America, South Korea, Finland, Nordic Europe are very rich. Is Protestant more suitable for those countries?
I have never seen anything that persuaded me of that, though some protestants are quick to claim it. One needs to realize that southern Germany is largely Catholic and is every bit as prosperous as the more protestant northern Germany; more so in some places. And France was once significantly more prosperous than England. And northern Italy was once more prosperous than any others, and still is prosperous on nearly a “Germanic” level…
Some of the protestant countries had certain advantages in terms of resources, access to trade routes, etc at different points in time. When the mass of trade shifted from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic, it changed the prosperity pattern. Some wealthy countries, such as Holland, are mixed Catholic and protestant. Same with Belgium. Luxembourg is more Catholic than not.
I don’t think there is really any correlation. In Europe, at least, the big “divides” are Mediterranean vs Atlantic and “Always capitalist” vs. “Used to be Communist”.
I can’t see that connection… however, when we go deep in history we will find that it is the Catholic Church that is the Builder of Civilization (there’s a book with that title and you can find videos of it on EWTN–free online); then we can trace Luther’s revolt and the subsequent splintering of his movement.
The Catholic Church operates with the poor… she originated the hospitals and universities and the various social venues to serve the poor–even Luther recognized the failure of his movement:
Martin Luther: Germans Are More “Avaricious, Unmerciful, Impure and Wicked than Previously Under the Papacy” (https://web.archive.org/web/20150909204751/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/02/martin-luther-after-lutheran-gospel-was.html)
Non-Catholic religions offer greater opportunities for those who want to be their own leaders (30, 000+ sects) and so it s quite probable that migration of wealth has taken place.
It could be that they receive their reward in this life instead of the next.
By what measure of wealth?
In the top ten per capita GDP countries, you will find a mix of countries that could be categorized as having religious roots in the following traditions: Protestant, Shinto, Buddhist, Muslim, and Catholic.
By another measure, I see a list that includes Protestant, Catholic, Shinto, and (officially) Atheist countries.
What I see in your post is some cherry picking and an erroneous conclusion. Lay out some facts if you want to have this discussion.
Read Max Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism for an insight into the relationship between Calvinism and capitalism.
THank you all very much
Do you think that Protestant is the basis of Capitalism?
Protestantism and prosperity are share many of the same geographic and cultural factors, but are not direct causes of each other.
The United States of America is the richest nation on earth because it controls an entire continent of resources, and has been largely free of domestic instability for its entire history. It is a majority protestant because much of our culture is derived from England.
England was the richest and most powerful nation on earth for some time because, as an island, it was isolated from many of the continental conflicts on Europe. Because of it was protected from continental armies by the English Channel, it was was able to develop economically and militarily with little outside interference. It developed a powerful Navy, and was able to colonize much of the world. It had a very tolerant culture that allowed the native elites of its colonies to integrate into British society, thereby making its empire manageable. It became Protestant because it viewed the Pope as a threat to its dominance in the world, as British citizens would have split loyalties between the King and Rome.
The Nordic countries are rich because they are resource rich, but have small populations. They have large expanses of uninhabitable land that can be minded for minerals, etc, to support their small affluent populations. They are protestant because of their relative isolation and insular cultures that reject outside leaders such as the pope.
South Korea is Protestant due to British and American influence. The similarly situated Philippines are Catholic due to Spanish influence. South Korea is relatively prosperous due to American investment following the Korean War.
No, because look at the current state of some of the Protestant Churches, They are bleeding out members to atheism and Non-denominational Churches.
What makes those countries prosperous is fundamentally free and open market systems, although Nordic Europe has gotten away with oil riches and having its defense heavily subsidized by other countries.
I think that it may be that they are drawn to wealth because there are many preaching the “keys” fellowship–this is a theology of how it is ‘God’s Providence’ that man should enjoy wealth and health on earth (I think mostly based on Old Testament Scriptures) making Christ Admonishments void:
6:20 But store up treasures for yourselves in heaven, where neither moth nor woodworms destroy them and thieves cannot break in and steal. 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (St. Matthew)
There is even Catholic Teaching on both Capitalism and Socialism–neither are to be faulted as bad since both can be conductive to the betterment of mankind. The problem is that through Socialism there are huge abuses where almost all citizens are devoid of rights; however, Capitalism gone rampant can also prove detrimental to humanity as the few (and corrupted) hold the wealth and choke out the masses. Still, Capitalism is seen as the vest venue to distribute wealth in a just way while allowing for personal ownership and growth.
The US has geographical resources like literally no other country on the earth.
Take for example, the Mississippi River. The presence of this mighty river that begins in Minnesota and exits to the Gulf Mexico in New Orleans allows for the ease with which shipping from the interior of the country out to the world takes place. You can find many rivers around the world that support commerce very well, but you will find none that are the equivalent in both size and volume of shipping.
Another example is the presence of multiple seaports on both coasts with extensive support from the interstate railroad and highway networks. Again, the scale is like none other.
So back to the original question, it is the degree to which the predominant centers of commerce have moved thru the centuries and millennia of our history.
…only one comment:
…actually, it became Protestant because its king wanted to divorce his current wife since she did not give him a male heir; so when the Church refused to grant him a divorce on such grounds he divested himself of her Authority, making Catholicism illegal and punishable by incarceration, exile or death.
Conversely, the empire never got a male heir; only through the murder of his Catholic mother did James, a Protestant, gained succession to the throne… then it’s all history from there!
Certainly industrial age capitalism developed in Protestant countries. Is protestantism the basis of modern day capitalism? Depends n your definition of capitalism. If you define capitalism (properly in my opinion) as the separation of capital and labor, yes. If you are instead using the term loosely to refer to freedom of enterprise, certainly not.
The king sought a decree of nullity, not a divorce, based on the impediment of affinity because Catherine was his brother’s widow.
The decree of nullity was denied on the grounds that the previous pope had granted a dispensation from the impediment and therefore the marriage was valid.
Henry became convinced it was a divine law impediment, rather than ecclesial, and therefore not able to be dispensed. The pope disagreed.
How much is the decisions and assertions on both sides were due to political moves vs religious belief will be the subject of debate ad infinity.
…so the fact that he died without a male heir, which is what he sought had nothing to do with wanting to get rid of his wife?
…and since we are on that issue, the king married his brother’s widow but did not know that she was his brother’s widow before he married her?
As I said, the motives can be argued to infinity (and back).
The fact is that he petitioned for a decree of nullity on the grounds of affinity. And he we denied based on the fact that the pope at the time of his marriage dispensed the impediment. He argued it was a divine law impediment. His wife’s inability to conceive or bring to term after Mary’s birth convinced him the prohibition in Leviticus was a divine law impediment and his calamities were a result.
Not at all. Of course he knew. I am not sure what prompted the question.
So basically, you are saying that the Church proved to be a useful political ally, until it threatened the king and his successor’s authority, so the king severed ties…
Who me? No I’m not saying that at all. Henry was a serious theologian, as well as a statesman.