Posted on 04/01/2007 12:47:35 PM PDT by siunevada
Vous avez Freepmail
2. John Paul the Great lowered the Vatican boom on "liberation" "Theology" after a CELAM Conference in the early 1980s. Several of the leading "Liberation" "Theologians" were defrocked, Dario Castrillon de Hoyos of Columbia who is now a curial cardinal was then sectretary of CELAM and was JP the Great's point man on the ground in Latin America suppressing the liberationist heretics while the then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger utilized the Holy Office which he chaired to take disciplinary action against the red miscreants. Evangelization of Latin America was active under JP the Great and his efforts began with the suppression of red clergy and nuns. He also visited red Nicaragua and ordered priests in Ortega's regime to resign, which orders were disobeyed, but the message was delivered.
3. The Mexican communists of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) assassinated Lev Trotsky in Mexico in 1939. The Mexican reds were NOT Trotskyites (although it would have been no more of a feather in their cap if they had been). And, of course, the brutal martyrdom of the Cristeros is yet one more reason for devout Catholics among Mexicans to cross into the US while the crossing is possible.
Partial explanation may be the words of our Founder to Pilate: “My Kingdom is not of this world.”
Yipes! I never saw that quote before. Poor Paul VI - I think he wanted to be liked and just did as he was told by whoever were the real powers in the Vatican at that time. Except for one thing, Humanae Vitae.
You should ask for your money back.
Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods. I think that is covered pretty thoughly. The Church is not an economic education institute. In any case, the major problem in Latin America with land is that it is hard to gain title to what you happen to use, and what is available is concentrated into a few hands, rather than owned in a wide distribution like in America.
FWIW in many countries such as Guatemala the Catholic Church does greatly influence who is elected.
Could you have picked a worse example? Guatemala is the most Protestant country in Latin America.
Nope. I made my money back over and over. Ever hear opf peer review? It does not mean you.
Or not.
...an excellent point, vladimir...just last night on EWTN’s Journey Home I saw three former Baptists lay the lumber to this revisionist nonsense, including the ‘Trail of Blood’...
Look up Ana Baptists...Baptists are not Protestants. They were part of the Body of Christ and pre-date Catholism.
You wrote:
“Look up Ana Baptists...”
16th century sect that later became the Mennonites after their horrible polygamous and murderous rule over the city of Munster. They are in no way related to the Baptists. This is a common myth that the earliest Baptists did not believe in.
“Baptists are not Protestants.”
Yes, actually they are - doubly so - for they protested against the Anglican Church for being too Catholic!
“They were part of the Body of Christ and pre-date Catholism.”
Nope, and educated Baptists admit that is nonsense. Again, look at Protestant church historian James McGoldrick’s devastating critique of this Baptist Successionism nonsense.
You ought to read Ecological Imperalism by Crosby. In it he explains that regions of what was to become the USA, had vast American Indian populations and cities, and corn farms as far as the eye could see, when the Spanish travelled through in the 1500's. Yet, 200 years later, when Anglo/Celtic settlers arrived, these areas were empty, overgrown wildernesses. It wasn't due to our extermination -- they were mostly gone before we arrived.
So, where did they go? Simple. The diseases brought by the Spanish, to which the natives had no resistance, caused one slate-wiper plague after another on the native populations. Hence, Anglo/Celtic American pioneers moved mostly into empty land. Yes, there were Indian wars -- exaggerated by Hollywood -- but on the whole the soon-to-be USA was largely empty when we settled it.
The depopulation of the natives occurred in Mexico too, of course, but they started with a larger population to begin with, and also -- with many Spanish and African genes entering the population -- resistance to Old World diseases was perhaps acquired more rapidly. But diseases outran the genes, and a virus brought to Mexico could run all the way to Canada within a matter of months, wiping out natives who'd never yet even heard of white men.
That is certainly possible. What we know for sure is that for whatever reason, the Indians of Latin America mostly survived but the Indians of North America mostly vanished.
But what you say makes sense. It could have been diseases spreading up from the south as well as from the British colonists. Why that would have spared the Indians of one area and not the other, I don’t know, but it’s certainly possible.
What you say about intermarriage could also help explain it. Resistance to diseases would have been greater where there was more intermarriage, and less in the north where there was strong feeling against intermarriage.
Assuming those birth rates are as low or lower please explain why.
Actually, you're rather off on both counts. First of all, there wasn't such a strong feeling against intermarriage in Anglo-America as you think; many of the "First Families" of Virginia, for example, proudly boast of their "Indian" blood, and huge numbers of "white" (and "black") Americans can truthfully claim some Native American ancestry. There was some bigotry here and there, it's true, but America probably absorbed more Indians than we shot.
Secondly, you have to consider the temporal factor. The disease wave spreading up from the Spanish colonies, tribe by tribe, all the way to the soon-to-be-USA, would have wiped out vast numbers of natives starting in the 1500's. Anglo settlers didn't arrive into those many of those areas til the late 1600's or early 1700's -- by which time the depopulation had already happened and the only traces of the massive former civilization were a few small villages of survivors scattered thinly among the vast, overgrown city and ceremonial mounds (google "Mound Builders" if you don't already know about this).
And so, the Anglo settlers intermarried a lot less, simply because there were a lot fewer Indians to intermarry with in the first place. If the Anglos had arrived earlier, intermarriage might have passed the Euro-disease-resistant genes to the North American natives a lot sooner -- which might have either blunted the depopulation or at least allowed a faster rebound after the initial die-off (as seems to have been the case in Mexico.)
As a Protestant I've often looked longingly at Mormons too... "If only we could get Christians to adopt a Mormon lifestyle, we'd be home free", I've said more than once.
BTW they have an almost Catholic attitude toward contraception and seem to have much larger families than the Catholics that I know (with a few exceptions.) I also know some non-contracepting Protestant homeschoolers, but the Mormons beat everyone (except perhaps the Amish) in the fertility wars.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.