Quote of the Week
From Michael Sean Winters, Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics can Save the Democrats, 2008, Basic Books, New York, pp. 219-220:
‘One of the most forceful critiques of America’s consumerist culture for its failure to embrace more humane values came in a document the American Catholic bishops issued in 1997 on Hispanics’ role in the Church’s evangelization efforts. “In our country, the modern technological, functional mentality creates a world of replaceable individuals incapable of authentic solidarity,” the bishops wrote. “In its place, society is grouped by artificial arrangements created by powerful economic interests. The common good is an increasingly dull, sterile, consumer conformism… created by artificial needs promoted by the media to support powerful economic interests.”
The bishops voiced the hope that Latino culture, with its own ethos, “historically inseparable from the Catholic faith,” might balance American culture’s consumerism. They specifically noted certain characteristics of Hispanic culture that stand in opposition to our technological society. “A welcoming disposition to what is unexpected, new and unplanned; simplicity… a love for home, land, and an extended view of family,” as well as “an awareness that… persons are more important than things, personal relations more fulfilling than material success, and serenity more valuable than life in the fast lane.” The bishops were quick to note that Latinos were not the only people to possess such an ethos but that these qualities were also more than “merely folkloric stereotypes.” It would be difficult to find a text more prophetic and populist than this, or more hostile to the vested economic and political interests that have caused so many Americans to view politics as captive to special interests. The document should be ammunition for the Democrats’ unseating of the Republicans’ social Darwinism.”‘
We should remember that Hispanics represent the future of the US church, certainly by demographics. We should also remember than prejudice against Hispanic culture was a core component of nativist anti-Catholicism, a prejudice that is alive and kicking in today’s immigration debates.
Comments are closed.
Here in Colorado, former Gov. Richard Lamm (D), who while in the state legislature pushed through the legalization of abortion in 1967, is the leading voice against the immigrant. He is a visible reminder of connection to the eugenics movement that many on the anit-immigrant right and the anti-child left have in common.
The irony is that many of those today who Winters calls “social Darwinists” are, like the original social Darwinists, in favor of open immigration, whereas America’s early immigration restrictions were the result of a coalition between the eugenics movement and organized labor.
MM, I’m going to be uncharacteristically nice to you for once. I grew up in El Paso, Texas. I could see Mexico from my front and back lawn. All of my friends were either Mexican or they were first-generation American. Their parents were undoubtedly faithful Catholics. They were part of the process of me coming to admire the Catholic faith.
I’ve always been opposed to mistreating Mexican immigrants (both illegal and legal) because of my friends and their families (they consider me part of their families as well). I don’t like the idea of building a wall to keep them out (that won’t stop them anyway) or the whole minuteman fiasco. I love their culture, their language, and their faithfulness. I also tend to believe that part of the seemingly anti-Mexican attitude by some lawmakers and many civilians is actually the traditional anti-Catholicism that is historically part of the American culture (I am American, and I love this country and the citizens here, but it would be impossible to deny, with any objectivity, that this country has always been inherently anti-Catholic).
However, I’m not sure whether or not the American bishops, especially those in the northern states who are completely detached with what is going on in the southwestern states (some of which are completely detached with their own dioceses), are, or were, thinking nostalgically about the faithfulness of today’s Mexican immigrants to the Catholic faith. Alot has changed since the generation of my friends’ parents, and even they’ll agree that, today, the Catholics from Mexico (in large part, not all of them) do not have a clear understanding of their faith at all. Many of them are bringing over new pagan traditions that they have mingled in with Catholicism (ex. La Santa Muerte). Many are only nominal Catholics who have no loyalty to Church teaching or the Church in general. In the troubled diocese of El Paso, the numbers attest to this. There have been a very small amount of conversions to the Catholic faith, no new priests coming out of seminary for several years, stagnant growth in the numbers of Catholics (because El Paso is one of the largest Mexican immigrant cities, this backs up the observation that most of these immigrants join Evangelical mega-churches within a few months after arrival), etc. I’ve attended Mass there at two different parishes, and each liturgy was completely wrought with liturgical errors and innovations and one of the homilies was actually heretical. Yet, these two parishes had the largest number of parishioners.
I wouldn’t be too quick to proclaim that today’s Mexican immigrants bring traditional Catholicism and a proper loyalty to Catholic teaching with them.
That being said, I still am opposed to treating them like criminals. However, I do believe that illegal immigration has to stop somewhere. I’m just pointing out that the USCCB may have a distorted image of what version of Catholicism is actually coming across the border today.
I think that there is a huge double standard when it comes to immigration policy today. I’m after watching a large part of the Catholic Irish community in Boston shrink dramatically over the last few years after a “crackdown” on illegal immigration. There has been much difficulty with the Catholic Polish community in the North-east as well. Combine that with the wave of media inciting a sort of racism towards the Catholic Mexican community (not mentioning any names… er… um… Lou Dobson). All the while we are importing Hindus from India at an alarming rate. I’m not opposed to that, but I work with many of them and I can tell you that a large majority of the one’s I work with do not have the skillsets they were brought over here for and many a project has failed because of it (costing millions of dollars each). I just wanted to point out the double standard. Whereas the illegal immigrants from the Catholic countries I’ve mentioned tend, in my experience, to be productive. I often wonder why, exactly, there is that double standard.
I think there is a VERY strong social darwinist and neo-malthusian streak in the anti-immigration crowd.
Listen to the rhetoric. There are 3 main lines of agrument.
The first is about the necessity of law and order, which might be considered a conservative argument–although not a good one.
The second argument is that immigrants “steal” jobs from americans, and “steal” healthcare and education, driving down wages and driving up costs at a time when there just isn’t enough to share; this is a neo-malthusian argument at its core.
The third argument is that these immigrants will change our culture and sever us from our roots in the English tradition; this is a social darwinst argument because its proponents are afraid that immigrants will change who we are as a people.
Given how you talk about Protestants, it’s not surprising there’s anti-Catholicism. Another reason for it was that Catholics owe obedience to the pope (“foreign potentate” as it used to be called) first, and to country second. Of course now that the hierarchy has become pretty irrelevant to how Catholics live their lives, it’s not much of a threat anymore.
The main argument is: You can’t have millions of people cross the border illegally and live in the shadows, without car insurance, health insurance etc.. That should be obvious even to the most gullible.
I think there is a VERY strong social darwinist and neo-malthusian streak in the anti-immigration crowd.
Listen to the rhetoric. There are 3 main lines of agrument.
The first is about the necessity of law and order, which might be considered a conservative argument–although not a good one.
The second argument is that immigrants “steal” jobs from americans, and “steal” healthcare and education, driving down wages and driving up costs at a time when there just isn’t enough to share; this is a neo-malthusian argument at its core.
The third argument is that these immigrants will change our culture and sever us from our roots in the English tradition; this is a social darwinst argument because its proponents are afraid that immigrants will change who we are as a people.
I think that those *arguments* are the ones provided by the media for us to dwell upon. There is no problem bringing in Hindus from India (that don’t even have the skillsets they are supposed to have), but there has been a crackdown on Catholic Europeans and Catholics from Mexico and South American countries. Does anyone else perceive a double standard here, or am I just a conspiracy theorist. I don’t believe that any of the media talking points taken straight from CNN and Fox News in the preceding post have very much to do with it. Want to distract an entire populus? Invent two opposing sides and convince them to pick one.
Gerald,
Don’t be ridiculous. The country was founded by Freemasons (and they still have quite a grip on the government today). If Protestantism holds the view that God comes first, then they can’t be considered Protestants either, no? Freemasons, as chronicled by the Church since the 18th century, have been notoriously anti-Catholic. Just crack open a history book.
The Indians (who aren’t, btw, all Hindus – there are many Sikhs, like my neighbors) come here legally, and they usually are highly skilled – many doctors, dentists, etc. There has been a crackdown on illegal aliens, who happen to mainly be Hispanic (many of whom, btw, are Protestants, as the Catholic Church has been losing its hold on Latinos in rather dramatic fashion).
Ben writes : “The second argument is that immigrants “steal” jobs from americans, and “steal” healthcare and education, driving down wages and driving up costs at a time when there just isn’t enough to share; this is a neo-malthusian argument at its core.”
But their acceptance of lower wages does drive down wages. The residential construction industry no longer supports a living wage in the city where you live.
____________________________
Ben writes : “The third argument is that these immigrants will change our culture and sever us from our roots in the English tradition; this is a social darwinst argument because its proponents are afraid that immigrants will change who we are as a people.”
Of course they will change the culture. They are a different culture. Add enough water to wine and the wine becomes water. You may prefer the water to the wine, but don’t pretend that water and wine are indistinguishable.
You know who was 1000 times more restrictionist than any of “today’s nativists?” Ceser Chavez, who understood that a flood of low-skill labor willing to work for cheap was bad for his workers. And he was right.
No one privatizes profits and socializes costs more than the open border business lobby, and there has developed an unholy alliance with racialist groups like La Raza (The Race).
For a recent example of the Chavez principle in action, look to Mississippi:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/06/jobs-americans-wont-do-meme-takes-another-hit-mississippi
You want to help the low-income, the “oppressed” in our society? Then let’s stop depressing their wages.
The Indians… come here legally…
Gerald, you missed the point. Secondly, are you a doctor or a dentist? I’m sure that your neighbors are highly skilled in their profession, but I also would not be able to rate their performance because I’m neither a doctor nor a dentist. Unless you are either one of those, or both, I don’t know how you can make that assumption.
I, on the other hand, am an IT consultant (without going into specifics), so I can rate the performance and practical knowledge of the Indians whom I work with. And it is greatly frustrating to me that almost all of the ones I have worked with have either deliberately misrepresented themselves or their staffing firms (or even American corporations like IBM) have.
I will never understand how anyone can defend illegal immigration in good conscience.
There certainly is an argument to be made that vast numbers of foreigners will replicate what they had at home – and this can be seen with Mexican-style corruption in Southern Californian enclaves. Nor did they do themselves a favor running around yelling ‘Si se puede’ – which has been adopted/adapted by Obamessiah. The American people aren’t unwilling to forgive and forget, ie some form of amnesty, but not when it’s angrily demanded by people with no legal standing whatsoever. Nor will there be general acceptance of amnesty without a proven defense of the border. This is a hostile action by a foreign country that wants to rid itself of its poor and get money sent back in return.
If Protestantism holds the view that God comes first, then [Freemasons] can’t be considered Protestants either, no?
I can only speak for those I know – Sikhs and Afghans in my neighborhood.
The reason why immigration will never be solved is the presence of two extreme viewpoints – the one represented by the Catholic hierarchy, Democrats and other liberal groups (liberal in that aspect) and the one by the ‘hard right’. Neither is conducive to an actual solution. One wants no border, no nothing, the other no amnesty at all. I feel like going back to Rome, stand at the Vatican and yell “Mr. Ratzinger, tear down this wall !” whenever some archbishop from Europe criticizes us for having a border.
And before I start receiving accusations that I’m racist against Indians, I’d like to point out that I’m making the distinction between one group that is being allowed to enter the country in droves while, in my experience, not fulfilling the requirements that was the purpose for that allowance, and another even larger group, is being removed in droves, while proven to be productive in whatever fields they were in while here. Also, you only mentioned the Mexicans in your response. What about the Europeans? They are being hunted down to. Some of them had lived here for a decade or more, had children here, became part of their communities, just to get unjustly kicked out.
I’m not picking on Indians for the sake of picking on Indians. I would just like to know why there is such a difference between them in how the government *determines* who can come here legally and who cannot. I have friends from India in my field as well, and they would (and have) even agree with me regarding the lack of skill displayed by some of their compatriots (it’s as frustrating to them as it is to me because it interferes with their job and also gives them a bad rap).
Yes, I agree with you that something needs to be done about illegal immigration. I’m not an adovacate of it. But, everything must be done justly. And I don’t see a proper balance. That is my point.
Gerald, the Pope recently spoke against illegal immigration. As I’m sure you are aware of, there are many bishops in this country that probably should not be Catholic bishops. Coincidentally, some of those have taken the hard-line of eliminating borders completely, for what reasons I don’t know. But, surely, one can’t link a non-authoritative remark from an American or European bishop, some of which have very serious problems of their own in regards to handling Church teaching, and the Pope. There are alot of Catholics who chose to align themselves with political parties, some at the cost of preferring that children get school lunches rather than protecting them from abortion. I don’t doubt that the same problem exists in the American heirarchy. Though it has nothing to do with the actual teachings of the Church.
Neither is conducive to an actual solution.
Part of my point (are we in a war with Eastasia still?).
By chance, have any of you seen the film “A Day Without a Mexican”?
My brother, who is a major corporate player in the world of chemical pesticides, and who is generally a Republican donor and supporter, LAUGHS at the members of his own party who support deportation of “illegal aliens.” He says that most supermarkets in the United States would be STRIPPED of huge amounts of produce, and that what’s left would be enormously more expensive, if Latinos were not able to work in the United States, “legally” or “illegally.”
The solution, of course, is “amnesty,” plus a “guest-worker” program, and it should have a built-in provision that might require a Constitutional Amendment that would revoke citizenship for those who merely get born within the legal borders of the United States. “Naturalization,” then, should require understanding of American history and of the country’s Constitution, but NOT the “English language,” because that would be to discriminate in favour of the European immigrants of the past and present. Do those things, and America would be paying respect to Hispanic culture, benefiting her own economy, and ensuring that those aliens who choose to stay there become reasonably assimilated. You would also avoid the problems the Europeans are experiencing with large populations of Asians and Africans who do not accept the value-systems of the European societies.
Joseph hits it on the head when he says the vision of some about the Mexican is nostalgia rather than reality. The old ways are disappearing, even in Mexico, under the influence of modern materialism and licentiousness.
However, the extended family does still exist to a large extent in Mexico and massive immigration from Mexico, both legal and illegal is doing a lot to destroy those families.
JPII and B16 have both spoken about the primary need to fix the problems in the sending countries so that the impetus for illegal immigration declines.
It seems destructive and unjust to encourage the break up of extended families by the influx of cheap labor to the U.S. by big business.
I think we should encourage the Bishops to promote fair trade and policies to fix the sending countries, thereby preserving extended families.
LTG,
in the interest of brivity, I did not go into details. I beleive there are other reasons for the decline in real wages over the past 40 years, but that was not the point of this thread.
Clearly there is a line between the eugencist, neo-malthusian ethic informing the mentality of NARAL and the eugenic neo-malthusian ethic infoming the mentality of the Minute Men. That was my only point.
We can go over what I think is the major culprit on the decline of wages over coffee after church sometime.
As far as the wine and water analogy is concerned, I believe you are more or less correct. But then, I married a Mexican!
Day without a Mexican was funny.
The solution is partial amnesty and the border patrolled by the military and faster immigration procedures. Without a real border, the same crap would happen all over again, as it did from 1986-present.
Let’s not forget that about a million people immigrate to the US legally every year. We’re actually far more ‘open’ than many European countries.
There are so many problems with the immigration “debate”.
For one: Americans aren’t competing with Mexicans for jobs, we’re all competing with China and the sweat shops of Asia (or in some cases, the sweat shops of American protectorates).
As for Mexican Catholicism: my mom is an immigrant and now a school teacher in the Chicago area. She is usually lamenting the general decline of the Mexican culture of her youth due to the influence of American consumerism in Mexico. They’re becoming more like Americans so the “good influences” that Mexican Catholics might have brought to this country is becoming a thing of the past.
The irony is, as some of the comments here demonstrate, the left’s willingness to give up jobs to immigrants but unwillingness to let them have those same jobs in their motherland. The opposite holds true for the right. As wrong as Pat Buchanan is on these issues, at least he’s consistent in how he wants to mistreat foreigners.
Americans aren’t competing with Mexicans for jobs
Mike, I honestly think we need to stop being concerned about the job aspect of immigration. That’s part of the unnecessary distraction. The points I was making is that, in my experience, those who have been unable to do their jobs are being imported into the country, and those who have led productive lives (from Europe and Mexico) are being hunted down and removed. I wasn’t intending to focus on job loss, but rather what appears to be a blatant example of an imbalance.
When we focus on job loss in relation to immigration in this country, I think it distracts us from the real problem(s) and inevitably changes ones perspective from humanitarian to economical/statistical. It’s a humanitarian problem. I want to know why there is an unjust imbalance first of all. We can’t repair the damage without first applying justice, and the current immigration system appears to be unjust at the moment (this goes hand in hand with my belief that we can’t learn to respect the innocent of other nations until we learn to respect our own. In other words, abortion needs to be categorized as murder and should not be legal. Until we get that straight, no one should be fooled that we can have a government that will actually care about the rest of her citizens or the innocent in foreign lands.).
Ben writes : “Clearly there is a line between the eugencist, neo-malthusian ethic informing the mentality of NARAL and the eugenic neo-malthusian ethic infoming the mentality of the Minute Men. That was my only point.”
The connection between positive crypto-eugenics and the anti-immigrationists is unseemly to say the least. And the Pioneer Fund is a vicious organization, but that does not make all it does vicious by nature.
Chilton Williamson’s accepting money from the Pioneer Fund makes one wince, but he did it not out of interest in positive eugenics, but out of love of his homeland which includes his love of his own culture.
Just as man is by nature social, so likewise does it follow that man is by nature localized because society is by nature localized. The multi-culturalists recognize that destruction of the Faith is best accomplished through destruction of the family. A destruction which begins by destruction of society and culture.
A society with a multitude of cultures sets man adrift in a sea of relativism.
We’re actually far more ‘open’ than many European countries.
Yeah, it’s kind of ironic having a European guy lecture Americans on not being open enough to immigrants.
I think the person who said this was stating the the U.S. is more open to immigrants, not the other way around. European countries have dense and individual cultures. If any European country (I think it is more like the individuals and not the governments) is hesitant when it comes to immigration, it is because they want to rightfully protect a culture (Christian and national) that is erroding quickly. The United States doesn’t have the rich culture of European countries. It is a melting pot and has always been a melting pot. It has a very young history. It is very difficult to nail down an American culture and alot of times we find ourselves making it synonymous with baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet because of this.
It’s easier to accept foreign cultures into the U.S. That is a good thing. I am American and I love this country. Most foreigners that have become legalized actually love this country more than my compatriots do. That is because they came here without any expectations and they realized that they wouldn’t have to abandon their own culture to assimilate to one here. You can take it or leave it, but you aren’t judged for your decision either way (that is, outside of how the media would portray it).
But I can understand the sentiment in Europe that is opposed to immigration. I lived in Dublin for a few years in the mid 90s. It was rich in Irish culture. There were very few immigrants, that I knew of anyway, and most of the ones who were there respected the culture and the nation. Walking through Dublin in recent times feels like I’m walking through London or Boston, except the weather sucks. It isn’t Irish any longer. Sad to say, this upsets me. It upsets me that, in selling out to the EU, Ireland has willfully put her culture in their hands, and they have shown their respect by cramming a disproportional amount of refugees (many of which, one could question their *refugee*) status. The real gypsies are back and this time they have absolutely no respect for the Irish culture. It’s only in the Gaeltact, or the counties north-west of it, that one can find traces of the old Ireland again. But, even that is under attack. My point is, the U.S. historically is, and rightfully should be today, more open to immigrants than European countries.
P.S. I’m not a liberal.
Ireland has willfully put her culture in their hands, and they have shown their respect by cramming a disproportional amount of refugees (many of which, one could question their *refugee* status) [down her throat].
Sorry, had to fix that.
Joseph: you neglect to mention that the boom in immigrants to Ireland is a reflection of the strong economic growth of the past decade. Aided by its relationship with the EU, Ireland has been transformed from one of the poorest to one of the richest countries in Europe. Now, you may long for a more homogenous past, but I can tell you that Irish people do not. Ask them about the 1980s recession. You seem wistful about what you perceieve as a lost culture which is somehow retained in the Gaeltacht. That’s a little patronizing. Generations of Irish schoolchildren were forced to spend summers in the Gaeltacht, learning Irish, and being told what Irish culture should be like. They didn’t take to it kindly. Not surprising, Irish culture enjoyde a renaissance in the 1990s, as a newly confident Ireland addressed it on its own terms– not the tired old stereotypes, but a new vibrant identity, mixing the past and future.
Oh, and one more point on immigration: the vast majority are Poles. Surely it’s a good thing that Catholics migrate to Catholic countries– for both sides?
I didn’t fail to mention it out of neglect. Yes, there has been an unprecedented economic boom in Ireland in which it has become one of the most wealthy countries in Europe from being one of the poorest in only a matter of a couple of decades. Yes, I am aware that Ireland’s relationship with the EU was necessary for this to happen. But you made a few statements that need correction.
…you may long for a more homogenous past…
Actually, it matters not to me whether or not people from foreign lands become citizens, within proportion (which was one of my arguments), it is the cultural traditions and Catholicity that I long for. That is the Irishness that is disappearing.
…but I can tell you that Irish people do not. Ask them about the 1980s recession.
It is nice to have a spokesperson for the Irish people on this blog. My father-in-law does lament the poor state Ireland was in economically for most of his life, but he wishes a return to the traditions and religion that has been lost with the material wealth and foreign invasion that has come with the economic boom. Not only that, the rest of my extended family there, including those my age, have even spoken about how they would accept a worse economy if they could have their country back. Of course, these are people from the west coast of Ireland. That’s one practical example.
…but I can tell you that Irish people do not.
The referendum that shot down the Lisbon treaty tells a different tale than this one. Those who voted “NO” (the one’s that I know personally), are hard-working Catholics who actually attend Mass and can tell you who the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are. Most of those who voted “NO” were led by a grassroots campaign, especially that of Libertas, whose position was clearly to protect the traditions, culture, and Catholicity of Ireland. That, my friend, was a majority vote. I believe that you are being patronizing, not I. I believe that it is you who are being “wistful” in believing that “Irish people do not” long for a more “homogenous past”. Spend some time anywhere on the West Coast the next time you are there. And I’m not speaking about the minority of wanna-be New Yorkers that hang out in the new cafes that are springing up everywhere speaking about how cool it is to defy the Church’s teachings.
Generations of Irish schoolchildren were forced to spend summers in the Gaeltacht, learning Irish, and being told what Irish culture should be like. They didn’t take to it kindly.
Tell that to my wife, my family, and my friends who are thankful that they know Irish fluently and wish to keep it alive. You seem to be speaking a Dubliner perspective primarily, as they’ve never been keen on the Irish and more interested in modernization than the rest of the country, but I could be wrong. I know that there are many who didn’t take kindly to it. I know them personally. But “many” doesn’t equal “all”. In fact, we just have to review the “NO” vote of the Lisbon Treaty to see what the majority of the country believes.
Not surprising, Irish culture enjoyde a renaissance in the 1990s, as a newly confident Ireland addressed it on its own terms– not the tired old stereotypes, but a new vibrant identity, mixing the past and future.
Seriously, you can’t accuse me of idealism here. This is your picture of the present and future Ireland. This is your acceptance of it. It isn’t so for the entire nation. This may be the heart of why you were so bitter over the majority of Irish saying “NO” to the Lisbon Treaty. Your dreamworld collapsed.
[T]he vast majority are Poles. Surely it’s a good thing that Catholics migrate to Catholic countries– for both sides?
In the case of Ireland, the Polish immigrants, though not readily “accepted” by many of the Irish (the majority that I’ve talked so aren’t happy with the Polish invasion, mainly because the Poles have been quite unapologetic about not making any attempt to speak in any language other than their own… I guess that complaint is similar to some in the U.S.), I agree that it is a good thing. It has sparked a renewal of the Catholic Church in Ireland. But, the Poles that are coming to Ireland are much more traditional in their Catholicism and they understand their faith. That is the major difference between them and those from Mexico. They are outright rejecting liturgical innovations, heretical teachings, and much of the damage done by liberal Catholics to the Church in Ireland. Not only that, the Poles plan to leave when one of two things happen (or both): 1) they’ve made enough money to return to Poland, 2) conditions in Poland get better. Those are not the refugees (or those whose *refugee* status can be contested) that the EU is shoving down Ireland’s throat… one of the compelling forces of the Libertas campaign against the Lisbon Treaty.
The largest target (and the largest number of those who responded positively) of Libertas were Catholics who attend Mass. Their greatest success came from handing out flyers to parishioners. An attack on the “NO” vote, which was a victory by majority despite overwhelming pressure by law makers, mainstream Irish and European media, and even ecclesial authorities (in some cases) to vote “YES”, is an attack on Catholics who are loyal to the Church and are fully aware of the apostacy that came with the material wealth. Tell me, if it was so bad in Ireland, as you and Frank McCourt claim it was (whose story, by the way, has been refuted by those who actually lived in Limerick at the same time and deny that it was as bad as he painted it), then why in the world would the Irish en masse turn out in droves to fight the EU on the Lisbon Treaty? This is a nation that is highly cynical about voting in the first place! Obviously, this vote meant something.
I wonder if the slam dunk that is being predicted for Obama will turn out the same way. The secular world underestimated Ireland, big time.
Well, that, and they gutted their tax code.
Speaking for the Mexican American experience, it all depends on where you come from and where you go. On my father’s side of the family, my family has been in this country since the turn of last century. In that sense, they are pretty Americanized, though my father speaks Spanish fluently since he grew up in Texas.
My mother’s side of the family is directly from Mexico, so they are much more traditional. All of my aunts and uncles are church-going, though a couple became evangelical Protestants. We had all of the traditions growing up: the posadas, the Passion plays, the family rosaries, and so on and so forth. When we greeted a senior relative, we had to go up and kiss their hand, I think that it helped that they were peasants in Mexico and moved to the fields of the central coast of California. It’s nothing like moving to the neighborhoods of east Oakland or east L.A.
So I think it all depends. People from intensely devout villages in Jalisco or Oaxaca are more likely to be devout Catholics here. You can see young families in the malls or outside of Catholic churches here in California: all dressed up in their Sunday best on the weekend. So I wouldn’t agree that Mexicans hit the U.S. and instantly become Americanized. It’s much more nuanced than that.
How this will affect the U.S. church, I don’t really know. There is still not a whole lot of Latino influence on the level of the clergy, and ehat passes for the Catholic intelligentsia has a dearth of Latino members. Latinos aren’t really part of the “thinking Church” at least not yet. It will probably take some time for that to happen: for Latinos to actually have an actual voice in general Catholic life in this country and not just as a “special group”.