Protestants

Hookey

getz wrote: »

anne boleyn wasent she irish and born near killkenny ? [trust the irish to start it all]

What? No, she was from Norfolk.

getz

Hookey wrote: »

What? No, she was from Norfolk.

thats interesting the irish tourist book says she was born in the familys house near killkenny

Denerick

WindSock wrote: »

So you disagree that the Catholic church has amassed great wealth? Where do you think that wealth came from? How was St Peters built?

The church amassed great wealth... in the 1500s and before. How can this possibly be the cause of Catholic Europe's poverty? How does that even make sense to you?

The strict moral guidelines imposed by the church meant everybody was kept in control. No one questioned it for fear of going to hell or get branded a heretic and get tortured or hung. Isn't that why the reformation emerged?

And this is different from Protestantism how?

In regards to Ireland, why would you have such a large family when you can barely feed yourself? You must have sex only to concieve, everything was a bloody sin, women were virtual slaves. How can you live up the the ideal of the 'Virgin Mary'?

This is just sectarian bigotry, not a valid point about how Catholic Europe supposedly remained in poverty because of the church.

WindSock

Denerick wrote: »

The church amassed great wealth... in the 1500s and before. How can this possibly be the cause of Catholic Europe's poverty? How does that even make sense to you?

What do you mean how does it make sense to me? It makes sense because they have a lot of wealth and power. Wealth that they took from the poor.

And this is different from Protestantism how?

Surely the Catholic side was more rampant than Protestant for this type of thing.

This is just sectarian bigotry, not a valid point about how Catholic Europe supposedly remained in poverty because of the church.

It's valid to me. I do not affiliate myself with either following, I was born and raised in Catholic Ireland. I have heard and seen accounts of women who were treated unfairly because of the church's views that governed our policys. To me, it seems like women are treated more fairly in Protestant countries in Europe, and in these countries there seems to be less poverty and better managed governments.

I am taking mike65s view on this one :pac:

Manach

... and I'll be agreeing with Denerick on the wealth creation and the role of the Church. From memory, my reading of (translated) primary documents from the period (late middle ages) suggested that the Church was a net wealth generator. For instance, the transformation of barren land into productive arable fields by monks.

Manach

Well if I were in charge, the wealth would have gone to wine, women and song. However, I believe I have shown that some portions of the Church's wealth came from productive means and not solely from the poor which was your question several posts back. Where do you think that wealth came from?

walrusgumble

A tad bit off topic, but genuine question

I am well aware that throughout the irish revolutions, Protestants have played a major role in the republican/nationalist cause be it constitutionalism or by force...

so,does anyone know of any accounts of people of the protestant faith of all social classes, who had family relations who had fought for Wolfe Tone (lets say for arguments sake, the foundation of modern Republicanism in this Statee) and other rebellions such as Emmets, Young Irelanders and Fenians or support nationalist politicans but later family became staunch unionists during say eg 1916-1945 and say during the troubles in the north? (imagine finding out, mad dog adair had a distance uncle who fought under eg robert emmet, that would be some fun!!!)

the question i want to know it, if, say certain family members had originally being republican, what changed future families alligence?

I note the changing times, and every member of a family is different


please no smart ass remarks like cumann na ngeadheal/fine gael , west brits nonsense.

DublinDes

mike65 wrote: »

Well Italy and Ireland are corrupt, Iceland and Norway are not. Thats my sophisicated reasoning.

Iceland's economic collapse is a fine example of the Protestant superior work ethic. I would have thought the Norwegians were doing well thanks to the abundance of oil off their coast and not the Protestant work ethic. Are say, the people of Bahrain well off because their protestants or Islamic ?

Switzerland is possibly the most successful country in the world. Amazingly the largest religion is Catholicism ? Two countries mentioned in this thread as possible proof of the Protestant work ethic are Germany and Holland.

Germany - Protestantism is concentrated in the north and east and Roman Catholicism is concentrated in the south and west. Each denomination comprises about 31% of the population. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany#Religion

Holland - Currently Roman Catholicism is the single largest religion of the Netherlands, forming the religious home of some 26.6 % of the Dutch people down from 40 percent in the 1970s. The number of Catholics is not only declining, also many people who identify themselves as Roman Catholics do not attend Sunday mass often ( Sounds very much like Ireland ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands

I would have thought that the success of a country, well in modern Europe as these are the ones mostly mentioned, has all to do with which side of the iron curtain it was on, how much destruction brought on it by WW2 and how much Marshall Aid it got to rebuild after the war, whether it was an imperial power or an exploited country etc than the religion of most of it's people.

DublinDes

getz wrote: »

i looked up on wiki answers.co as to why cromwell hated the catholic church so much this is what was said ---the catholic church used to castrate young boys with good voices ,just so that their voice wouldent change,to make their choirs sound good,prostestants had different good reasons for torture and abuse,-yes i agree with you mate

British heros who did so much to make Britain a 'successful' country like Drake, Raleigh etc did not " castrate young boys " but instead raped them and sold them as slaves, then returning to England to give the Crown and their sponsors which included the Church of England, their share fo the profit.

philologos

Hookey wrote: »

But they're pretty much minority sects in the British Isles aren't they? I'm assuming we'd have ended up Church of Ireland which is just Anglican with a different accent. And I know there are more evangelical flavours of Anglicanism as well (e.g. in Africa), but the, well, "white" versions (Episcopalians in the US/Canada?) seem pretty tame.

As for Church of Ireland, it isn't Anglicanism with a different accent, it is Anglicanism itself.

The way Anglicanism works worldwide is as follows:

There are Provinces of the Anglican Communion, such as the Church of Ireland, the Church of England, the Church of Nigeria, the Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East, The Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church of Scotland, the Episcopal Church of the USA etc.

In each of these provinces there is an independent decision making process known as the General Synod by which issues are discussed and decisions are made about the direction of the Church. However, this is where provinces can differ, and recently a pillar of conservatism has split the US Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada over the consecration of homosexuals as ministers in the church, a secondary issue has involved how the Northern provinces of the Church have allowed women to enter into ministry.

The Church heirarchy is made up of 2 Archbishops, Bishops, clergy and deacons. In Ireland there is the Archbishop of Dublin (Metropolitan), and the Archbishop of Armagh (Primate). Primate means that that individual is the most senior individual in that particular province. The primate of the Church of England is the most senior in the whole Anglican Communion.

Every 8 years, the global church meets in Lambeth to discuss issues pertaining to global Anglicanism. This did not happen last year however, due to recent issues in the Church, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams decided to strengthen relationships between the bishops of the global provinces.

As for the different flavours:
1) Anglo-Catholic: Basically hold the same view as Catholics except they differ on issues such as priests marrying, and the authority of the Pope. Not popular in Ireland, but is rather popular in the USA, and in the UK where Catholicism isn't the primary religion.

2) Evangelical: Emphasises the Protestantism of the Church and the writings of the Reformers Richard Hooker, and Thomas Cranmer and holds to the 39 Articles of Religion. Sydney Anglicanism is considered to be the most Evangelical in the communion and they have taken conservative views on the homosexuality / women pastors issue. They are also motivated by Calvinism, and predestination and such topics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Anglicans

3) Liberal: Have promoted a liberal understanding of the Bible, and have suggested that we need to redefine the direction of the church to accomodate changing times. This ideology is mainly in Canada and the USA right now.

Most in Ireland would be of Evangelical or Liberal breeds of Anglicanism.

Just to clear that up, sorry for the huge post

Bog Butter

I would agree that the C.C has had a negitive effect in this country but I would be more inclined to blame the Irish culture (i.e the far right, conservative, old fashioned, god fearing, insular, protectionist culture) of the time. I would lump the C.C in with the government and the power holders in general of the time. I think if it had been a Protestant religon with the same power structure and culture it would have been the same.

Having said that if we have had adopted the Protestent religon would we have had the Penal laws, the Ulster Plantations, the subsequent agrarian warfare, which has evolved into the modern day sectararianism etc.? Would we have adopted Dev's ideals i.e frugal comforts, protectionism etc.?

I think not. I think that we were so obsessed with our sovernity post partition that we closed ourselves off as a country and we adopted the above mentioned culture which allowed the C.C to be a oppressive force. Had those same priests, nuns and bishops been born into a different country or culture I think their behaviour would have been different.

delta_bravo

malman wrote: »

Having said that if we have had adopted the Protestent religon would we have had the Penal laws, the Ulster Plantations, the subsequent agrarian warfare, which has evolved into the modern day sectararianism etc.? Would we have adopted Dev's ideals i.e frugal comforts, protectionism etc.?

I think not.

Well since the penal laws targeted Catholics and if we had all become Protestant of course they probably wouldnt have been put in place.

The Ulster Plantation may not have occured to the extent it did but Irish land was inevitably going to be carved up and given to English lords and others as was done in other colonies.

Agrarian unrest was also attributed to the fact the absentee landlords let their estates dilapidate with little investment in the land leading to tenant unrest and cannot be solely attributed to religion.

These 'what ifs' really dont answer any questions in history but in fact create more, none of which can be properly answered.

WindSock wrote: »

I'm trying to see what good the Catholic church has done for the Irish. I know that they did do a great job in educating, feeding (sort of) and nursing us. Apart from that, I think we have been very oppressed by them

You really answered your own question as to the good of the church.

WindSock wrote: »

I was just wondering what Ireland would have been like if we didn't have the Catholic Church to answer to? Would we have suffered as much by the hands of the English if we converted to their religion more willingly? And how would it affect us today?

There is no real answer anyone can give to these kind of questions. Perhaps we would have been eradicated of all traces of 'Irishness' by now and resemble any english county. Its impossible to say

philologos

delta_bravo: Then again the Penal Laws also applied in Britain to Catholics and dissenting Protestants (i.e non-Anglicans). It was more a pressure to accept the State faith or Anglicanism as opposed to other Christian denominations which were seen to be heretical or deviant from the Christianity that had been revealed to Christ and the Apostles. This is an understanding of another age thankfully.

delta_bravo

Jakkass wrote: »

delta_bravo: Then again the Penal Laws also applied in Britain to Catholics and dissenting Protestants (i.e non-Anglicans). It was more a pressure to accept the State faith or Anglicanism as opposed to other Christian denominations which were seen to be heretical or deviant from the Christianity that had been revealed to Christ and the Apostles. This is an understanding of another age thankfully.

Thats what i was trying to say, perhaps not well conveyed at this hour. That penal laws wouldnt have been an issue if all Irish people were members of the established church

sukikettle

I disagree with Jakkass the C.C. does deviate from Christ's original teachings and I was born into catholicism btw and dropped the religious yoke.

fryup

will you all just loosen up

religion should never be taken seriously...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiUC9qXPWjk&feature=related

Denerick

DublinDes wrote: »

I would have thought that the success of a country, well in modern Europe as these are the ones mostly mentioned, has all to do with which side of the iron curtain it was on, how much destruction brought on it by WW2 and how much Marshall Aid it got to rebuild after the war, whether it was an imperial power or an exploited country etc than the religion of most of it's people.

Yes, well said. And at the time Weber was writing about (The century or so after the reformation up to the American revolution (?)) there were many other factors that moved the wealth axiom northwards to the north atlantic coast away from its traditional berth in the mediterranean. I think it has more to do with the new world, who was willing and able to found new colonies fasted, who had invested in a strong merchant fleet etc.

Holland is the supreme example. In its 80 year war of independence with Spain Holland had become a de facto independent power, with its own strong fleet and professional army, as well as advanced urban trading centres, deep ports and an industrious people. As a very small nation in a relatively perilous geographical position (Very close to greater powers of the time such as Sweden, France, England, ruled by Spain...) she emerged as one of the mercantile age's great powers, and remained there for the greater part of the 1700s.

Nothing to do with what church you go to on a Sunday :rolleyes:

philologos

Denerick: Then again Max Weber's work on the Protestant Work Ethic does indicate that passages from Proverbs concerning work did influence the mindset of many to build the system of capitalism that exists in the USA. You're right in saying that it isn't what church you go to on a Sunday, but rather it was how a text motivated people to work a certain way.

WindSock

Of course religious beliefs don't effect and economy all by itself, but it is one factor to look at, and will permeate the national psyche on some level that will generate a certain amount of input/output. I think the Protestant Ethic is a valid point by Weber - work 6 days from dusk till dawn and re-invest the wealth into property/industry.
Religion doesn't permeate people as much now as it did 2/3/400 years ago, so I think it would have been more evident in the past that the general populations belief will effect the economy.

Denerick

Yes it certainly influenced the minds of those who believed in it. But I don't think it was the deciding factor by a longshot. I think it was a more a case of coincidence that capitalism took off from where it did - It was the culmination of a series of economic changes in Europe in the early modern age, the most important the rise of mercantalism and the new world. The fantastic wealth of Spain in the 16th century came directly from its colonies; Its decline came directly from its inability to manage its colonies in the long run, along with pretty poor leadership and general stagnation. But the Spanish golden age had it all - ambitious speculators, wealthy and skilled artisans, great works of art... Every bit the equal of England or holland in its day.

To be short, its just to easy and lazy to blame the catholic church. I'm an atheist by the way but I have long come off the adolescent 'I hate the church and the church ruined everything' stage. I reccomend people start reading more material than the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens for a start!

Denerick

And to be honest, I think people are looking at the early modern Catholic church wrongly. Before the reformation the Church was kind of like a supra-national organisation, a little bit like an advanced EU. Every town and village had its Papal representatives (Priests and bishops) They collected taxes to the common fund (IE the papacy)

How is this different from an early modern monarch collecting taxes through his representatives in the towns and villages (Bailiff's and Constables) and on towards the exchecquer in the capital? What is the fundamental moral difference? Both had claim to unique authority from God, both Pope and Prince. To the individual peasant, paying taxes to both his Prince and his Pope, it didn't really matter.

All the church was in effect was another layer of buraucracy, a tax burden if you will.

But like the Prince, who may (Most often did not) have re-invested the taxes in productive enterprises, the Papacy may or may have not done this. It may have decided to spend money lavishly on great religious works like cathedrals or St Pauls basilica, but what is the difference between this expenditure and a Prince collecting taxes to spend on a Palace? (Or more often, war?)

These are the real questions that Windsock should be asking him/herself.

bullpost

For those who want to read more on this I'd recommend the following book.

Its a very readable potted history of Western Europe and the influence in shaping it which Christianity had.
It nails the myth of the protestant work ethic among other topics:

http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Freedom-Capitalism/dp/0812972333/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239891141&sr=8-2

Hookey

Its far more likely the protestantism took root in countries that already had more of an individualistic and pluralistic culture than it is that protestantism was the device that made them that way. However, the one thing you can say about Catholicism versus Protestantism during and after the reformation is that Catholicism tended to support the concept of the "Divine Right of Kings" more overtly than Protestantism, which in turn lead to more "top down" and less proto-democratic cultures, with a narrower base of wealth distribution. Its also no accident that the concepts of modern banking, joint-stock companies, and a middle class formed in protestant cultures (e.g. Holland and England), and these were the real engines of growth in the early modern era.

England & Holland had a geographic advantage to be sure, but no more than the French or Iberians.

Denerick

I was talking more about how the axiom of wealth moved from the mediterranean to the North Atlantic. This gave the countries of the north Atlantic (England and holland always being cited) an intrinsic advantage over others.

France had massive internal problems. England and Holland also did but managed to sort them out with genuine clarity. France was always dogged by an ancient feudal and aristocratic culture tied to the land - it was political and cultural factors which led to its problems, not intrinsic sociological ones, from which protestantism was supposed to be the cure. Besides, france also became quite rich anyway. In a sense France never sorted out its massive internal problems. In the early modern period it suffered from decentralisation - in later years, such as mid 1650 onwards, it was held back by a terrible monarchy and little or no power to the plutocracy - always the net wealth generators in this period.

Besides, England had its own Divine Rights of Kings problem. It led to the Civil War.

Hookey

Denerick wrote: »

- in later years, such as mid 1650 onwards, it was held back by a terrible monarchy and little or no power to the plutocracy - always the net wealth generators in this period.

Besides, England had its own Divine Rights of Kings problem. It led to the Civil War.

That's exactly my point. Part of England's paranoia about Catholicism was papal backing of royal regimes with no control (or money) going further down the system. The English civil war was as much about not wanting a French or Spanish-style monarchy as anything else, made worse by Charles I's (and later James II's) flirting with Catholicism (or outright conversion in the latter case). Its also why the English eventually brought in symbolic rather than political Royalty with the Hanovers.

The fact that in large part the English probably had nothing to worry about (successive Popes had far less influence on French kings than the English realised, although of course they had the Spanish and Austrian Hapsburgs right in their pocket) is a different issue, as they made the common mistake of confusing correlation (all tyrannical European kings are Catholic, therefore catholicism causes it) with causation (catholicism makes justification for tyrannical behaviour a bit easier because it gives papal backing to the divine right of kings so catholicism suits us). I've no doubt if the popes hadn't overtly or covertly backed the dodgy behaviour of various French, Spanish and Austrian kings, they'd just have taken the Henry VIII option.

Denerick

Hookey wrote: »

That's exactly my point. Part of England's paranoia about Catholicism was papal backing of royal regimes with no control (or money) going further down the system. The English civil war was as much about not wanting a French or Spanish-style monarchy as anything else, made worse by Charles I's (and later James II's) flirting with Catholicism (or outright conversion in the latter case). Its also why the English eventually brought in symbolic rather than political Royalty with the Hanovers.

The fact that in large part the English probably had nothing to worry about (successive Popes had far less influence on French kings than the English realised, although of course they had the Spanish and Austrian Hapsburgs right in their pocket) is a different issue, as they made the common mistake of confusing correlation (all tyrannical European kings are Catholic, therefore catholicism causes it) with causation (catholicism makes justification for tyrannical behaviour a bit easier because it gives papal backing to the divine right of kings so catholicism suits us). I've no doubt if the popes hadn't overtly or covertly backed the dodgy behaviour of various French, Spanish and Austrian kings, they'd just have taken the Henry VIII option.

Good post.

getz

Hookey wrote: »

That's exactly my point. Part of England's paranoia about Catholicism was papal backing of royal regimes with no control (or money) going further down the system. The English civil war was as much about not wanting a French or Spanish-style monarchy as anything else, made worse by Charles I's (and later James II's) flirting with Catholicism (or outright conversion in the latter case). Its also why the English eventually brought in symbolic rather than political Royalty with the Hanovers.

The fact that in large part the English probably had nothing to worry about (successive Popes had far less influence on French kings than the English realised, although of course they had the Spanish and Austrian Hapsburgs right in their pocket) is a different issue, as they made the common mistake of confusing correlation (all tyrannical European kings are Catholic, therefore catholicism causes it) with causation (catholicism makes justification for tyrannical behaviour a bit easier because it gives papal backing to the divine right of kings so catholicism suits us). I've no doubt if the popes hadn't overtly or covertly backed the dodgy behaviour of various French, Spanish and Austrian kings, they'd just have taken the Henry VIII option.

so both the spanish armarda and the french attempt to invade had nothing to do with the catholic church ?is that from the catholic churches own history book ?i must read that sometime

Denerick

Do you think the Catholic Church manipulated the leaders of France and Spain? Thats a very simplistic view.

Snickers Man

Catholicism is the religion of feudalism, monarchy, and hierarchy.

Protestantism is the religion of capitalism, democracy and individualism.

Or so an atheist Trotskyite once tried to convince me.

It's generally true but as always with history it leads to some striking ironies. Notably that most of the monarchies left in Europe are in Protestant countries. (Britain, Scandinavia, Holland). The Catholics only have Spain and Belgium.

philologos

Only problem is Protestantism might be too much to the individual in some implementations, in churches and so on. The belief that Jesus Christ is your personal Lord and Saviour is fine, as long as you realise that Christ is the Lord and Saviour or many others too.

As for Catholicism, people were fed up with not being able to read the Bible in their own language or vernacular. That was infact the main reason of the Reformation for Luther, Tyndale and others.