The Catholic Book Club discussion

2. Belloc distinguishes between the relationship of Catholicism to Europe and the relationship of all other faiths and ideologies to Europe. How do you understand Belloc's point? And do you agree with him?

Of course that i agree with him in This case i would like From a hustoriographical position. It is very hard for the people. A long time ago my friend Alfonseca and me discussed in his blog Divulciencia if history was a science or not really that we teach during the degree is that history is a social science not a natural science as physic, chemistry, biology, geology and others. This thing supossed a problem that history was an instrument of the ideology and this thing caused a lot of damage. Belloc reportes the Whig historiography Greene, Macaulay and determinist a racial Focus as count of Gobineau. Weber we look reading the book of Rodney Stark think the superiority of protestantism and for This reason the protestant countries are more wealth than Catholic Country. One of the creators of history believed It Ranke and Nieburh. For This reason Belloc striked the german historiography now It could be old fashionable but history was to the service of the ideologies i think positivism and historicismo and for This reason the Belloc report is crucial. Today not the manipulation of the ideologies about the history unfortunatelly continúe in Spain we have as evidence the law of historical memory tributing only the victims of one of the participants of the War meanwhile the other opponent are criminals. Now ischanging but when i studied the most relevant was the 19th century and 20th century the main of study in Spain there is an obsession with the second republic and the Civil War we have the feeling until the illustration and liberalism all was darkness and fanatism. I am lively surprised despite the number of victims the marxists historiography still continúe prestigious even ideologically is the moral of the countries even countries that previously had been against Communism. I thought that he would not touch but at finally he touchs when Belloc striked Gibbon and i reported in some of my reviews where the christianity was considered the responsable of the fallen of Roman Empire i have read in the Rodney Stark book. It is One of the basement of the four Riders of atheism i think un Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Denet in the continent we have the case of Compte Sponville. But This Focus employed by the pagan writers the own Saint Agustine and Orosius had to refutate It. The paganism looked was the cause of greatness of Rome and the christianity in This line are some figures i think in Amenabar with Ágora, Cynthia Nixey with her book, Wheeler and Frank Miller with cursed was broadcasted by Netflix nowadays striked for the controversy of cuties and how many writers show the greatness of paganism and the weakness of christianity Bernard Cornwell, Giles Kristian, Angus Donald Marion Bradley Zimmer and others now It is a Focus promoted by the secular intelligentsia and we must fight It. I have ever supprted for Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, Christopher Dawson, Lord Acton other authors as Karl Adams, can access in our universities theu have never been more necesary than now.

Other thing that i want to say It. This not the only controversial that Belloc had. It is was very famous his controversial with the Fabián socialist novelist H.G. Wells that in his book outline history have hardly mentioned to Jesus Christ and as Asimov and others believe with the modernity and science the mankind Will be happier and they become a God. To refutate This book Belloc wrote several books and Chesterton one decisive Everlasting Man. Although the secular time
vondicated Wells the book is old fashionable the modernity devources to his sons and the end of the second world war proved that Wells was absolutely wrong. The modernity and the science without ethic could destroy the mankind.

About the controversial of the fallen of Roman Empire is that at finally the christianity that some authors that i have mentioned before was not the cause of his disappearence. My professor Santos Crespo Ortiz Zarate kept the same Focus of Will Durant the Empire fell for exhausted and died not for outside attacks the Roman Empire would die because This would have destroyed inside not inmediatly his end was gradual and a lot of years. Manuel Alfonseca told in his novel The seal of Eolus since the plague of Marcus Aurelius the Empire reach his máximum power and they had not again. Besides we must say something in favor of Belloc theories in 476 nobody realise that the Empire had fallen it was not anything to touch the world. It is truth that the sack of Rome was considered a disaster but nobody realised the difference of being ruled by barbarians that for Román. The reason It was because these barbarians included Atila were more roman than the Roman more than destroy the Empire they want to control. The people had more fear than the Bagaudes than the barbarians, besides for the barbarians the Empire continued with Byzantium and they were to the service of the emperor they wanted charges as Magister militum Alaric we have seen the origin of Clovis told by Belloc and Theodoric finished with Odoacher following the Will of the Byzantium emperor Zeno. Theodoric resurrected Rome with the debate and he told with people as Casiodorus, Ennodius and Boethius although Theodoric finished with the last. The visigoth of Spain wee the most romanized of the barbarians people.

One controversial thing said by Hilaire Belloc is that Spain it was not a religious country. Belloc is not the unique thinker who thing this. It is the same opinion of Baltasar Gracian although i disagree respect his point of view that Spain needed a war religion to defend his faith. If Spain had had a religious war would not have been able to fight to keep the catholic faith in the rest of countries for not speaking the number of dead persons that this thing had provoked. I am going to be cruel but i preffer to have the inquisition with his number of victims that to have a war religion with a name of dead much higher. France was outside the game until 1595 and Germany lost a lot of population in the 30 years war. I preffer not having war of religion in this field i disagree with Hilaire Belloc.

I like really much as Belloc introduced the different social stracts of the roman society following the example of the ity of Lyon, in this city was born the Emperor Claude. It is the primige of France. It is interesting his point of view of Carthage and it is interesting to compare with G.K. Chesterton in "Everlasting Man" because both of them think the same. The state of a trade state against a millitary society Rome. In this point of view Belloc promoted the distributism and he attacked that the property concentrated in few hands for this Carthage was a encarnation of plutocracy and it was something that we must avoid it.
His defend of the christianity showing the importance of the oral tradition and the memoir this thing influenced a lot in the christianity also the cult to the saints and to rememberred it a saint to come to other saint Tertulian to Saint Ignatius that the last was a disciple of Saint John that he lived with Christ. It is an evidence of the historical existence of Jesus Christ.

Other thing which interested to me it is the different perspective that Belloc had of the Normand conquer of Britain. This focus is really different to the C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien perspective about the Normand conquer. It is possible that Belloc was influenced by his french roots. He has an English, Irish and french roots. For Belloc the Normand conquer was europeiced and positive for the catholicism and certainly the relationship between the Pope and the normands despite the first meeting was really good. Robert Guiscard was a protector of the Pope and William the conqueror conquered England with the blessing of the Pope Alexander II and a lot of the crusaders were Normand lords Bohemond, Tancred, Sigurd. However for Tolkien and Belloc the Normand conquer of England was a tragedy who finished with the catholiooc saxons kings plenty of saints Saint Edmund, Saint Edwin, Saint Edward Confessor. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are in the same line of Sir Walter Scott in Ivanhoe, indeed C.S. Lewis could not stand to Hilaire Belloc when the irish writer James Stephens attacked to G.K. Chesterton one of the reasons to defend G.K. Chesterton was all evil in G.K. Chesterton was guilt of Hilaire Belloc. In this field i can not agree with C.S. Lewis that in my opinion he committed a big mistake and with Roy Campbell. J.R.R. Tolkien despite having a very different perspective was not as critic as C.S. Lewis the father Darcy was the bond between Belloc and J.R.R. Tolkien this thing told Joseph Pearce in his book the The Bilbo`s journey the hidden meaning of the Hobbit.

And my last intervention today it is about that in my opinion Belloc described very well the Renassaince and his consequences and the reformation. He is right when he connected the reformation with Wycliff also in my opinion he is right when he considered that England was protestant is the key to the survivance of the reformation and this did not bring clearity that it is more confuse we have the case of Adamites and he is right in if the crown was almighty and this made that the reformation triumphed and something that socialist as Raymond Williams and Ken Follet do not want to see but the Reformation increased the disbalanced of the different classes and it concentrated the wealthy in few hands at finally this people would finish with the power of the king in the English Civil War being a hostage of the parliament a reflect of the elites and the persons who loted the monasteries.

Fonch wrote: "One controversial thing said by Hilaire Belloc is that Spain it was not a religious country... [because it didn't have] a religious war"

I also noticed this, and agree with Fonch that Belloc was mistaken here. In fact, Spain did have a religious war, against Muslims, which was protracted for eight centuries. Therefore it's not surprising that we didn't want to enter a new religious civil war (this time against protestants) so soon after the previous one had ended.

And in fact Spain did participate in the 30-years war, for Flanders was by then a part of Spain, and the Spanish armies fought in different parts of Europe, always on the (Catholic) side of the Empire, while other supposedly Catholic countries (like France) and also some protestant countries (like Sweden) changed sides easily according to their political interests. Even the little German states divided their allegiance chaotically, with Catholics and protestants fighting for both sides indifferently.

So it can be doubted that the thirty-year war were in fact a religious war. I think it was a political war with a religious excuse.

Manuel wrote: "Fonch wrote: "One controversial thing said by Hilaire Belloc is that Spain it was not a religious country... [because it didn't have] a religious war"

I also noticed this, and agree with Fonch tha..."

Yes this topic is really interesting. In my opinion Spain is a country of extremes nowadays prevalaces the secular, antichristian extreme very close to the left wing influenced by materiallistic ideologies of the left wing and right wing.

Certainly Spain had his war during eight centuries against the muslims.

About the luteranism i said Luther delayed considerably the German Union. The emperor Maximilian was very close to get it and to convert Germany in a centrelized and modern state as France, England, or Spain. It is possible without Luther and the War of thirty years Germany had go the union and it would be bigger with Austria and it is possible that Hungary and some slav country, however the hate of Belloc for Prusia avoided him to look the reality or not to explore.

Of course the war of Thirty years has four stages the bohemian period, the danish period, the swedish period and the french period. The last period was a secular war at finally of the war Denmark and Prusia fought with the the Emperor Ferdinand III despite being protestants against Sweden and the Catholic France indeed Bavaria played more than allied of France more than a loyal german state in favor the emperor. Bavaria insisted to Ferdinand III that he did not support to Spain in his war against France that iwould continue until 1661 with the peace of Pyrenees. Lavisse said that France and Louis XIV played following the selfish national in favor of all protestant and muslim countries we know that France participated in the secularization of monasteries even they gave something to the protestant Sweden, which received Bremen and Pomerania.

Manuel wrote: "So it can be doubted that the thirty-year war were in fact a religious war. I think it was a political war with a religious excuse."

I make this same argument and point especially to France as an example of how the standard understanding of the Thirty Years War as a Catholic - Protestant religious war doesn't capture the facts and that there was a lot more going on, that not understanding the real politique that was motivating different princes leads to a serious misunderstanding of the conflicts. In short, religion was the excuse for people who were motivated by much more material concerns.

The curious is that France was Catholic inside of France but outside of his frontiers they deal with the protestants and Turkish to get weak his main enemies the Habsbourg (This politic It is not a surprise because It was started by Louis XII and Francis I Valois. Richelieu had totally clear 1 The solution of the Huguenots conflict, to beat the nobilty and to get Big between the foreign strenghts). It is the Game of seeing Who is the most powerful country of the world. The France hegemony concluded with the spanish sucession war where England finished as the most powerful country. Really France was interested in an international conflict to get weak to Spain, before to be murdered by Ravaillac Henry IV try to begin the War of the thirty years Nine years before of his beggining in 1609 helping to Clevers Juliers Anhalt. The catholics got strong with the Peace and they were the protestants Who wanted the War at finally they had the War. The Big winner of Westfalia was the secularism and the inbelieving and the national politics. The War of thirty years got weak the religion.

I had to say previously but Hilaire Belloc wrote a biography of the Cardinal Richelieu therefore It is natural that we are discussing about the consequences of their politics.

Reading this book made me realize how little I know about European history. His viewpoint is interesting and quite contrary to the way the story is usually told; he seems to be saying that the Catholic Church inherited every (good?) aspect of the Roman Empire and can't exist without it. That's hard for me to swallow. Surely many other factors have helped shape Europe. It also seems arrogant to dismiss or exclude Germany as more barbarian, not truly European. And to assert that all genuine civilization is Roman/European/Catholic, dismissing the entire ancient civilization of the East--how can he do that except by circular reasoning?
I'm surprised he didn't comment on World War I, which to me at this distance seems spurred by petty nationalisms that don't align in any neat way with "Protestant" or "Catholic" interests.
Surely it's not fair to blame all wars and social ills on the Reformation! And to say the Reformers were rejecting "civilization"; they thought they were offering salutary correction for egregious misuses of Church power and distortions of theological truths.
He attributes the (too?)-rapid rise of science to the Reformation. I've also heard the Catholic Church credited with inspiring authentic science, exploring the world and laws God established. He seems anti-science.

Jill wrote: "It also seems arrogant to dismiss or exclude Germany as more barbarian, not truly European."

This can be seen precisely as a consequence of the First World War. French and British people tended to think like this at that time (1920, the year when this book was published).

Jill wrote: "And to assert that all genuine civilization is Roman/European/Catholic, dismissing the entire ancient civilization of the East."

When Belloc writes Europe he means Western Europe or Catholic Europe (i.e. all of Europe excluding Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Russia). In other words, the Western Roman Empire and its Medieval extensions (such as Ireland, Poland and Germany). Therefore he doesn't consider Eastern Orthodox Christianity, as it's outside this area.

Jill wrote: "Surely it's not fair to blame all wars and social ills on the Reformation!"

Yes, this is debatable. For historians, it's very difficult to be sure that some event was the cause of another. Discussing what would have happened if England had not left the Catholic faith and joined parts of Germany, most of Flanders, and all of Scandinavia on the Protestant side, seems to me to be more appropriate for novelists of alternate history than for historians.

However, this is what Belloc thought about the matter and he surely has the right to express his views.

On the other hand, there are arguments in favor of his thesis, such that the current wave of scepticism in Western Europe started with David Hume (a Scot) and Emmanuel Kant (a Lutheran German). So if Protestantism had failed, perhaps their theories wouldn't have been the same.

Jill wrote: "He attributes the (too?)-rapid rise of science to the Reformation. I've also heard the Catholic Church credited with inspiring authentic science, exploring the world and laws God established. He seems anti-science."

This idea was shared by many British Catholics at that time. Although they didn't deny it, they were wary about the theory of evolution. And in Great Britain they could see quite well the effects of the technological revolution on society, with all the evils on the working class that gave rise to extremist political movements like Marxism, Communism and Anarchism. Remember that Chesterton and Belloc were stout defenders of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Distributism) as an alternative to both Capitalism and Socialism. Unfortunately, their attempt (later tried again by Ernest Schumacher) was unsuccessful.

I am going to reply Jill. It is true that the Belloc point It is bnot the point defended nowadays thanks to the Lord. This thing made me to think that It is right It is not our grneration influenced by the secularist ideologies, Who is right is Hilaire Belloc for This reason is really imoortant to recover figures to Hilaire Belloc. It is true that perhaps Belloc was excesevely profrench and antigerman and he should more critic with France but he is son of his time. When Belloc and Chesterton attack to Germany they are attacking especially to Prusia the east of Germán the part less german of Germany and the Last to be added to Germany. The origin of Germany is Saxony, Renania, Westfalia and This part was Catholic a part of the Roman Empire. Rome had in his Empire Trier Treveris and Vindovona (Vienna) where died Marcus Aurelius. Jill you must understand that few English persons see with simpathies to Germany only Piers Paul Read Germany since 1870 is the main adversary of England, firstly some countries of orient were part of the Roman Empire and they were conquered by the muslims to Blood and fire . Jill you write about nationalism and i do not know antything more nationalist than the protestant Churches. Hus Who was one step forward of Luther defended the racism and the expell of the foreign students of the universities. When Luther betrayed the german people trusted the Reformation to the princesa all converted in something of greed, what Spirit there was when Henry VIII gave Up to his wife none of them. Overall Belloc wrote about the Reformation in England that It is essential to understand why the reformation triumphed. When Spain burnt to Dr. Cazalla he accepted his Destiny because he had to think that he had done the same with the catholics. Jill of course there are good protestants i think in Castellio One of the few Who defended the tolerance, Jewell, Laud, Leibniz, Wilberforce indeed i enjoy reading not Catholic Christian books. But i do not like the reformers i do not see any virtues un Wycliff, Hus the racist, the superb Luther, the fanatic Calvin and Knox the bloody tyrant Henry VIII the lustful Philip Hesse (whom Luther let have two wives curious way to fight against the evils of the church) the betrayers Maurice Saxon, and William Orange (the liar), Cromwell killing irish people neither can be a modelo of tolerance. Only Ken Follet and his followers can believe his Kiara, curiously the most tolerant state of the 16th century was the Catholic Poland, that even they accepted Soccino's followers between the Commenius. Portugal and Spain were the most powerful countries of the 16th century because they have Wars of religión in his countries as France and Germany and in my previous i explained that they want the War were protestants un Germany and the Huguenots obtained advantages to continue the War until Louis XIII, Richelieu and Louis XIV. Nethetlands had a civil war between calvinists in them where murdered the De Witt brothers. About your critics respect Belloc could be opposite to the science i let that my friend Alfonseca reply to you un This topic because he knows more about This field.