Why did North America succeed while Latin America failed.

[Greg]

Latin America was colonized by Europeans first.  It had more natural resources, better weather, no harsh winters, started earlier.  But no country there is even close to the USA or Canada in terms of civilisation, political stability, economic growth and education.

The simplest explanation is that the protestant culture of self-reliance, antonomous thinking has proved itself more likely to result in economic growth and better social conditions than the catholic hierarchy based control. Don't bother thinking for yourself, trust the authorites.  Papa knows best.

Did South American natives have lower IQs than North American?   Not really,  the great cultures in Mesoamerica were all in Latin America.  They must have been brighter if there was any difference at all.  North America had much less going for it.

A huge problem with Catholicism, especially Traditionalists, is that if you simply question and point out facts and counter evidence you are labe?ed and threatened or accused or shunned.  Either comply or we will make your life difficult, turn on you, ostracize you.  This is what the Church did historically, it is how the SSPX has behaved for years.  It is what the Resistance did when they were in the SSPX and now are doing it to themselves.  It's what most SV sects do.

Now, clearly, there is a balance to be struck.  I don't want a tranvesite reformed pedo teaching my children.  The evidence suggest that contraception, abortion, marriage breakdown are bad for society.  But compromise is necessary for the smooth functioning of a family, a business or any social endeavour. Most of my neighbours and work colleagues are divorced. I can't shun them all.

I was accused by someone yesterday of being an "evolutionist" in a PM despite the fact that I have never been one and that is abundantly clear from my posting history.  He simply didn't like the fact that I showed him his assumptions were assumptions and his mathematical conclusions were therefore far from certain, since Carbon 14 production varies with the earth's magnetic field and that fluctuates

A bad argument for Catholicism and Traditional view is valued and defended much more than a good argument that would negate some firmly held believe.  There's not really a love of the truth if the truth implies something the challenges you.  Like non-Catholics we love the truths that confirm our world view.

Point out that Joey Lomangino died blind and you are a "doubting Thomas". Point out that Saint JP2's behaviour would have had him excommunicated by prior popes and you are not "counting on the mystery of God's mercy" despite having zero evidence that JP2 had any sort of near death repentance.

  Point out the world is a globe and there are pictures from space proving this and you are accused of being so "taken up by the things of this world" that you would "rather be a sheep" and believe "Nasa's lies"

You see this with visions.  You see it with cliques where unhinged lunatics like Father Pffifer are defended.  You see it with flat earthism and geocentrism which are clearly complete and utter nonsense.  And I think it permeates into the culture of Catholic countries too.  And this is why they fail, compared to Protestant cultured countries, in terms of jobs, education, political freedom, innovation, economy and military.

Questioning why you believe what you believe and reassessing it in the light of evidence appears to be healthy for society.  It allows you to test, to take risk, to free slaves, to come up with the computer mouse because the culture around you doesn't dogmatise the keyboard as being the way it has always been done.  You're not afraid to be wrong, not afraid to take risk, not afraid of the dark or the evil eye or other superstitious nonsense.

[Heinrich]

Why are Catholic Bavaria and Baden Würtemburg the economic powerhouses of the economic powerhouse
Germany?

[LausTibiChriste]

If I shunned everyone guilty of mortal sin I'd have to cap my own ass.

I don't know if it's entirely fair to accuse Catholics from before VII (let's say pre-20th century) of being mindless drones following orders...but I'm not sure. That has been my point for a long time - back in the day everyone was Catholic (more or less)...you had Catholics in banking, in business, in law, as doctors, as chefs etc. etc. etc....now, if you're not a scholar or a SAHM you're basically Satan.

Traditionalism (read: American influenced Traditionalism) is more or less a cult and far, far, far more Protestant than they even realize. The fact that they care so much about evolution, geocentrism, vaccines and shit like this while the Faith and Church are crumbling all around them just proves their hypocrisy beyond any doubt.

Babies are being murdered in their mother's wombs such an astonishing rate it would make Hitler able to cut diamonds and you want to argue about meaningless shit like evolution? Who gives a fiddlers f.

I, for one, intend to live as much of an authentic Catholic life in the real world, make money so I can feed my family, love my soon to be wife, work hard (surrounded by my divorced, fornicating, gay etc colleagues) and try to do a damn good job in showing them that Catholicism is normal.

You phucks can keep arguing over useless shit.

[drummerboy]

Because the Spanish bequethed to Latin America that work is bad and fit for slaves.  Take a society that had lived off of warfare from centuries of fighting the muslims, transplant them to the New World, where they now have to build a civilization?  Screw that, just imprison the natives and use them for slaves, after all, what else are you going to do with your skill set?  Go search for gold?  Their idea of success was more along the lines of attaining noble status, not just amassing wealth.  Even if you had wealth, you were still stuck in your caste/racial lineage, so what's the point of working to get ahead, unlike in America where you could shovel coal as a boy and work your way to own the railroad, and then 10 other railroads, so to speak, and have respect because you worked your way to the top. 

So Greg, I think you're on something

[drummerboy]

They weren't interested in advancing.  They had their plantations, and mines, and what not, the labor to work them, so life is good, why bother pushing to improve?  There was no "creative tension."  In some ways you could compare Latin and N. America to the Southern states and New England/Midwest states.  The South had their plantations and were bringing in the wealth, why change?

Add in the terrible political instability after the Spaniards were expelled, and that doesn't help anything either

[Akavit]

This thread is an example of why the humanities are just as important in education as the hard sciences.

A basic knowledge of American history will inform anyone that New Spain did have a far more advanced culture (education, architecture, hospitals, etc.) than the contemporary US.  But the USA put a heavier emphasis on population growth (using immigration) and military strength which made it possible to drive out Spanish influence then later demolish Mexico in a war.  Since then, Mexico has been under the thumb of the USA and Catholic countries never fare well under Protestant rule.

Historically, Protestant countries have generally valued heavy industry, military strength and conquest.  Gustav the Great refined the use of gunpowder in combined arms warfare and succeeded in weakening the Holy Roman Empire.  Great Britain created the next formidable empire while the United States focused upon dominating the Americas and driving out European influence.  After WWII, Europe was weakened enough for the US to establish itself as the dominant world empire.

The rise of the American empire and its industrial might did bring wealth to any country willing to adopt American values.  But unfortunately, Protestants also reintroduced divorce into society and the rest is history.

[Greg]

Mexico is a tiny place compared to the rest of South America.

Why didn't all those "Catholic" Spanish speaking countries with their superior Catholic culture unite and fight the protestant Yankee northerner?

Catholic countries all over the world are poorer, disorganized and corrupt.  Italy, Philippines, Brazil, Congo the list goes on.

Pick any of them individually and you can come up with some reason that they are like that.  The best examples you can name are merely two regions of Germany (a country that also has a huge number of protestants) and Switzerland (where nearly all of the towns are majority protestant) and the Catholics live in the countryside and have not built modern Switzerland.

With the New World we have the closest thing you can ever get to a 'like for like' test.  Catholics took a larger better territory, mismanaged it, and ended up, hundreds of years later, as second and third rate nations.  Protestants took USA and Canada (a frozen wasteland) and became the most powerful and influential nation on the planet; while having to manage a nasty civil war and integrate the mongrels and rejects from all over the world into a nation.  The protestants did more with less.

[Mono no aware]

Traditionalism (read: American influenced Traditionalism) is more or less a cult and far, far, far more Protestant than they even realize. The fact that they care so much about evolution, geocentrism, vaccines and shit like this while the Faith and Church are crumbling all around them just proves their hypocrisy beyond any doubt.

Babies are being murdered in their mother's wombs such an astonishing rate it would make Hitler able to cut diamonds and you want to argue about meaningless shit like evolution? Who gives a fiddlers f.

Evolution isn't "meaningless shit."  It matters a great deal whether or not evolution is true.  The whole religion hangs in the balance.  Not for nothing did St. Paul say, "if Christ be not risen, your faith is in vain."  The corollary is that if there had never been an actual Adam and an actual Original Sin, then there would have been no need for the Resurrection.  I cared a lot about evolution when I was a traditional Catholic.  Perhaps that was a Protestant mentality, but if I had chosen to ignore it as meaningless, then that would have been a totally blind and unthinking kind of faith (which, maybe, is the more Catholic kind of faith—in which case, why question the pope and the bishops in union with him at all?  Just accept Vatican II).

[Greg]

What are you now?

[Greg]

Why are Catholic Bavaria and Baden Würtemburg the economic powerhouses of the economic powerhouse

Baden W has almost as many Protestants as Catholics.

Why are those regions of Germany exceptional and successful?

I would suggest it has more to do with them being German than Catholic.  Otherwise other Catholic nations would be similarly successful.

Protestant cultured countries are economic leaders on just about every continent where they have showed up.  America, Australia, Europe and Africa.

[Mono no aware]

What are you now?

Whatever Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were.  A god, yes, but a personal and particular god, difficult to swallow.  "Pagan" is a good word, but nowadays it connotes listeners of Norwegian black metal lighting bonfires to Odin.  "Agnostic" will suffice.  Xavier recently told Gloria Patri something like, "God is your father, Gloria Patri, not the monkey."  I liked that.  Me, my father is neither a deity nor a monkey.  He is a human primate (technically, a great ape).

[Sempronius]

Karl wrote an essay titled The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Shouldnt be controversial to state that protestants are better than catholics in developing their societies. The king in Sweden, when transforming his state to a protestant one, abolished all the Holy days of obligation for the people. So they had to work instead and that boosted the economy.

But of course, catholics left after them a much richer legacy.

[Jayne]

Evolution isn't "meaningless shit."  It matters a great deal whether or not evolution is true.  The whole religion hangs in the balance.  Not for nothing did St. Paul say, "if Christ be not risen, your faith is in vain."  The corollary is that if there had never been an actual Adam and an actual Original Sin, then there would have been no need for the Resurrection.  I cared a lot about evolution when I was a traditional Catholic.  Perhaps that was a Protestant mentality, but if I had chosen to ignore it as meaningless, then that would have been a totally blind and unthinking kind of faith (which, maybe, is the more Catholic kind of faith—in which case, why question the pope and the bishops in union with him at all?  Just accept Vatican II).

Obviously Catholics cannot believe atheistic evolution.  The world and everything in it is not a random accident.  But Catholics do have the option of believing in a theistic evolution in which there is a Creator, an actual Adam, Original Sin, etc.  The encyclical Humani Generis  leaves this open as a possibility.

As far as I can tell, the Church allows either creationism or theistic evolution.  We are at liberty to look at the evidence and arguments for both and choose the one we think is better.  Or we can say that it doesn't matter and not even bother choosing.

There is a document from the Pontifical Bibilical Commission, under Pius X, which spells out what we are required to believe from Genesis.  These parameters leave a range of options. https://thesocraticcatholic.com/2017/02/08/pope-st-pius-x-responses-of-the-biblical-commission/

Question 1. Are the various exegetical systems that have been devised for the purpose of excluding the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis and advocated under the guise of being scientific based upon solid arguments?

Response: No.

Question 2. Is it possible, in spite of the character and historic form of the book of Genesis, of the close connection of the first three chapters with one another and with those that follow, of the manifold testimony of the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament, of the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers, and of the traditional view – transmitted also by the Jewish people – that has always been held by the Church, to teach that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the narrative of things that actually happened, that is, [a narrative] that corresponds to objective reality and historic truth, but, rather, either fables derived from mythologies and cosmologies of ancient peoples but purified of all polytheistic error and accommodated to monotheistic teaching by the sacred author; or allegories and symbols destitute of any foundation in objective reality but presented under the garb of history for the purpose of inculcating religious and philosophical truth; or, finally, legends partly historical and partly fictitious, freely composed for the instruction and edification of souls?

Response: No to each part.

Question 3. Is it possible, in particular, to call in question the literal and historical meaning where there is question of facts narrated in these same chapters that touch the foundation of the Christian religion, such as, among others, the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of the first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the command given by God to man to prove his obedience, the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent, the fall of the first parents from that primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer?

Response: No.

Question 4. In interpreting those passages of these chapters that the Fathers and Doctors have interpreted in divers ways without leaving us anything definite or certain, is it permitted, subject to the judgment of the Church and following the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which each one has prudently found correct?

Response: Yes.

Question 5. Must each and everything, namely, the words and phrases, that occur in the aforesaid chapters always and of necessity be interpreted in the literal sense, so that it is never permitted to deviate from it, even when expressions are manifestly used not literally (but) metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to depart from, the literal sense?

Response: No.

Question 6. Presupposing the literal and historical sense, may an allegorical and prophetical interpretation of certain passages of these same chapters, corresponding to the luminous example of the holy Fathers and the Church herself, be prudently and usefully applied?

Response: Yes.

Question 7. Although it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation but rather to hand on to his people a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, adapted to the senses and to man's capacity, is it necessary, when interpreting these chapters, to seek strictly and always the particular characteristics of scientific discourse?

Response: No.

Question 8. Can the word yom (day), (which) is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, be understood both in its literal sense as natural day and also in a non-literal sense as a certain space of time; and is it permitted to discuss this question among exegetes?

Response: Yes.

[Sempronius]

What are you now?

Whatever Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were.  A god, yes, but a personal and particular god, difficult to swallow.  "Pagan" is a good word, but nowadays it connotes listeners of Norwegian black metal lighting bonfires to Odin.  "Agnostic" will suffice.  Xavier recently told Gloria Patri something like, "God is your father, Gloria Patri, not the monkey."  I liked that.  Me, my father is neither a deity nor a monkey.  He is a human primate (technically, a great ape).

You should adopt Michel Montaignes mindset. His motto "que sais je?", what do I know?

He was a sceptic but very virtuous and a great company.

[Mono no aware]

Thank you, Jayne.  I understand the Church's position; it is a highly problematic one.  You and I discussed theistic evolution in agonizing detail four years ago on this thread.  I don't deny that the Church permits theistic evolution.  It's a huge problem that it does, rendering questions of evolution all the more meaningful.  A god who chooses to create man by a tortuously slow and painful process (allowing millions of years of animal suffering through predation, famine, and disease) would have to be a sadist of a god.  But, we've already argued about that.