LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
CitarWho would you suggest is the primary culprit?
8Víctor
Technica Impendi Nationi
Spain's Black Legend
by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro
The Black Legend against Spain is part of a vast movement started by the enemies of the Faith to destroy the Catholic religion. It is not an isolated case; other Catholic countries like Italy, Ireland and Poland have had their reputations smeared for their adhesion to the Faith. The Black Legend seeks to throw discredit upon the Faith by building biases and prejudices against Catholicism. A current example of these attacks is Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code, a malevolent cocktail of fake scholarship, lies and half-truths. It seeks to instill in Catholics a sense of embarrassment and shame about the way in which their ancestors lived and practiced their faith. The effect is subtle but too often ends by Catholics then doubting the truth of the Faith.
The Black Legend was fanned largely by Protestant and liberal ideology and, particularly in the twentieth century, the Marxist re-interpretation of history. Even in Latin America, the influence of the so-called "Enlightenment" movement (largely directed against the Catholic faith) led to a type of Black Legend that was used to justify the aspirations of political independence from Spain. In that region political "adulthood" in the early nineteenth century was grounded in a rationalist ideology that repudiated the Hispanic heritage.1 Regrettably, even today many priests and religious of the Church have accepted totally or partially the Black Legend against Spain. They have led protest movements against the celebrations of the Fifth Centennial observing the discovery and conquest of America. They evidently believe it would have been preferable to leave the indigenous paganism with its idolatrous and bloody cults undisturbed and without the preaching of the Gospel.
The Black Legend is "an atmosphere created by the fanatic accounts of Spain which have been published in almost all countries; grotesque descriptions which are constantly being made of the character of Spaniards as individuals and collectively; the negation, or at least, the systematic ignorance of whatever is favorable and worthy of honor in the various manifestations of culture and art; the accusations which are always being launched against Spain are based upon events which are exaggerated, badly interpreted, or totally false."2 This has created all sorts of negative stereotypes that have been reinforced by the media — particularly Hollywood. It is useful to consider those aspects of the history of Spain that have been the focus of the Black Legend.
The Reconquest
The efforts of Christians in Spain to free themselves from Islamic domination (which began in the eighth century) have been denounced and distorted by revisionist liberal historians. Some have stated that both the Crusades in the Holy Land and the reconquest in Spain were anti-Christian because they entailed the propagation of religious faith by the violence of arms. That is a total misstatement of the facts, since those wars were not meant to convert anyone by force, but rather to recover lands that had been unjustly taken over by Muslims. The Spaniards were engaged in a crusade, which is a just war in which the participants receive spiritual benefits, a war sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority that granted remission of sins to those taking part in it. The different Spanish Kingdoms had indeed a right and obligation to recover the lands that had been unjustly taken by the Arab invaders.
Isabel of Castile and the Expulsion of the Jews
When Isabel was proclaimed Queen in Segovia on December 13, 1474, she consecrated her Kingdom to God. In the forty years of her reign with Ferdinand of Aragon magnificent achievements were attained. They are overshadowed, in the estimation of revisionist historians, by her decision to expel the Jews from Spain. This decision, however, must be viewed in its proper context.
In 1290 King Edward I of England issued an edict banishing the Jews. A few years later there was a massive Jewish emigration out of France. Portugal had also expelled the Jews. Though the Church had frequently protected the Jews against the animosities of Catholic citizens, by the end of the fourteenth century the coexistence of the Christians with a very large Jewish minority had become more difficult. The causes of this strain were many, but the most fundamental was religious.3 Those religious reasons were united to a strong sense of national unity that became crystallized after the recovery of Grenada, which completed the reconquest. Also, during the Muslim occupation of Spain the Jews were perceived as acting in concert with the Muslims to oppress the Christians.4 In many cases Jews had been the tax collectors of the different Muslim kingdoms. As a result, according to Cardinal Rouco Varela, the Jewish monopoly in banking, commerce and tax collecting created great resentment.5
For years the possibility of the expulsion of the Jews was considered. To avoid it the Church launched an important missionary activity among them. But tensions only increased, and on May 31, 1492, the decree of expulsion was promulgated. The Jews were given the choice of converting or leaving the country, taking with them their movable properties. During the time in which they were preparing their departure all Jews were under royal protection, which appears to have kept exploitation through thievery to a minimum. Some did accept baptism, but a large majority refused. The contemporary historian Bernaldes estimates that about 170,000 people left Spain.
The expulsion of the Jews was not racist. The converts were integrated into the Spanish population. If we study the genealogy of Spaniards we will find not a few with Jewish ancestry. Ferdinand (Isabella's husband), through his mother, had Jewish blood. St. Teresa of Avila had a Jewish grandfather. Jews were expelled from many countries of Europe, but Spain tends to be singled out as the main culprit. Perhaps the main reason is that many Jews who left Iberia moved to Protestant countries where their voice was added to the Protestant propaganda against Catholic Spain.
The Spanish Inquisition
The reason for the establishment of the Inquisition was the problem of false conversions. It was necessary to determine if many conversions to Christianity of former Muslims and Jews were sincere or merely expedient. What caused particular popular indignation were the false conversions done to achieve social and economic status or later, when the expulsion of the Muslims and the Jews was decreed, to remain in the country. There is historical evidence that thousands of these false "new Christians" continued to live secretly by the teachings and rites of their former religions. The loyalty of these false converts to the nation was questionable, but far worse was the sacrilege of every false conversion. To a fifteenth- or sixteenth-century Spaniard, the notion that someone would receive communion in a sacrilegious way was inconceivable and reprehensible.
On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV issued the bull Exigit sincerae devotionis affectus authorizing the Kings of Spain to establish courts that became known as the Inquisition. During the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella about fifteen thousand persons were found guilty of falsely professing Christianity. The vast majority repented and were reconciled with the Church and forgiven. A small minority was executed. The Inquisition had no jurisdiction over non-Catholics — except for those who had been baptized under false pretenses. It was also competent in cases of heresy, blasphemy, witchcraft and cases of public morality (such as bigamy and homosexuality).
Father Thomas of Torquemada was appointed Inquisitor General for Castille in 1483. He was a just, devout and careful administrator, who took seriously his responsibilities to both the accused and the accuser. Inquisitorial tribunals were fair and followed a clearly established juridical procedure. The declaration of three witnesses was necessary to arrest a person. Those questioned were not allowed to know the names of their accusers due to the danger of revenge. However, one of the many guarantees that were offered to the accused was the permission to draw up a list of personal enemies, whose testimony was immediately discarded. Any anonymous testimony or denunciation was prohibited. The Spanish Inquisition was a joint Church-State institution. It was mainly a Church court (only the Church had the authority to decide the veracity of a religious conversion) established by a papal bull with religious objectives. The penalties were applied by the state. It was later used to impede the propagation of Protestantism in Spain, sparing Iberia the ravages of the wars of religion that became so prevalent in other countries of Europe.
Expulsion of the Moriscos
The Moriscos were an unassimilated minority of Arabs of North African descent who had remained in Spain after the end of the Reconquest. Many were nominally Catholic but a large number secretly practiced the Islamic religion. They were the remnants of the people who had been conquerors of Spain and who had treated Christians in a harsh and violent way. As Rouco Varela points out, the presence of the Moriscos was considered a risk for the persons of Arab extraction who had authentically converted to Catholicism.6 It was feared that the Moriscos would try to pressure the new converts to return to Islam or, worse, encourage them to practice the Islamic religion in secret and wait for a favorable occasion to show their true colors. They were considered a dangerous fifth column ready and willing to collaborate with a possible Turkish invasion.
In fact, during the reconquest of Grenada in 1491, Turkish assistance was sought by the Moors of Grenada. The Moors in Grenada and Valencia were in constant contact with their religious compatriots in North Africa. During the rebellion of 1568 the Turks sent a special secret envoy to coordinate the assistance that was sent from North Africa. In that rebellion several small groups of North African pirates disembarked, reinforced the rebels, and provided them with ample military supplies. During the summer of 1570 a Turkish fleet was operating in the western Mediterranean, waiting to establish a link with the rebels. By the second half of the sixteenth century both the French Protestant Huguenots and the Turks were plotting a rebellion of the Moriscos to weaken King Philip II. Most alarming was the fact that the Moorish population in the rest of Spain was clearly showing their support for the rebels.
In 1609 it was decided to expel the Moriscos. It was done through a well-planned and prepared military operation. The number of those expelled has been grossly exaggerated by the promoters of the Black Legend, such as Llorente, who stated that they were more than a million. At most 375,000 Moriscos were expelled. Saint John of Ribera, Archbishop of Valencia, did everything possible to obtain their conversion and assimilation, but in the end he, too, concluded that expulsion was the only solution. It should be noted that the Moriscos eventually suffered far worse treatment from their fellow Muslims in North Africa than from anything meted out by the Spaniards.
The Discovery and Conquest of America
One of the main components in the arsenal of the Black Legend is the alleged extermination and enslavement of the native Indians in the Americas. Seldom mentioned, however, is that the main Indian empires were perpetually disposed toward conquest and usurpation. The Aztecs were constantly launching raids to capture prisoners for the enormous number of human sacrifices they conducted. There is important archeological evidence showing that several Indian civilizations suffered violent ends at the hands of other Indian cultures long before the arrival of the Europeans in America.7 The massive and even surprising victories of the small Spanish armies were not achieved through technological superiority, but rather by the assistance they received from the different Indian tribes that were oppressed by both the Aztecs and the Incas.
Demography in Latin America proves that the Spaniards did not exterminate the Indians. There are many countries in which the persons of Indian origin or mixed parentage are nearly ninety percent of the population. The decrease of the Indian population was mainly due to the entrance of new viruses for which the Indians did not have an appropriate immune system. At the same time thousands of colonists died of tropical diseases against which they were defenseless.
Isabel forbade, under strict penalties, the enslavement of native Indians.8 In her instructions for the second voyage of Columbus she established that the Indians should be evangelized and treated with honor and Christian charity. In her later instructions we can see how she considers the Indians as persons capable of becoming Christians and enjoying all the rights and duties that belong to the human person.
Father Bartolome de las Casas accused his compatriots of exterminating the Indians in the Caribbean islands. His book, A Brief Relation of the Destruction of the Indies, for centuries has been a quarry for material with which the Black Legend would be built. He describes the Indians in such idyllic terms that one doubts if they were affected by original sin. The Spaniards were described as the cruelest beasts of prey that came to rob, exploit and exterminate the Indians. His evidence is unreliable. In some cases he quotes his own experience, or the testimonies of five other missionaries, but his sources are mostly vague and imprecise. His observations are so extreme that they lead to legitimate doubt about his mental stability. Spanish author Ramon Menendez y Pidal, in a historical study, reveals de las Casas to be a dual personality (for instance, he promoted African slavery), suffering from megalomania, possessing an intolerant disposition with those who did not agree with him, and an evident paranoid.
On November 17, 1526, Emperor Charles promulgated ordinances requiring the good treatment of the Indians and regulating the methods used in future conquests. In 1530 another royal decree forbade all future enslavement of Indians. That many moral theologians were allowed to express openly their doubts concerning the conquest of the Americas demonstrates the serious conscience of the Spanish crown. In 1542, the Emperor convened the Council of Indies and added additional guarantees for the Indians. A proof that the Indians did not feel particularly oppressed by Spain was that over the course of more than three hundred years the rebellions by the natives were very limited in number. The rebellions that separated the different Latin American lands from Spain were always led by colonists. Interestingly, the rank and file of some of the Spanish armies that fought the rebels were formed by Indians.
In this brief summary of the Black Legend against Spain, I have presented some of the many historical events distorted by our enemies to discredit our past and undermine our confidence in the legitimacy of our Catholic heritage. An authentic understanding of the achievements of our ancestors in the Faith will assist our hope in a Catholic future.
Notes
1. Antonio Caponetto, The Black Legends and Catholic Hispanic Culture, Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Verein of America, St. Louis, MO, 1991, p. 43.
2. Julian Juderias, La Leyenda Negra: Estudios acerca del concepto de Espana en el extranjero, 13th ed., Editora Nacional, Madrid, 1954, p. 161.
3. Fernand Brauedel, The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, v. II, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1995, p. 825.
4. Vittorio Messori, Legendas Negras de la Iglesia, 9th ed. Planeta, Barcelona, 2000, p. 31.
5. Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, Estado e Iglesia en la Espana del Siglo XVI, BAC, Madrid, 2001, p. 30.
6. Rouco Varela, Estado e Iglesia en la Espana del Siglo XVI, o.c., p. 35.
7. Mauro Calamandrei, Addio al buon pellerossa, Il Sole-24 Ore, Sunday Octobre 12, 2003,p. 30.
8. Vidal Gonzalez Sanchez, "El Testamento de Isabella Catolica, esponente de una vida al servicio de la Iglesia.," in Isabella Catolica y su Causa de Beatification, Obra Pia Establecimientos Espailoles en Italia, 2003, p. 40.
Monsignor Barreiro is the Director of the Rome Office of Human Life International and a frequent contributor to traditional Catholic publications.
© Keep the Faith, Inc.
This item 6625 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
Aquí corresponde hablar de aquella horrible y nunca bastante execrada y detestable libertad de la prensa, [...] la cual tienen algunos el atrevimiento de pedir y promover con gran clamoreo. Nos horrorizamos, Venerables Hermanos, al considerar cuánta extravagancia de doctrinas, o mejor, cuán estupenda monstruosidad de errores se difunden y siembran en todas partes por medio de innumerable muchedumbre de libros, opúsculos y escritos pequeños en verdad por razón del tamaño, pero grandes por su enormísima maldad, de los cuales vemos no sin muchas lágrimas que sale la maldición y que inunda toda la faz de la tierra.
Encíclica Mirari Vos, Gregorio XVI
Furor celticus.
Who would you suggest is the primary culprit?
"And, as we Catholics know, Western Civilization is Roman Civilization, first classical Roman Civilization, then Roman Catholic Civilization, as the Christians preserved and carried classical Roman Civilization to the world in a Christianized form. That is, after all, why we are described as Roman Catholics."
Miembro Respetado
The first three paragraphs explain pretty well who the culprits were and why they cooked up the Black Legend.
Furor celticus.
It speaks of a "vast movement" within the first paragraph and then it goes on to detail the usual suspects, liberals, Marxists, and so forth. These rascals have always been stirring things up against the established order of things; I wouldn't say that Spain is being specifically targeted by this bunch but, rather, it's a broad effort by cthonic forces (for lack of a better term) against the fabric of western civilization itself (in its many forms). Lacking any religious belief other than a sort of vaguely deistic belief in the divine and providence, I don't put this conflict into purely religious terms; I think of it more in a historical or sociopolitical context than anything else.Iniciado por Hyeronimus
"And, as we Catholics know, Western Civilization is Roman Civilization, first classical Roman Civilization, then Roman Catholic Civilization, as the Christians preserved and carried classical Roman Civilization to the world in a Christianized form. That is, after all, why we are described as Roman Catholics."
Miembro Respetado
I just want to point out that when we mean "liberals" we don't necessarily refer to today leftists such as most US democrats, as the term is usually understood in the US. We rather mean -in historical terms- those who you would as a US citizen consider conservative heroes and defenders of christian Civilization (they were never such thing). US Founding Fathers such as George Washington or Benjamin Franklin, who are regarded there as being heroes and conservative, were in fact liberal extremists, anticatholic freemasons and pioneers of this New World Order (Novus Ordo Seclorum), the consequences of which we are suffering. This must be hard to admit by a US patriot, but that's just how it is. I admit that their revolution (to which we Spaniards unfortunatelly contributed) was better than the French one and not so bloody, but it still was the beginning of this liberal, secular, anti-Church and anti-God political parties system they want to impose upon every single country in the world, which ended up violently with our traditional catholic Monarchies.
Última edición por Rodrigo; 05/12/2011 a las 20:03
Furor celticus.
You seem to be confusing the Founding Fathers as being a pack of atheistic jackals, which I can assure you sir they were not. I've read the private writings of Washington several times and, while not a member of the Catholic/Christian faith as you might understand it, he was no infidel.Washington had a very deep belief in God and held deistic views. Christian deism is largely an outgrowth of the English mind- the sort of deism that you see in France is due to its rejection of Christianity (especially Catholicism).
Sir, what makes you think America's Founders thought that they were defending Christendom? Only some neoconservative evangelical idiot believes this; they were fighting to be rid of the tyranny of the British monarchy and not to defend the Christian religion.
Do you consider Washington et al. to be liberal extremists simply becaused they refused to bow to a king? Or that they said that the people, guided by laws and common sense (with the blessings of the Almighty and Providence), are sovereign over any monarch or pople or tyrant? I largely spit on the Brits to this day because my ancestors were advised to avoid "English mannerisms," which the colonial English-Americans equated to effeminate behavior.
Última edición por Annuit Coeptis; 06/12/2011 a las 07:32
"And, as we Catholics know, Western Civilization is Roman Civilization, first classical Roman Civilization, then Roman Catholic Civilization, as the Christians preserved and carried classical Roman Civilization to the world in a Christianized form. That is, after all, why we are described as Roman Catholics."
Miembro Respetado
How can deism be christian? I don't consider them to be liberal extremists simply because they sought independence from their king, I call them liberal extremists because that's the accurate way to call them and their ideas, since that's what freemasonry and liberalism was and still is about. And you have to admit that their way to put it in practice was extreme.
Of course for us a liberal and protestant monarchy which laws forbid the monarch to be catholic, convert to catholicism or marry a catholic is not the ideal monarchy, as well as it is not ideal a heretical monarch that considered and still considers herself to be the Head of the Church. That doesn't mean I believe North American anglosaxon colonists were really oppressed as the Irish were. I guess they had their reasons to betray and make war against their king though, but the real problem here is the political parties system they introduced and the "Freedom above everything" mentality.
Furor celticus.
English deism was born from the minds of Christian Englishmen like Matthew Tindal and Edward Herbert:
Matthew Tindal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These men, like the latter Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and so on were reacting anomng other things to what they perceieved as the absurdities and contradictions in the doctrines of the churches of England and Rome. The only one to have openly reviled Christianity was Paine, for which he was thought of as an infidel.
And.. There's nothing extreme about the revolt of the colonies from England, it was the inevitable outcome. Parliament and the crown refused to properly listen to our list of grievances (the Quartering Act, the Stamp Act, the Sugar Act, and a host of other burdens that the citizens in the colonies had to deal with in addition to, say, being taxed to help fund England's imperialistic adventures). Hardly extreme when the monarch treats men and women who thought of themselves as a free folk like serfs (the freemen ideal goes back a long way in the Anglosaxon mindset).
Robespierre is a better example of a villianous revolutionary. Washington et al. merely wanted to kick George III, so to speak, out of the colonies. Robespierre had the king of France guillotined, if I recall, and then he and his gang terrorized the French until they all got sent to the chopping block.
We regard it as the crown betraying its responsibilities to treat its subjects as subjects and not as serfs.Of course for us a liberal and protestant monarchy which laws forbid the monarch to be catholic, convert to catholicism or marry a catholic is not the ideal monarchy, as well as it is not ideal a heretical monarch that considered and still considers herself to be the Head of the Church. That doesn't mean I believe North American anglosaxon colonists were really oppressed as the Irish were. I guess they had their reasons to betray and make war against their king though, but the real problem here is the political parties system they introduced and the "Freedom above everything" mentality.
Political parties were held in low esteem by the Founders due to what you'd expect: dissension and party politics. They also held the very word democracy in low esteem. Washington had very strong opinions on the matter, best seen in his Farewell Address of 1797.
Founding Fathers: Political party affiliations
"Freedom above everything" is not what was intended, not should be seen as what was intended. To me "freedom" means, to quote Reagan from memory, "The ultimate in individual liberty that is consistent with law and order."
"And, as we Catholics know, Western Civilization is Roman Civilization, first classical Roman Civilization, then Roman Catholic Civilization, as the Christians preserved and carried classical Roman Civilization to the world in a Christianized form. That is, after all, why we are described as Roman Catholics."
Miembro Respetado
Being both Christian and deist is one absurdity and contradiction, the so called Church of England itself is another absurdity and contradiction. The one holly catholic and apostolic Church is no absurdity and bears no contradiction.
Sorry, but I don't think what you exposed is enough to consider English-Americans as being oppressed by the British Crown. The Irish weren't allowed to own lands in their own country if they were catholic, that's oppression. The North American revolution was indeed extreme and an act of violence as all wars necessarily are.
When you say imperialistic adventures the US-Mexican war of 1846-1848 (that resulted in the USA taking away from Mexico 900,000 square miles of land) and the US-Spanish war of 1898 (that resulted in the USA taking away from Spain more than 7,000 islands in the pacific ocean and the caribbean sea, which comprised all together more than 160,000 square miles) come to my mind. If you're going to answer that their intention was to free the natives think first about the Indian wars and the US-Philippine war of 1899. It's hard to imagine bigger imperialistic adventures than those only two. As you know, a lot more followed during the 20th and 21th centuries.
We don't know what would have happened if the North American rebels had been able to reach London. They would have probably done with George III the same as Cromwell did with Charles I.
I didn't know that. That's interesting. But they were still pioneers of the masonic anti-catholic New World Order we're living in, as I said before.
Última edición por Rodrigo; 06/12/2011 a las 21:18
Furor celticus.
I don't see anything contradictory about being both a Christian and a deist. I wasn't born and raised within the strictures of Catholicism so I don't have the awe or the veneration of the Holy See that you seem to possess.Being both Christian and deist is one absurdity and contradiction, the so called Church of England itself is another absurdity and contradiction. The one holly catholic and apostolic Church is no absurdity and bears no contradiction.
Or perhaps the British crown found it easier to intimidate Irishmen closer to home than Englishmen in the colonies across the Atlantic?Sorry, but I don't think what you exposed is enough to consider English-Americans as being oppressed by the British Crown. The Irish weren't allowed to own lands in their own country if they were catholic, that's oppression. The North American revolution was indeed extreme and an act of violence as all wars necessarily are.
The war with Mexico resulted from the issue of Texian independence from Mexico; the southern states which later formed the Confederate States of America were the main instigators of this conflict because they wanted to bring Texas in as one of the slave-holding states.When you say imperialistic adventures the US-Mexican war of 1846-1848 (that resulted in the USA taking away from Mexico 900,000 square miles of land) and the US-Spanish war of 1898 (that resulted in the USA taking away from Spain more than 7,000 islands in the pacific ocean and the caribbean sea, which comprised all together more than 160,000 square miles) come to my mind. If you're going to answer that their intention was to free the natives think first about the Indian wars and the US-Philippine war of 1899. It's hard to imagine bigger imperialistic adventures than those only two. As you know, a lot more followed during the 20th and 21th centuries.p
The war with Spain resulted from meddling in the issue of Cuban independence, which had been an ongoing problem in the U.S. since at least the administration of President Grant. In 1871 there seems to have been a bit of a conspiracy in the U.S. Congress, masterminded by Congressmen from the southern states, to push the U.S. into supporting the Cuban rebels. Grant hastily put an end to this plot and carried on a diplomatic correspondence with the presiding Spanish monarch at the time through official channels.
They never had any intention of invading the mother-country. Spain and France were the two countries that were considering an invasion of British soil as a part of the Bourbon Family Compact. As I've said the colonists simply wanted the redcoats out of North America.We don't know what would have happened if the North American rebels had been able to reach London. They would have probably done with George III the same as Cromwell did with Charles I.
I'm sorry but what does this phrase actually mean?I didn't know that. That's interesting. But they were still pioneers of the masonic anti-catholic New World Order we're living in, as I said before.
"And, as we Catholics know, Western Civilization is Roman Civilization, first classical Roman Civilization, then Roman Catholic Civilization, as the Christians preserved and carried classical Roman Civilization to the world in a Christianized form. That is, after all, why we are described as Roman Catholics."
Furor celticus.
Rodrigo,
Let me pull your coat for a moment. The initial topic of the thread was the Black Legend against Spain and Cathlocism.
If the U.S. was founded by masonic anti-Catholics, I still lack a proper understanding of the term, why is the U.S. the fourth largest Catholic nation in the world at the moment?
Study finds US Catholic parishes growing larger, more complex | National Catholic Reporter
The study said that the number of Catholic parishes -- which peaked in 1990 at 19,620 -- dropped by 1,359, or 7.1 percent, in the latest decade to almost the same number as in 1965. The U.S. Catholic population is currently about 77.7 million, about 75 percent higher than it was 40 years ago, when it was served by roughly the same number of parishes, the study said.
It projected that by 2050 the nation’s Catholic population could range from a low of 95.4 million to a high of 128 million.
America has about 30 million more Catholics in it than there are people in Spain itself, and these are Catholics from a variety of ethnic backgrounds: Hispanic, Irish, Italian, Syraic, Ukrainian, etc. There's also a wider diversity of Catholic parishes here than in other countries of the world (I can name at least two Latin Mass churches in my hometown alone; the rest are more conventional and prefer vernacular services) but the Catholic Church in the U.S. is in full communion with Rome. This is in a basic context altough, specifically, I don't know the ins and outs. There are Catholics here who support Sedevacantism and reject the investiture of Pope Benedict; many do not.
What're your thoughts?
"And, as we Catholics know, Western Civilization is Roman Civilization, first classical Roman Civilization, then Roman Catholic Civilization, as the Christians preserved and carried classical Roman Civilization to the world in a Christianized form. That is, after all, why we are described as Roman Catholics."
Miembro Respetado
Well, according to my dictionary: Deism /ˈdeɪɪz(ə)m, ˈdiːɪ-/ ▶Noun. Belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. Does that really match Christian teachings?
I don't care wether the instigators were southern US people or northern US people. Anglosaxon immigrants had been generously welcome in Texas (Mexico), a country that didn't belong to them, and they rose up against the legitimate owners of that region. Their fellow anglosaxon brothers of the U.S. could just have helped them secede from Mexico, but taking along also California and New Mexico sounded better.
What exactly was the problem in the U.S.? The US-Spanish war broke out 20 years after the war between Spain and the Cuban separatists was over anyway. Moreover, meddling in a foreign country's internal politics in order to obtain benefits and colonies is also imperialism. I hope you don't believe Spain sank the USS Maine, do you?
I'm not saying they had, because it would have been impossible for them. But Cromwell was a predecessor of those same anti-royalist, anti-catholic, republican ideas and you know what he did.
I think the English section of the forum lacks of more information about freemasonry and their "great contribution" to "human development". The fact that milions of catholics have been immigrating to the U.S. for work doesn't mean that the U.S. founding fathers weren't anticatholic or that catholics didn't use to be discriminated in the U.S.
Of course I think it's good that the catholic population is increasing there and I also think there's much more catholic activism there than here. But I also think it's hard to be a good north american patriot and a traditional catholic.
Última edición por Rodrigo; 08/12/2011 a las 00:51
Furor celticus.
Not orthodox teachings.
You ought to since most of the Anglo immigrants into Tejas et al. were southrons.I don't care wether the instigators were southern US people or northern US people. Anglosaxon immigrants had been generously welcome in Texas (Mexico), a country that didn't belong to them, and they rose up against the legitimate owners of that region. Their fellow anglosaxon brothers of the U.S. could just have helped them secede from Mexico, but taking along also California and New Mexico sounded better.
From what I recall the official and unofficial conducted by by the States and Spain couldn' determine the proper reason as to why the Maine went under.What exactly was the problem in the U.S.? The US-Spanish war broke out 20 years after the war between Spain and the Cuban separatists was over anyway. Moreover, meddling in a foreign country's internal politics in order to obtain benefits and colonies is also imperialism. I hope you don't believe Spain sank the USS Maine, do you?
One of the popular conspiracy theories call it a false flag attack undertaken by the U.S. to provoke a war with Spain over Cuba. As I've said the Congressional Democrats (southrons) were looking for a long time to absorb Cuba and other Spanish possessions in the region.
Cromwell was a gunpowder tyrant who had the king executed, hardly a role-model.I'm not saying they had, because it would have been impossible for them. But Cromwell was a predecessor of those same anti-royalist, anti-catholic, republican ideas and you know what he did.
Yes, because truly patriotic Americans reject such antiquated (as I see them) societal notions as excessive religiosity, feudalism, monarchism, papism/clericalism, etc. and are able to balance a belief in God with secular and political ideals.But I also think it's hard to be a good north american patriot and a traditional catholic.
"Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience," George Washington, Letter, United Baptist Chamber of Virginia May 1789.
I'm not speaking flippantly; I was born, baptised, and confirmed into Wesleyanism (Methodism) and was a fairly pious Protestant up till about age 20. I dabbled in Catholicism for a bit, in addition to other creeds, but ultimately rejected it all. Why? A number of reasons: quislings at the pulpit and in the pews, a growing awareness of comparative religion, a changing opinion of Jesus, a changing view of God, etc.
Now, what does this mean? In my case, not a great deal, but within a national context:
From the point of view of human history, the way in which the Thirteen States became independent is of far less importance than the fact that they did become independent. And with the establishment of their independence came a new sort of community into the world. It was like something coming out of an egg. It was a western European civilization that had broken free from the last traces of Empire and Christendom; it had not a vestige of monarchy left and no state religion. It had no dukes, princes, counts, nor any sort of title-bearers claiming to ascendancy or respect as a right. Even its unity was as yet a mere unity for defence and freedom. It was in these respects such a clean start in political organization as the world had not seen before. The absence of any binding religious tie is especially noteworthy. It had a number of forms of Christianity, its spirit was indubitably Christian; but as a state document of 1791 explicitly declared, "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The new community had in fact gone right down to the bare and stripped fundamentals of human association, and it was building up a new sort of society and a new sort of state upon those foundations.
H.G. Wells, The Outline of History.
Or a portion thereof. Once I began to undertake a study of secular American law and the Constitution... this was one of the main reasons why my view of things began to change. You're right, a traditional Catholic wouldn't make a good American patriot (and a good American patriot isn't a flag-waving Southern Baptist evangelical). The loyalties of the traditional Catholic are at odds with the loyalties of a patriotic American: Christ and the saints, the Madonna, the Pope, etc. in once sense and the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. in the other. I'd be extremely hard to harmonize the two, as the Catholic accepts things such as papal infallibility, divine inspiration of holy writ, etc. and the American, while believing in God in some way or another (as a deist, Catholic/Christian, religious seeker, and so on), has a natural mistrust and skepticism of such things. No, I don't mean atheism, which is a particularly noxious creed (atheists are one of the more despised minorities here), but that America's views of God, etc. are inseparable from our political and secular values. Catholicism can exist in America of course, but it'd be an exhausting struggle to prove that Catholicism can exist here precisely due to the secular values that many traditional Catholics seem to abhor (i.e. what seems to be called liberalism; liberalism in the U.S. has a different meaning than it does in Europe).
Liberty, justice: you seem to think that the Founders had the same political orientation as today's multiculturalists when they say the same words; nothing could be further from the truth. These dogs are political imposters who, to quote a bit of Paine out of context, taken the axe of universal democracy to the roots of American republicanism.
Última edición por Annuit Coeptis; 10/12/2011 a las 05:55
"And, as we Catholics know, Western Civilization is Roman Civilization, first classical Roman Civilization, then Roman Catholic Civilization, as the Christians preserved and carried classical Roman Civilization to the world in a Christianized form. That is, after all, why we are described as Roman Catholics."
Furor celticus.
Where would I look for more information on this group and its motivations? Is it the same as, say, the Bilderberger group or the so-called Illuminati? The trouble is this: Americans are obsessed with conspiracies (i.e. the 2012 Mayan prophecy face, polar shift conspiracy, and so forth); when I hear of masonry my mind automatically connects it to conspiracy theories.
"And, as we Catholics know, Western Civilization is Roman Civilization, first classical Roman Civilization, then Roman Catholic Civilization, as the Christians preserved and carried classical Roman Civilization to the world in a Christianized form. That is, after all, why we are described as Roman Catholics."
Actualmente hay 1 usuarios viendo este tema. (0 miembros y 1 visitantes)
Permisos de publicación
Marcadores