European Cultural and Political Influences on Protestantism vs. Catholicism's "Roots"

[WoundedIcon]

How much influence did European culture, politics, etc. have upon Protestantism, and how much influence does it still have? I see some of it (perhaps) in the support for capitalism, and their theology of penal substitution, but otherwise I need someone who knows more to guide me. I’ve heard it said that Catholicism is more Mediterranean, could someone explain that? Heck, I would like some Orthodox and Eastern Catholics to chime in with your viewpoints as well - seeing as how the East-West contrast would emphasize our cultural differences more in your eyes.

 

[cargau]

How much influence did European culture, politics, etc. have upon Protestantism, and how much influence does it still have? I see some of it (perhaps) in the support for capitalism, and their theology of penal substitution, but otherwise I need someone who knows more to guide me. I’ve heard it said that Catholicism is more Mediterranean, could someone explain that? Heck, I would like some Orthodox and Eastern Catholics to chime in with your viewpoints as well - seeing as how the East-West contrast would emphasize our cultural differences more in your eyes.

There was a motivation on the part of the papacy to glean temporal power as well as overseeing the spiritual domain. Many of the monarchs at the time wanted control of selecting bishops who also had temporal powers. This was known as investiture.

Th protestant revolt did not recognize the legitimacy of the papacy and thus did not have a spiritual “head”. Rather those powers were given to the governors and nobles. This made Lutheranism much more attractive in an earthly sort of way.

Spain had their own reformation (conquista) where they eliminated many of the abuses and errors that were being practiced elsewhere. Of course that was prior to the unfortunate events of the Inquisition. France had an allegiance to the papacy and even though some monarchs were at odds with the pope, for the most part held to the faith. Calvinism did find its way into France and thus the Hugonots.

England, Germany were at the forefront of the reformation. The Dutch and Scandanavians were Calvinists or Lutherans.

So the Northern European continent was more protestant and the South (mediteranean) went more Catholic.

 

[hn160]

There was a motivation on the part of the papacy to glean temporal power as well as overseeing the spiritual domain. Many of the monarchs at the time wanted control of selecting bishops who also had temporal powers. This was known as investiture.

Th protestant revolt did not recognize the legitimacy of the papacy and thus did not have a spiritual “head”. Rather those powers were given to the governors and nobles. This made Lutheranism much more attractive in an earthly sort of way.

Spain had their own reformation (conquista) where they eliminated many of the abuses and errors that were being practiced elsewhere. Of course that was prior to the unfortunate events of the Inquisition. France had an allegiance to the papacy and even though some monarchs were at odds with the pope, for the most part held to the faith. Calvinism did find its way into France and thus the Hugonots.

England, Germany were at the forefront of the reformation. The Dutch and Scandanavians were Calvinists or Lutherans.

So the Northern European continent was more protestant and the South (mediteranean) went more Catholic.

You are right, the winds of change were in the air and one important invention that spread the reformation was the movable type printing press which spread ideas like the internet today. Also the Reformers had better spokesmen that the Catholic side. The Reformation might not have been successful if the rulers of German territories and the printing press had not intervened.

 

[cargau]

You are right, the winds of change were in the air and one important invention that spread the reformation was the movable type printing press which spread ideas like the internet today. Also the Reformers had better spokesmen that the Catholic side. The Reformation might not have been successful if the rulers of German territories and the printing press had not intervened.

Good point on the printing press. Another thought…Had the Popes following Luther’s revolt called Trent earlier, they might have stemmed the tide. As it was, Trent wasn’t called until 1545 by Paul III. The Reformers got a good foothold in the nearly three decades of Papal inaction.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

How much influence did European culture, politics, etc. have upon Protestantism, and how much influence does it still have? I see some of it (perhaps) in the support for capitalism, and their theology of penal substitution, but otherwise I need someone who knows more to guide me. I’ve heard it said that Catholicism is more Mediterranean, could someone explain that? Heck, I would like some Orthodox and Eastern Catholics to chime in with your viewpoints as well - seeing as how the East-West contrast would emphasize our cultural differences more in your eyes.

Well, the Reformation (as we know it) never would’ve happened if Frederick the Wise didn’t protect Luther from being killed (ya know, burning heretics). He figured that if he accepted Luther’s teaching/protected him, he could break from Rome politically, making himself be in total control of Saxony. The reason why I say as we know it is because Ulrich Zwingli was preaching a “reform” in Zurich at the same time, so it’s possible that it would have happened anyway.

Catholicism is the dominant denomination in most countries in Europe, and many countries along the western part of the Mediterranean are primarily Catholic (the Eastern part is mainly EO). Protestantism is the main den. in Holland, Great Britain, East Germany, and Scandinavia. here’s a map: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Europe_religion_map.png/737px-Europe_religion_map.png

It’s also interesting to note that the Catholic countries are generally more religious than the Protestant countries.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

There was a motivation on the part of the papacy to glean temporal power as well as overseeing the spiritual domain. Many of the monarchs at the time wanted control of selecting bishops who also had temporal powers. This was known as investiture.

Th protestant revolt did not recognize the legitimacy of the papacy and thus did not have a spiritual “head”. Rather those powers were given to the governors and nobles. This made Lutheranism much more attractive in an earthly sort of way.

Right, I think luther actually chose to have political leaders as “bishops” because the Catholic bishops rejected Lutheranism. he thought that the earthly ones would be better than the actual bishops .

Spain had their own reformation (conquista) where they eliminated many of the abuses and errors that were being practiced elsewhere. Of course that was prior to the unfortunate events of the Inquisition. France had an allegiance to the papacy and even though some monarchs were at odds with the pope, for the most part held to the faith. Calvinism did find its way into France and thus the Hugonots.

England, Germany were at the forefront of the reformation. The Dutch and Scandanavians were Calvinists or Lutherans.

So the Northern European continent was more protestant and the South (mediteranean) went more Catholic.

I’d like to add on to that. the Reformation made its way to Poland and to the Baltic countries and Scandinavia, but soon after it entered, Lutheranism left Lithuania and Poland, but stayed elsewhere. Southern Germany (Bavaria) and western Germany (along the Rhine) stayed Catholic areas, while the rest of Germany became Lutheran. Switzerland became Catholic in the cities, but the county part of Switzerland (central) stayed Catholic.

Now days, Scandinavia, England, Holland, and East and northern Germany are still primarily Protestant, but it is decreasing rapidly as more and more people in the Protestant areas are becoming atheist/other, partly to avoid the church tax. In Switzerland, Catholicism is on the rise, but Protestantism is decreasing. However, less people leaving Protestantism are becoming atheist/other in Switzerland than other countries, since presumably some are becoming Catholic (it helps that they got immigration from southern Europe though). Southern and western Germany are still primarily Catholic. Southern is very Catholic. The north/east Lutheran/United areas are usually more atheist/agnostic than Christian. So the Prot. countries are more secular than Catholic countries (which I guess is good and bad at the same time).

 

[new_wine]

According to various sources (collated on Wikipedia so take with the necessary pinch of salt…), there are 8 countries in Europe where 50% or more of the population identify as Protestant: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom, Estonia and Latvia.

There are 20 countries where 50% or more of the population identify as Catholic: The Vatican (obviously!), Malta, San Marino, Andorra, Spain, Italy, Monaco, Poland, Croatia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, France, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Belgium, Austria, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary.

Orthodoxy accounts for over 50% of the population in 11 countries: Greece, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Belarus, Cyprus, Ukraine, Russia, Montenegro and Macedonia.

Islam is the religion of over 50% of the population in 3 countries: Turkey, Kosovo (if you consider it an independent country…) and Albania .

There is no religion/denomination with over 50% of the population in 6 countries: Switzerland, Germany, The Netherlands, The Czech Republic, Latvia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Of course, different countries have different ways of recording the religious affiliation of their populations; not all, for example, give the option of stating ‘no religion’ on census forms etc. Furthermore, with Europe being one of the most irreligious places on Earth, large numbers of those calling themselves ‘Catholics’, ‘Protestant’ etc will be only nominally so.

 

[Volkov]

The direction of causality is not so linear as the OP implies. Just as Protestant theology was influenced by pre-existing context, it has also changed Europe in turn. The two were/ are in a dynamic interplay.

Max Weber had much to say on the “Protestant ethic” and the development of capitalism. Certainly there is an elegant correlation here, if nothing else. And intrinsically, Calvinist teachings (to take just this example) do “mesh” well with capitalist precepts. Of course, the same idea was once used to suggest why Asian societies would never develop along these lines, so take it with a grain of salt.

What I find most fascinating right now is the divergence in support for the European Union evinced between historically Catholic and Protestant countries. It’s always been higher in the former. Now, the Christian Democrats who initially pushed for the European Community (Schuman, etc.) were Catholics, and the last pope took a keen interest in the topic, but I wonder if it goes beyond realist concerns.

As for what the Orthodox think of the Catholic/Protestant divide, my perception is that most of us, rightly or wrongly, see more similarities than differences in the ontological nature of the debates, if not their outcomes. My meager two kopecks.

P.S. Many posters have said that Europe is today highly irreligious. I find a better term to be Grace Davie’s “unchurched.” Europe is still a continent “riddled with Christian privileges” (as a political scientist once observed) in terms of governmental support of religious institutions. Note how many “Protestant” countries still have State Churches.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

P.S. Many posters have said that Europe is today highly irreligious. I find a better term to be Grace Davie’s “unchurched.” Europe is still a continent “riddled with Christian privileges” (as a political scientist once observed) in terms of governmental support of religious institutions. Note how many “Protestant” countries still have State Churches.

What you have said is true (and what I didn’t quote), but there are still parts of Europe that are irreligious: Estonia and Czech Republic. I think the unchurched fits well with Scandinavia and East Germany. scandinavia besides my (grandmother’s) ancestors homeland Sweden. Ever since the Church of Sweden has ceased to be a state church (and even before then), Sweden becomes more and more secular.

 

[Volkov]

SwissGuy, I agree with what you wrote, with the exception of the comment re: East Germany–that is one society wherein overt atheism has made significant inroads.
In my original post, I was making a more general statement about Europe as a whole. Again, a blatant generalization on my part, but many people in Western Europe are not completely irreligious (as in what I would think to be atheists) but they are unconventional in their “beliefs.” I’ve spent a lot of time looking at data on the topic, and what I mean by this is that many have no problems believing in heaven but not hell, astrology but not Christianity, and so forth. I think Catholics have the expression “cafeteria Catholic”–this is that phenomenon writ large.

It also depends on the context in which the question is asked. Britons are certainly unchurched today in large measure, but often still identify themselves as Christians (presumably of the cultural variety, and this will likely increase in opposition to overt Muslim identification in Britain [much of it cultural too, it would seem]).

But certainly the Czech Republic (interestingly, unlike Slovakia) is not very religious. In fact, going by the World Values Survey (available online via search engine, if anyone is interested), in terms of traditional religious beliefs and practices (attendance of church, belief in afterlife, etc.) it is actually (if I recall correctly) the most “irreligious” country in Europe. The most “religious,” again based on standard measures employed by social scientists, are actually Malta (Catholic), Romania (Orthodox), Poland (Catholic) and Ireland (Catholic).

So to the OP’s question: In absolute terms, and relative to orthodox with a small o Christan beliefs, the historically Protestant nations seem to be far less religious than the historically Catholic. They also on the whole tend to be more economically developed, and have had rather different historical experiences, both internally and within empire (e.g., Austro-Hungarian versus Russian). What causes what? I’ve studied this for years and still couldn’t tell you with any degree of certainty.

However, I will point out that NOW, as opposed to historically, the influence of the more laicized societies on the more traditional appears to be expanding. While I lived in Poland, there was often talk amongst Catholics of “re-evangelizing” Europe. As of right now, the opposite seems to be happening. Under Schengen young people travel abroad to work and become less traditional in their beliefs. Poland has a low birth rate just like the rest of Europe.

I apologize that I’ve contributed to the topic wandering from what OP asked. It’s just that the question is very, very complicated and historical cause and effect seems to me to be difficult, if not impossible, to determine.

P.S. One thing I will mention in closing, however, is that many today forget that the European Coal and Steel community–the precursor to the European Union–was a profoundly normative project achieved through pragmatic means. Committed Catholics were central in implementing this vision of economic unity as a means through which to pacify the Continent. People tend to overlook this, as the EU today is a far different beast. Did Catholic theology and hierarchical structure play a role in the original plan? I think so, and I think the lingering vestiges of Protestantism in the north explain part of the reticence toward the EU in those countries.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

SwissGuy, I agree with what you wrote, with the exception of the comment re: East Germany–that is one society wherein overt atheism has made significant inroads.

Really? I didn’t think it was THAT bad. That’s really sad. the Church should send missionaries back there