The Catholic Knight has an interesting article over at his site about the growth of Catholicism in the South and the effect that Southerners have on the faith. TCK’s piece is excerpted below:
The news stories keep coming in, one after another, reporting the same thing. The names and places are different, but the gist is the same. Catholicism is moving to the Southland of Dixie, and when it does, two phenomena happen. First, it takes on a staunchly conservative, orthodox and evangelistic character. Second, people in the South (mostly Baptists, Evangelicals and Pentecostals) are for the most part accepting and hospitable.
…North American Catholicism needs the South (Dixie) because the strong Evangelical character of the South has two effects on Catholicism. First, it weeds out the chaff. Nominal Catholics are quickly picked off and proselytised into Evangelical churches. Second, it strengthens the strong, like iron sharpens iron, it makes good Catholics better Catholics, and in turn gives them a strong Evangelistic character. This vibrant, and staunchly orthodox, Catholicism in turn brings in converts, as Evangelicals become attracted to REAL CATHOLICISM, the way the Church was meant to be, not the watered-down liberal Catholicism that is so common in the North and West. North American Catholicism is in sore need of this. As liberal Catholicism breaks down in the North, and enclaves into little more than a cultural expression in the West; a vibrant orthodoxy meshed with aggressive evangelism, is a form of Catholicism North America hasn’t seen in some 400 years! It has been sorely missed, and desperately needed.
Old Rebel over at Rebellion posted a similar blog entry today. Here’s the response (slightly edited) that I gave over there:
Well, as a “Continuing Anglican” (look it up in Wiki) and a son of the South, I must say that I agree with some of TCK’s analysis and disagree with some of it. There were in fact some Confederate Anglicans (e.g., Lee) and there was some high church expression here and there in Southern Anglicanism. However, I would point out that aside from this, and aside from the fact that certain affinities are to be found between the vestigial old European culture of the South and the Roman Catholic Church by virtue of the fact that it is the church of old Europe, Southern American culture and Catholic culture have little in common. By the author’s own admission, Roman Catholicism has come to the South from two places, the American Northeast (Yankeedom) and Latin America. The argument that Roman Catholicism can be suffciently a) Dixiefied and b) purified of its sloth, liberalism and nominalism by the Evangelical South is a questionable one indeed. It’s anyone’s guess how Southern nationalists could render loyalty to a church that cheers on their own demographic demise by its unswerving support of illegal immigrants. And that’s just for starters.
Another point: the feud between the Church of England and the Church of Rome that began at the English Reformation was a bitter one and arguably continues to be so. Just read about Roman Catholic/Anglican relations in England from the Reformation to recent times. Rome desperately wants the English Church (and her daughters) back into the fold, and Anglicans for the most part want none of it. Even among the Anglo-Catholics, the attrition rate to Rome has been minimal. I know I speak for the vast majority of traditionalist Anglicans when I say that we do not need to be Roman to be Catholic.
The demographic struggle between Anglo North America and Latin America here in the States today is something of a continuation of the struggle between the Reformational and post-Reformational Church of England — which is nationalistic and Anglo-Saxon — and the Church of Rome, which after the Reformation was predominantly *Southern* European. The latter’s expansion into Mexico, Central and South America gave it a Mestizo character in those lands while the former’s expansion into North America remained Anglo-Saxon in character. If Dixie wishes to REMAIN Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celtic, I would submit the Church of Rome is not its friend. No offense, TCK.
P.S., for an excellent treatment from an ethnotheological perspective of the historical struggle between the English Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church, see Andrew Fraser’s “The WASP Question”.
A Catholic South = a Mestizo South.
The Catholics mixed their blood seed with and converted everything from Mexico all the way down to Argentina. The results of which are now pouring over the Southern border into Dixie. Don’t know why they weren’t smart enough to bring over some European women with them.
Churchianity is not our friend, whether it be Catholic, Baptist etc. They all preach universalism and multiculturalism.
“Snaggle: If Dixie wishes to REMAIN Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celtic, I would submit the Church of Rome is not its friend. No offense, TCK.”
“TCK: and race is not an issue for me. If you embrace our Southern culture and values, I really don’t care what colour your skin is.”
http://southernnationalist.com/blog/2012/06/07/the-second-great-awakening-southern-christianity/comment-page-1/#comments
Snaggle-Tooth, your overlooking the Cajun (French) and Spanish elements that have had a huge effect here in the Deep South. Christianity came in Catholicism to the Americas. In my home of Alabama, it was Priests who evangelized the natives. From Savannah to New Orleans, the Catholic Character of the South (the character of men like Beauregard, Admiral Semmes, Thomas Mallory, and later converts such as Generals Hardee and Longstreet)cannot be questioned. It was not the mestizos or Yankees, but the Spanish and French who imprinted such a culture.
As for the “Church’s” view of immigration, you’d really have to be a Catholic to understand the powers a Bishop has. Since Vatican II, many of them have turned liberal (unorthodox). You should look to the writings of great Catholics such as Scalia (he dissented in the Supreme Court Ruling over Arizona), Pat Buchanan, and Tom Woods.
You are wrong to say that the Church is not the South’s friend. Pope Pius IX proved you wrong.
In addition, Southern Baptists joined the Bishops in an effort to halt the immigration law. Are Southern Baptists looking out for the interests of Southerners, or are they profiting from the poorly educated Latinos?
Non-denominational “churches” (aptly called atheist barns) are the enemy of Tradition, and for this reason they should be shunned. Only a proper understanding of tradition in life will aid the South.
“Snaggle-Tooth, your overlooking the Cajun (French) and Spanish elements that have had a huge effect here in the Deep South. Christianity came in Catholicism to the Americas. In my home of Alabama, it was Priests who evangelized the natives. From Savannah to New Orleans, the Catholic Character of the South (the character of men like Beauregard, Admiral Semmes, Thomas Mallory, and later converts such as Generals Hardee and Longstreet)cannot be questioned. It was not the mestizos or Yankees, but the Spanish and French who imprinted such a culture.”
I didn’t overlook them at all, DarthJ. I merely didn’t include them in my analysis as they aren’t relevant to the dispute. It isn’t French Catholics or the Spanish Catholics who threaten Anglo-American culture, but Latin American Catholics, legal and illegal. It is they, along with Northeastern Catholics, who account for the growth of Roman Catholicism in the South of which TCK wrote. I’m well aware of the fact that there were good Roman Catholic Confederates, just as there were good Jewish and Greek Orthodox Confederates. But, unlike the Latin American Catholics and Northeastern Catholics who have invaded the South, they were (and are) native Southrons, and none of them were or are involved in a demographic war with us.
“As for the ‘Church’s’ view of immigration, you’d really have to be a Catholic to understand the powers a Bishop has. Since Vatican II, many of them have turned liberal (unorthodox). You should look to the writings of great Catholics such as Scalia (he dissented in the Supreme Court Ruling over Arizona), Pat Buchanan, and Tom Woods.”
I am a Catholic — just not a *Roman* Catholic — and I accordingly understand the powers that a bishop has. Scalia, Buchanan, Woods — all fine conservatives — ARE in fact “dissenters” to the Church’s position on immigration. There’s no way in the world, given what Her official spokesmen have said, that you can make an argument to the effect that the Roman Catholic Church has Dixie’s best interests in mind. Quite the opposite is true.
“You are wrong to say that the Church is not the South’s friend. Pope Pius IX proved you wrong.”
Oh, Pius IX WAS the South’s friend, no question. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, along with the American bishops, are anything but the South’s friend. The Roman Church of the 21st century is not the Roman Church of the 19th.
“In addition, Southern Baptists joined the Bishops in an effort to halt the immigration law. Are Southern Baptists looking out for the interests of Southerners, or are they profiting from the poorly educated Latinos? Non-denominational “churches” (aptly called atheist barns) are the enemy of Tradition, and for this reason they should be shunned. Only a proper understanding of tradition in life will aid the South.”
Yes, so much the worse for Southern Baptist leadership. They have become enemies too (though I suspect they are out of step with MUCH of the laity, especially in the South). I would not go as far as to say they are “atheist barns”, however. I don’t know where you came up with such a notion. Most Evangelicals are arguably more “traditional” than the majority of the increasingly “Episcopalianized” Roman Catholic laity.
I was going to refrain from commenting on this post, since after all, it is my article that is the subject of it. However, since I am now being quoted from previous discussions (out of context I might add), I suppose it would be prudent for me to jump in and set at least a few things straight.
@WhiteSouthron: You have correctly quoted my views on race, religion and culture, but you also did not state the context in which I made that statement. I do thank you however for at least providing the link so people can look it up. Now as for your statements about what my Church teaches, let’s get some things straight…
First, the Catholic Church does not preach “universalism,” at least not in the way that I understand universalism, that is to say that all religions lead to God. Not so, the Catholic Church specifically teaches that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ and the Church which he founded — The Catholic Church. In saying this however, she acknowledges that all Christians are sacramentally united to the Catholic Church, at least in part, by virtue of their common Trinitarian baptism. So if you’ve been baptised in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, you already have your proverbial “foot in the door” of the Catholic Church, and I am obligated by the teachings of the Catholic Church to call you “my Christian brother.”
Second, the Catholic Church does not teach multiculturalism. The Church teaches respect for other people’s culture, but nowhere in the teachings of the Church does it say that a country must embrace all cultures and try to make them exist side-by-side within the same political and geographic borders. In fact, the Church encourages the growth and enrichment of a particular dominant culture within the context of the gospel. That would include the culture of Dixie my friend.
Third, I will say this about the teachings of race in the Catholic Church. The Church teaches us to love. As a Catholic Christian man, there is no prohibition upon me to love my own race, to prefer my own race, and to date or marry within my own race, producing offspring that are of my own race. Also, if I prefer to associate mostly with people of my own race, then I am free to do this as well. I have not sinned. You see there is no sin in loving your own kind. What the Church does however teach against is hatred. While I may love my own race, I am not permitted to hate another, or treat another unjustly. This is contrary to the gospel. So it is in this personal context that I make the statement: “race is not an issue for me. If you embrace our Southern culture and values, I really don’t care what colour your skin is.” I have my preferences of course, as does anybody who is honest enough to admit it, but when all is said and done, if a man of another race chooses to fully embrace our Southern culture and values, to the point where he has become a Southerner to that effect, who am I to reject him or treat him any differently?
Fourth, as to the liberal Catholicism that one sees so proudly on display in Washington DC, via the USCCB, or in the Northern or Western states, there is something that must be said about the authority structure of the Catholic Church. For starters, the USCCB is not an authoritative body within the Church. It is merely a coordinating body that is subject to canon law. Unfortunately, the people running that organisation are liberals, and as if they have nothing better to do, they seem to feel the need to pontificate on every single political issue of the day. I should state quite plainly here, that in spite of the authoritative tone they often take, a tone that has been rebuked by Rome more than once, they have no authority whatsoever over any bishop, priest, or layperson within the Catholic Church. The statements frequently issued by the USCCB are often not worth the paper they are printed on, and most Catholics will ignore them anyway. Even with the USCCB hosts a bishops’ convention, wherein they vote on various resolutions, those resolutions themselves have no binding authority whatsoever until Rome rubber-stamps them. Even then, an individual bishop is still free to ignore them, and sometimes a good number of them do. So remember that the next time you hear about “the U.S. Catholic Church says” this or that. Did the statement come from the USCCB? If it did, better check with your local bishop then, because there is a chance he may not have even heard of it, and still yet a bigger chance he may ignore it. The real authority in the Catholic Church comes from Rome — the Vatican. After that it’s the individual bishops. There is no organisation or body that speaks AUTHORITATIVELY on behalf of ALL the U.S. Catholic bishops. No such body exist.
Fifth and finally, in regards to immigration, I must point you back to what I said in the fourth article above. The USCCB says a lot of things, and most of them are about as far to the left as it can get without attracting too much attention from Rome. The highest authoritative statement on immigration that has ever been made comes from the pope himself, and he said that while countries should be charitable and generous to immigrants, they at the same time have the right to defend themselves from immigration invasions that threaten their national security or cultural identity! “States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity.” — Pope Benedict XVI, September 27, 2010
White Southron writes:
“Churchianity is not our friend, whether it be Catholic, Baptist etc. They all preach universalism and multiculturalism.”
If by “churchianity” you mean Christianity, then, once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Christianity DOES teach a form of *catholicity* while at the same time holding to the *Christian doctrine of nations8. It does not preach “universalism and multiculturalism.” Following the story of Gen. 11, it expressly rejects modern “Towers of Babel.”
Your point in referring us to the discussion of the Second Great Awakening is what, precisely?
Really, White Southron, either lose the Nouvelle Droite/AltRight nonsense or quit claiming to be a Southern nationalist. And if it isn’t your intent to be a Southern nationalist, stop bothering us here at Southern Nationalist Network.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones
I don’t know if White Southron was necessarily talking about Christianity per se, but he is pretty spot on about the churches (both Catholic and Protestant). For the past couple of decades, they (churches with a majority white membership) have been one of the biggest supporters of third world invasion and racial mongrelization in order to prove that they aren’t horrible “racist.” As long as they continue to support our dispossession and extinction, they most certainly are not our friends.
Excellent post, Catholic Knight. You should write a book on Catholicism in the South (with a title like, “Confederate Crusaders” or something).
The three greatest martyrs of the South are also Catholic. Mary Surrat, Commandant Henry Wirz, and John Wilkes Booth (according to his sister) were all devout Catholics. The stamp of Catholicism, then and now, is evident. I am Catholic and a member of the League of the South. TCK is Catholic and a member of the League. Michael has had interviews with several Catholic Southrons (Jon from Augusta and Mark Thomey). Whether yall wish to admit it or not, we’re playing a strong part in Southern independence. The recent HHS mandate will be sure to make even more Catholics across the States come to their sense and join the League.
Joe Reb writes,
“For the past couple of decades, they (churches with a majority white membership) have been one of the biggest supporters of third world invasion and racial mongrelization in order to prove that they aren’t horrible ‘racist.’”
Well, I would like to see some documentation for this, JR. I know where the Roman Catholic Churcg stands, and *a few* Evangelical spokesmen have taken equally damnable positions, but my sense of it is that most Christians — and most churches — have been silent on the issue.
DarthJ writes, “The recent HHS mandate will be sure to make even more Catholics across the States come to their sense and join the League.”
I really do hope you’re right, DarthJ, but I suspect you’re not. I would love nothing more than to see Roman Catholics recover the worldview of Pius IX, but sadly, I don’t see it happening.
Thanks, Joe Reb. Yes, by churchianity I simply meant the mainstream churches. Most of them tend to be pushing an anti-white agenda. That is just the way it is. If that offends people then they need to overthrow their churches and make them preach from the true scripture. Would be like me getting pissed if someone says mainstream Atheists are pro-homosexual, anti-white and hate anybody that believes in God. Guess what, most of them are. I’m in the minority out here.
People assume just because I’m an Atheist I have some kind of anti-Christ agenda. The fact is, I spend alot of my free time on Youtube watching old Christian battle videos. Seeing European men defending their territory from the non-white invaders under the Christian banner was always appealing to me. I look around today and it is the descendants of those very warriors who are bringing in non-white scum to flood us out. Sadly, I could see a multi-cult Christian army going around slaughtering pro-Whites in the future the way things are headed.
“Yes, by churchianity I simply meant the mainstream churches. Most of them tend to be pushing an anti-white agenda.”
How about some documentation for that assertion, WS?
“People assume just because I’m an Atheist I have some kind of anti-Christ agenda. The fact is, I spend alot of my free time on Youtube watching old Christian battle videos. Seeing European men defending their territory from the non-white invaders under the Christian banner was always appealing to me.”
Well, I glad you enjoy movies depicting Christian warriors (I do as well), but allow me to disabuse you of the notion that the Crusades were about race. Those wars were about religion and politics, not race. There were some rather swarthy Christians in that war, namely Italians and Greeks, fighting against the Islamic hordes. Regardless, it was never a war of whites vs. nonwhites, but Christian vs. Muslim.
“Sadly, I could see a multi-cult Christian army going around slaughtering pro-Whites in the future the way things are headed.”
Really, where do you come up with this stuff?
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I highly doubt Europeans would have welcomed Christian non-whites into their lands with open arms during those times. As far I know there was no such thing as a Christian non-white until we came to the new world. Sure, you had a few Jewish converts, but that was mostly so they could infiltrate and cause their usual ruckus. They don’t even have to convert these days, since Christians bow to their knees and worship them as the chosen. I wish Christians had a backbone like the days of old, but they are PC cowards, sadly.
I’m not even going to address the accusation that Greeks and Italians are non-white. Just know that doesn’t fly in true pro-white circles.
Anyway, I’ll stay out of the religious discussions from now on. It is not my fight, even though I can see some crippling diseases have infiltrated into it.
WS
“I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.”
No such agreement from me. You made a claim about the Crusades which you clearly can’t back up.
“I highly doubt Europeans would have welcomed Christian non-whites into their lands with open arms during those times.”
Of course, that is a separate issue. Your original argument was that the Crusades was a race war, which it was not. But as for the historic attitude of European Christians towards non-whites, please note their extensive missions to bring the Gospel to all men irrespective of their race. Note as well that one of the very first Christians, per the Book of Acts, was an Ethiopian.
“As far I know there was no such thing as a Christian non-white until we came to the new world.”
Well, as my previous comment indicates, you don’t “know” much.
“Sure, you had a few Jewish converts, but that was mostly so they could infiltrate and cause their usual ruckus. They don’t even have to convert these days, since Christians bow to their knees and worship them as the chosen. I wish Christians had a backbone like the days of old, but they are PC cowards, sadly.”
Yet another indication, WS, why no one who reads these comments should take you seriously.
“Anyway, I’ll stay out of the religious discussions from now on. It is not my fight, even though I can see some crippling diseases have infiltrated into it.”
Would that you stay out of *every* discussion here, so that you don’t introduce your crippling diseases of AltRight here on an honorable Southern Nationalist site. You have no part with us.
“Well, I would like to see some documentation for this, JR. I know where the Roman Catholic Church stands, and *a few* Evangelical spokesmen have taken equally damnable positions, but my sense of it is that most Christians — and most churches — have been silent on the issue.”
Research this stuff yourself and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Most white Christians and churches have been silent about these issues, but mostly ,as I said, that is because they live in total fear of being called “racist.”
And by the way, I happen to enjoy White Southron’s posts. I also think you are far too quick to paint with a broad stroke.
“Research this stuff yourself and you’ll see what I’m talking about.”
Uh, you made the assertion, so the burden of proof is yours. It’s not my burden to do your homework.
“And by the way, I happen to enjoy White Southron’s posts.”
More’s the pity.
“I also think you are far too quick to paint with a broad stroke.”
Not sure what “broad stroke” you’re talking about. WS made some factually erroneous statements, and I called him on them. As well, WS represents a point of view that has little if anything to do with genuine Southern nationalism. He — and maybe you too — would find a more natural home over at Stormfront, and not here.
Snaggle-Tooth Jones
What I mean’t by broad stoke, I was referring to you calling WS posts “Nouvelle Droite/AltRight nonsense.” I suppose you’ll say the same thing about my posts as well.
That being said, I can see that we are not going to agree on anything. No matter what me or WS say, you aren’t going to believe anyway, so why bother anymore.
One thing people should remember is that while “organized” Christianity may present certain ideals – this does not mean that these ideals are Biblically supported. Look at the Evangelical Lutheran Association (ELCA) – utilizing the name of Martin Luther, the great reformer of Christendom, they are now espousing Homosexual doctrine, and other heretical doctrine. I can only guess how Luther would respond to such.
I myself grew up a Baptist. But being Baptist does not make me a Christian (follower of Christ and His teachings – which includes Old Testament Law). Rather, my being a Christian means that I’m working to study what God’s word says, and trying to promote His law and truth for our civilization today.
I believe that if modern Southern Civilization seeks to depart from this truth and law, it is truly doomed to the same path as the Federal Empire and largely European godless superstate. The South has succeeded in so many ways through the years (including the horrible difficulty of the war and reconstruction) because of it’s reliance of God and His truth. And also, if I may remind you, being a follower of Christ doesn’t mean you’re a weak-kneed pansy. Truth is very much worth fighting for!
I think TCK was pretty clear that any immigrants to the South, whether they’re Yankees or from South or Central America, as long as they assimilate and not try to change things here, should not be considered a threat. Don’t get me wrong…there are plenty of Yankees, Catholic and Protestant that are complete asshats and arrogant bastards…and they should be bound and gagged and sent back north to Yankee-land never to return. I’ll do my part if the rest of y’all do yours.