforts, most of Belgium and Luxemburg and a third of the Seven Provinces have remained with Holy Mother Church, despite the efforts of the English to aid the Orangists.
Finally, there were the sleazy efforts by England's Queen Elizabeth to wage war on Spain in the name of "Protestantism" (not to mention the greed of her courtiers) that began with Francis Drake's piratical Antillean depredations in the 1560s and continued up through Elizabeth's sleazy seizure of the Spanish Payroll Fleet in 1568, more piracy throughout the 1570s and 80s and the Invasion of the Spanish Holland in 1585 right through to the raids on Cadiz and the Spanish Plate fleet that went on in the 1590s. Because he was so busy in these other efforts, Phillip had tried to maintain peace with England despite those piracies but finally went to war in 1585 when Elizabeth sent her lover Robert Dudley to Holland to lead an English expeditionary force supporting the Protestant rebels.
Phillip II gets as bad a press as Elizabeth gets a wonderful press. Neither is deserved.
4.19.2012 | 11:16am
JonathanR. says:
"The idea of 8,000 Spanish troops conquering China in the late Sixteenth century is a bad joke. "
Actually, if the Spanish were going to abide by the Philippine model of evangelization and colonization (which, contrary to some assumptions, was a different animal from the New Spain model) in their dealing with China, which would be the case if Miguel Lopez de Legazpi was the inspiration, then the 8,000 men were not so much a tool of conquest but a show of force.
The Philippines was not conquered by plucky bands of conquistadores. Each tribe was offered a feudal arrangement with the King of Spain. They convert to Catholicism and pay homage to the King, and in turn he protects them. The soldiers the missionaries brought to the Philippines were there to protect those who took the deal, not to conquer them. Of course, protection meant taking their side when it came to conflicts with the non-convert tribes. Muslim slave-raiding, for example, provided a great incentive for the isolated island tribes to convert, and this caused the Spaniards to get bogged down in operations in the Southern Philippines up until the time they gave the colony to the USA.
Under the. Philippine model, those 8,000 men would not have been used to march to the capital and make the Chinese emperor capitulate. They would have been used to give the impression that the Spaniards can back up their end of the feudal bargain. The pitfall here though, would be finding which Chinese groups to approach. China was not the tribal morass the Philippines was.
Actually, if the Spanish were going to abide by the Philippine model of evangelization and colonization (which, contrary to some assumptions, was a different animal from the New Spain model) in their dealing with China, which would be the case if Miguel Lopez de Legazpi was the inspiration, then the 8,000 men were not so much a tool of conquest but a show of force.
The Philippines was not conquered by plucky bands of conquistadores. Each tribe was offered a feudal arrangement with the King of Spain. They convert to Catholicism and pay homage to the King, and in turn he protects them. The soldiers the missionaries brought to the Philippines were there to protect those who took the deal, not to conquer them. Of course, protection meant taking their side when it came to conflicts with the non-convert tribes. Muslim slave-raiding, for example, provided a great incentive for the isolated island tribes to convert, and this caused the Spaniards to get bogged down in operations in the Southern Philippines up until the time they gave the colony to the USA.
Under the. Philippine model, those 8,000 men would not have been used to march to the capital and make the Chinese emperor capitulate. They would have been used to give the impression that the Spaniards can back up their end of the feudal bargain. The pitfall here though, would be finding which Chinese groups to approach. China was not the tribal morass the Philippines was.
4.19.2012 | 11:21am
patricksarsfield says:
The Sanity Inspector writes:
"As for evangelism to Asia, the most successful have been the Protestant missions to Korea. "
That opinion is subject to significant challenge on statistical grounds. Per Wikipedia, Protestant missions in Korea have resulted in about 9 Million Christians. Catholic Missions in the Phillipines have resulted in about 75 Million Christians. Although the Phillipines is about 1.7 times the population size of South Korea, that still leaves the Filipino mission as having achieved significantly greater penetration.
"As for evangelism to Asia, the most successful have been the Protestant missions to Korea. "
That opinion is subject to significant challenge on statistical grounds. Per Wikipedia, Protestant missions in Korea have resulted in about 9 Million Christians. Catholic Missions in the Phillipines have resulted in about 75 Million Christians. Although the Phillipines is about 1.7 times the population size of South Korea, that still leaves the Filipino mission as having achieved significantly greater penetration.
4.19.2012 | 10:38pm
edmond says:
For China, it is no longer a "what if" ponderance. It is a "when" issue. Although the Christian church in China is government guided, missions have been sent to other asian nations for "re-tooling" of the evangelism movements. There is a growing representation from the chinese clergy that has taken interest in catholic ecclesial community social development. In the next twenty years the Catholic church in China may bear more significance thatn many in europe.
4.20.2012 | 10:49am
bill bannon says:
Could someone point out the Catholic success in Latin America and the Phillipines realistically and truthfully. Brazil is number 2 in the world for the sex trafficing of children and Phillipines is number 4. Columbia, Bolivia, and Peru lead the world in cocaine trafficing. Phillipines, Brazil and Uruquay have children living on the streets in substantial numbers. Various countries in SA have had the disappeared phenomenon. My Latin cable shows often look highly sexualized. Six of the highest murder rate countries are from Latin America including numbers 1 and 2. Brazil and Peru have the highest number of uncontacted tribes on earth. When years ago I sent pictures to SA, missionaries in several countries told me they might be stolen within the postal system.
Granted there are saints this very moment throughout Latin America who are exceptions to all of the above. But are there any real numbers that might help against the above impression. Are there low divorce rates...if so, does that country also have low fidelity rates? Are there populations that refuse to wear string bikinis as Brazil seems famous for? Imagine you are suggesting Catholicism to China's leaders and they bring up my first paragraph. How do you counter those impressions aside from whitewashing Catholicism of anything bad that occurs where it predominates? Are there good facts without fudging?
Granted there are saints this very moment throughout Latin America who are exceptions to all of the above. But are there any real numbers that might help against the above impression. Are there low divorce rates...if so, does that country also have low fidelity rates? Are there populations that refuse to wear string bikinis as Brazil seems famous for? Imagine you are suggesting Catholicism to China's leaders and they bring up my first paragraph. How do you counter those impressions aside from whitewashing Catholicism of anything bad that occurs where it predominates? Are there good facts without fudging?
4.21.2012 | 12:33am
Mark VA says:
The Sanity Inspector wrote;
"... the attendant blessings of modern hygiene, education and medicine, must rank among the most beneficient influences ever conferred by a greater civilization to a lesser. Although of course multiculturalism forbids us to say so..."
When, or if, Christian Civilization views itself as greater or superior, it is guilty of that most grievous sin, pride, and then quickly becomes the very opposite of great - Christ has clarified this point clearly and unequivocally with His apostles.
If Western Culture is meant by the word civilization, then in addition to its truly great and indisputable achievements, its colossal failures must also be acknowledged - like, for example, its use of Zyklon-B. With Shakespeare and Mozart on one side, and that gas on the opposite, where does greater fit in?
I never had the impression that Mother Teresa was conscious of "conferring beneficent influences on a lesser culture". She was not an employee of a particular civilization or culture. Rather, she worked for Christ only.
"... the attendant blessings of modern hygiene, education and medicine, must rank among the most beneficient influences ever conferred by a greater civilization to a lesser. Although of course multiculturalism forbids us to say so..."
When, or if, Christian Civilization views itself as greater or superior, it is guilty of that most grievous sin, pride, and then quickly becomes the very opposite of great - Christ has clarified this point clearly and unequivocally with His apostles.
If Western Culture is meant by the word civilization, then in addition to its truly great and indisputable achievements, its colossal failures must also be acknowledged - like, for example, its use of Zyklon-B. With Shakespeare and Mozart on one side, and that gas on the opposite, where does greater fit in?
I never had the impression that Mother Teresa was conscious of "conferring beneficent influences on a lesser culture". She was not an employee of a particular civilization or culture. Rather, she worked for Christ only.
4.21.2012 | 6:47am
Emma says:
What if ....? is very dangerous question to ask. So let the if's be bygones and rather focus on what's important from todays perspective. The interest of the regular clergy in the Philippines had already been aroused in the possibilities for an unlimited mission field in China. During the next few years Spanish friars–Augustinians, Jesuits, and Franciscans–made several voyages to the southern provinces. The arrival of so many Spaniards in a locality where they had hitherto enjoyed exclusive trading privileges aroused the violent opposition of the Portuguese at nearby Macao. What they did there is a history.
4.21.2012 | 5:29pm
Rick says:
@ bill bannon:
You have made some very germane points. Catholicism dominated in Mexico, while Protestantism dominated north of the border. The contrast hardly needs elucidation. I've visited and worked in Mexico numerous times in my life, and while I always considered it a colorful adventure with some wonderful people, I wouldn't trade their government, police, corruption, economics, class barriers, or blood-thirsty drug wars for life on this side of the border.
You have made some very germane points. Catholicism dominated in Mexico, while Protestantism dominated north of the border. The contrast hardly needs elucidation. I've visited and worked in Mexico numerous times in my life, and while I always considered it a colorful adventure with some wonderful people, I wouldn't trade their government, police, corruption, economics, class barriers, or blood-thirsty drug wars for life on this side of the border.
4.23.2012 | 9:56pm
edmond says:
@ Bill: The number of catholics rose from 4 million in the '80s to 70 million to date. It's way past "suggesting" to China's leaders who are really clueless on the progress of the catholic church. Besides, I have never known the catholic church to ever need to "suggest" to political leaders at any point in history. Neither is the chinese congregation blind-sided from the imperfections of the catholic church as they are also aware of the corruption in the chinese government.
5.1.2012 | 4:50pm
Nicholas Clifford says:
Where does that count of 70 million Catholics in China come from? I've never seen anything remotely close to that figure. The usual figures suggest about 14-15 million Catholics (including both the "patriotic" and "underground" churches, and 39-40 million Protestants. Perhaps the 70 million figure embraces all Christians?
5.1.2012 | 11:54pm
edmond says:
Sorry Nicholas, I included my data source in my original post which was edited by the administrator. Here it is :
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1146/eating_bitterness_catholics_in_china.aspx
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/1146/eating_bitterness_catholics_in_china.aspx
5.2.2012 | 1:24pm
Nicholas Clifford says:
Edmond -- thank you for the reference. The figure of 70 million does indeed embrace all Christians: Protestant (by far the largest number), Catholic, and a small handful apparently of Russian Orthodox. Given the difficulties of counting, especially because both Protestants and Catholics have their "underground" churches, and are understandably cautious in revealing themselves, 70 million may well be correct, though there's probably a significant margin of error up or down. An interesting treatment, though written about a decade ago, is Richard Madsden's China's Catholics (U. of California Press).
5.3.2012 | 12:08am
edmond says:
Thank you Nicholas for the correction. I will look up the book you mentioned.
Perhaps evangelisation would have continued apace without European colonisation, were the rites not condemned?