![The Economist explains](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20150114050725im_/http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/50_by_50/images/2014/12/blogs/economist-explains/20150103_woc626.png)
The Economist explains: How marriage makes people healthier
The Economist explains
VATICAN-WATCHING has something in common with Sovietology, and indeed there are some Italian journalists who have excelled equally at both. In each world, public statements have often been veiled in arcane and abstruse language, so that any plain, blunt speaking comes as a refreshing break. And in both worlds, you have to study personnel changes closely to see what is going on.
Pope Francis has just named 15 new "voting cardinals" to the body of prelates who will elect his successor, and his choices represent a further dilution of the power of the Italian bureaucracy which has hitherto constituted the hard core of global Catholicism. The new cardinal-electors hail from a total of 14 countries; only five come from Europe, and the European choices are somewhat unconventional. The only Italian is Monsignor Francesco Montenegro, who has joined the pope in visiting Lampedusa, an island where desperate victims of human trafficking and people smuggling come ashore in huge numbers.
Ths Asia-Pacific region is strongly represented, with cardinals from the mainly Buddhist lands of Thailand and Myanmar, plus Tonga and New Zealand, and, perhaps most interestingly, there is one from Vietnam, a country with which the holy see has no diplomatic relations. Religious freedom-watchers regard Vietnam as one of the world's more serious violators of basic liberties, although the situation is said to be volatile and changing in unpredictable ways. Of the two American agencies which monitor freedom of belief, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) thinks Vietnam should be considered a "country of particular concern"—in other words, an egregious violator—while the State Department used to place Vietnam in that category, but has not done so since 2006. Vietnam is at least willing to discuss the subject of religious freedom with the United States and the European Union; it has allowed a panel of EU experts on the topic to tour the country and offer opinions.
The State Department describes Catholicism, with 6m followers out of a total Vietnamese population of 93m, as a growing force in that country. Secretary of State John Kerry, who first went to Vietnam as a naval patrol boat commander, has shown his solidarity with Vietnamese Catholics (and tried to assure sceptics that he cares about religious freedom) by attending mass in Ho Chi Minh City. USCIRF, as part of a litany of complaints, recently noted an incident in which two Catholics were arrested for trying to repair a shrine, prompting a public prayer vigil by supporters demanding their release, into which police opened fire.
But the flock headed by Cardinal-elect Pierre Nguyen Van Nhon is a resilent one, and they remember much worse persecutions than that. At least two Vietnamese "martyrs"—clerics who died at the hands of the communists—are on their way to being recognised as saints. And according to people who know the religious scene in Vietnam, the country's Catholics are a highly disciplined community, and by European standards they take traditional Catholic teaching seriously. A Vietnamese Catholic who has an abortion is as likely to be rebuked by her fellow Catholics as by priests or bishops.
Pope Francis is obviously quite serious about curbing the Roman bureaucracy and giving more power to local churches and bishops in all their diversity. He did some plain speaking about the flaws of the bureaucracy just before Christmas, and he now says he will convene a meeting on reforming the curia in early February. In some parts of the world, this devolution of power may give Catholicism a somewhat liberal flavour. Only a couple of weeks ago, a Belgian bishop broke new ground by saying the church should find some way of recognising stable same-sex unions. But that liberal flavour will not be evident everywhere.
This blog, named after the Dutch Renaissance humanist and scholar, considers the intersections between religion and public policy
Advertisement
The Economist explains: How marriage makes people healthier
The Economist explains
Free speech and public signage: Signs, signs, everywhere a sign
Democracy in America
Egypt's judicial politics: From Pharaoh to Phoenix
Middle East and Africa
Babbage: January 13th 2015: Online games
Science and technology
Fuel surcharges: A fuel and his money
Gulliver
Anti-poverty programmes: Helping the poorest of the poor
International
Graphic detail
Advertisement
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you’ll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
In Colombia Pope Francis designed Monsignore José de Jesús Pimiento, one troglodyte. Bad election.
I think within the confines of reasonableness, the current Pope, Pope Francis has done much more to make the institution more open and less orthodox. But then again the Catholic Church is a very old institution with its morass of bureaucracy and internal power structures.
Also Western Europe and the USA/Canada demographic are turning less and less religious. The church in its policies is also heading to where more adherents are and hence this shift towards Asia and Latin America.
Catholic means universal.
Right! The word "Catholic" is derived from the Greek word katholikos meaning "universal" and was first used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century.
"A Vietnamese Catholic who has an abortion is as likely to be rebuked by her fellow Catholics as by priests or bishops."
This sentence makes sense of the "vamp" in TE that the Church might become less Euro-centric in governance without necessarily becoming more "liberal."
Two biases are at work:
a.) A "liberal" Church is preferable to a "conservative" Church.
b.) Opposition to abortion is "conservative" and favoring access to abortion is "liberal."
Do we so rank other values? Is the Church's prohibition against murder "liberal" or is it "conservative?" Is the injunction to show mercy "liberal" or "conservative?"
The article is most interesting but gives away the prejudice brought to it by the writer. (Nothing wrong with that - how many of us can really write "objectively?"
Francis' appointment of a large cadre of non-European cardinals easily trumps any talk of "liberal" or "conservative." How they might vote for the next pope in a subsequent enclave is unpredictable.
What Francis has done here, though, is of one piece with his papacy: chivvying the Church toward a sort of self-reformation in which grace is greater than condemnation and reconciliation more valued than rectitude.
Since time out of mind the Church has been controlled by a tight mafia of Italians. That the Church was Eurocentric is nothing against it: until recently the locus of its following was European (including the Europeanized cultures of the Western Hemisphere.)
Francis not only understands that this has changed -- the Church is increasingly an extra-European body -- but rejoices in that fact. Whether the voice of the "new" Catholic Church is liberal or conservative, its inevitable future is one in which many more voices are heard. These will be Asian voices, African voices, Western Hemispheric voices (of which Francis is the first) and each of these "voices" will bring to the Church its own interpretation and passion for Christ and His teachings.
The Church has, for centuries, been constipated. It became more so under the papacies of Paul VI and JP II. Many of us have had enough of triumphalism, sacerdotalism, clericalism and theological hair-splitting. The world does not need more theology -- the Church chokes on its theology. It does not need more jeremiads such as the endless and joyless "Thou shalt nots" of so many priest/popes.
To be a Catholic during the "bunker years" of the last several papacies was indeed dispiriting. The popes and the Curia, despite endless travel by the first in the "popemobile," were meaningless -- even meretricious. From time to time JP II, and Benedict XVI, would issue some General Order of the Day from deep within the Curia Bunker to explain yet another defeat on the Russian Front. Francis is trying to put an end to this "siege mentality" in which the Church sees itself as an island of saintliness set in ocean of sin. Like Esmerelda in "The Tempest," Francis wants to "suffer with those I saw suffer."
A leap into the Unknown is always preferable to a retreat into one's self. Francis, regardless whether labeled "conservative" or "liberal," encourages the Church to make just that leap. He wants it to embrace the Future, widen itself to the world -- and cease to be a sort of smoking club for old Italian men who have tired of bocci.
More power to him!
Regarding "... how many of us can really write "objectively?""
More importantly; how many of us can read, see, or recognize "objectively?"
Also, more power to the "Holy Spirit!"
The author rightfully, drew attention to Pope Francis's diversification in his most recent appointment of 15 cardinals, but failed miserably, in devoting 1/2 of the print to single out and bash Vietnam's religious freedom - the 2nd highest percentage of Christians in Asia (Philippines is 1st). The article further ignored the crowning moment of 1st ever Myanmar cardinal (less than 600,000 Catholics) and 2nd cardinal for Thailand while, Pierre Nguyen Van Nhon (not Thon) is joining Cardinal Jean-Baptiste Pham Minh Man as the 5th cardinal to date in Vietnam (as well as 2 other cardinals of Vietnam origin).
You further performed a readership disservice by vaguely, mentioning John Kerry's mass attendance, a shrine repair incident, "disciplined" Vietnamese Catholics rebuking abortions, 2 "martyrs" died in the hand of Communists amongst estimated 130,000 to 300,000 Vietnamese martyrs (Catholic Online) and litany of complaints...while, avoiding complex Christianity-Vietnam relation where the Catholic church spearheaded Western colonization (1600-1800's), played significant role in state sponsored religious oppression by the minor religion (President Diem's 1954-1963) and recently, continuing campaigns by American Protestants to incite ethnic Vietnamese to reject Communist governance...
6 million Vietnamese Catholics are in the pocket of America, who are ready to stand up to overthrow the communist regime and install a puppet government of USA in Vietnam.
Pierre Nguyen Van Nhon is the sixth Cardinal of Vietnam. Cardinal Pham Minh Man is the fifth. So there're 6 Cardinals of Vietnam's origin so far.
CIA & MI6 are massively financing Vietanmese Catholics, helping them, traning them how to overthrow the VCP, set up a pro-USA, UK government in Vietnam. It may be done through violent strikes, riots, coup' d etat. Something that's called "color revolution, the same as it was done in Ukraine - Maidan, shock & awe, strikes, riots, shooting etc. The pro-US UK government of VN then is ordered by Washington to fight a proxy war with Chinese - USA's arch rival, for USA.
Pretty sure the Vietnamese hate the Chinese enough that we don't need to launch a coup to create a "USA-Papal State" that will fight China for the USA.
Miscount on my part. Yes! Pierre Nguyen Van Nhon is the 6th...
Of course, CIA & M16 involvement with the Vietnamese Catholics are as a matter of international politics: for generations now, some Vietnamese Catholics equate being Christian with anti-Communist, collaboration thus, made easier by 1 over million overseas Vietnamese Catholics. EU and the US never found neither a human right nor religious freedom infraction/violation that they can't define as universal (Protestant church operated without permit...). They can even create 1 if there exists none such as this article singled out this 1 cardinal/20 appointment -occasion to call out Vietnam's terrible records. How else can they manipulate diplomatic negotiations, economic agreements, military bases and/or war?
Name spelling corrected, thank you.
If Vietnam must tolerate the papist, they should take a lesson from Singapore and "Operation Spectrum" and remind the "good Archbishop" that he is not in Europe and his purple dress will afford him no exemptions.
http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/straitstimes19...
What's a "country of particular concern"? We don't care about it.
Most of Vietnamese catholics are anti-communists, who cause problems with government on command from Washington DC. America uses them to play with our commies. Sometimes, the Church is seen as a political party who wants to compete with the VCP politically, not the Church at all.
They - the Catholics - cause troubles (ofcourse, they're instigated by America). They even set themselves on fire and blame the VCP for it. America then cries out loudly that the VCP violates human rights or crushes the Catholics. That's fine because we know that America is excellent at producing fake events so then she interferes in other countries' business.
America is also a country of particular concern.
Interational politics? What's international politics? Sorry, America isn't our daddy. If there's problem with the Catholics, then it's the Vatican's business. America has nothing to do with it. America can't use our Catholics to play with our commies, our governent or use them as puppets to cause troubles for us. I don't think that America should turn the Vatican's business bad. I also don't think that America can interfere in the Vatican's business.
What're Vietnam's terrible records? America instigates the Catholics to cause troubles for the VCP because she understands that the VCP does not troubles. If there's trouble, then America has a reason to step in, interfere, scold, or uses it to manipulate diplomatic negotiations ...
Indeed, if you allow Westerners, via their "NGOs" or other instruments" to infiltrate your nation and alter or divert the allegiance of you people, you are nursing a viper in your midst.
"Scoundrels use wicked methods, they make up evil schemes to destroy the poor with lies, even when the plea of the needy is just."
Isa 32:7
Allow Ian Paisley to explain the work of popery:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3N22LRcAoA
Evidently, traditional Catholic teaching has something great to offer the people of Asia...
"Ecclesia in Asia"
Pope (St.) John Paul II
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/docume...
What is state of religious freedom inside vatican? Are citizens free to convert to other religions. Can they built synagogue or even a protestant church inside it?
I don't know if there is room inside the Vatican City, but the largest mosque in Europe is in Rome, and the Vatican encouraged the construction of the mosque. In fact, the Pope has prayed in the mosque on several occasions.
I dunno.
Can K-Mart open a store inside a Wal-Mart?
What's your point?
Without equality, There is no freedom.
Supremacism is anti-thesis of freedom & equality.
Many so-called religious freedom advocates don't even believe in religious equality (i.e. All religious beliefs are equal & valid).
Quite often Religious Supremacist (Who claim monopoly on truth, harshly denounce others as false faiths,& spread disharmony) are masquerading as Religious Freedom Champions. They are just pushing their own agenda by hook or crook.
I withhold any praise till the day when Vatican accords the same level of respect and courtesy to a non-European Christian church as it accords to the Anglican and Mormon churches... will it ever?
Of course not! Catholicism is Western White Supremacism dressed up as "spirituality". The Churches of Ethiopia, Armenia, Egypt, and the Assyrians are all older than the Catholic church, but are never accord any respect. The Papal Curia even sent priest to bless troops and bombs attacking Ethiopia during Ethio-Italian war. As Emperor Menelik II said after the Battle of Adwa; "Do not stoop to the unchristian barbarism of the Catholics".
These two comments are some of the oddest I've read in a while.
Houshu seems to not understand the basic dynamics of Christianity - surely the case if he thinks that the Catholic Church respects the (in their eyes) heretical Mormon 'church' just because it is 'white'.
YoungWeber is just being his old "no-Popery" Protestant nut as usual.
You think more catholic voted for non-white but christian Obama than for white but "heretical" Romney?
Of course not! American evangelical, hypocrites extraordinaire, were foaming at the mouth about how Mormonism "is of the devil" and how the hierarchy of the Mormon church "knowingly prays to Satan", but when White Mitt Romney, a stakeholder in the Mormon Church (equivalent to an Archbishop) ran against Black Barak Obama, they ran to endorse Mitt and paper over the differences. There were a few evangelicals, like Robert Jeffress of Dallas First Baptist, that kept their principles and bowed out of involvement in the election, but most came out strongly for Romney. In America, it is all about race; if the choice is between a White "Satan-worshipper" and a Black "Christian"; they will choose the White guy every time. Principles and consistency are traits both alien and repugnant to the American character in general; to the evangelical character in particular.
I know what you mean.
For example, the REVEREND Al Sharpton!
"You think more catholic voted for non-white but christian Obama than for white but "heretical" Romney?"
Latino immigrants to USA are mostly catholic. If you do consider the Latino votes to Obama, then yes, a lot of Catholics voted for Obama.
I have a narrow view of freedom of religion; I don't believe that any member of the clergy, even where there is an established churched, ought to be permitted to make political statements. Although, if the national strife is founded on a difference of religion, then perhaps; I am big fan of the Rev Dr. Ian Paisley.
I believe it was Lord Chief Justice William Blackstone who declared:
"As to papists, what has been said of the Protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects."
"By a thousand plots Popery is covertly advancing in our land, and one of the most effectual means for resisting its inroads is left almost neglected, namely, the instruction of children in the faith"
- Spurgeon
It is no secret that the Catholic Church wishes to extend it reach into lands outside of the West; as Westerners have grown tired of it, and faith in general, they are attempting to subvert the minds of non-Westerners. Where ever the flag of Western imperialism once reached, the papist have attempted subjugation of the mind to accompany subjugation of the body to Western authority. The authorities in Vietnam, and all other non-Western nations, are justified in guarding their nation against the enslavement of their minds to foreign ideology and a foreign master. We should all pray fervently that these nations will prevail against dangerous workers of popery.
Your comments appear to be more accurately describing corporate globalization:
" But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects."'
"..attempted subjugation of the mind to accompany subjugation of the body to Western authority."
"..attempting to subvert the minds.."
"..flag of Western imperialism.."
".. guarding their nation against the enslavement of their minds to foreign ideology and a foreign master..."
Indeed, we should pray fervently. That these nations including the West will prevail against the destructive forces of globalization.
Well, no nation should seek, nor allow, to have their nations economic life dominated by foreigners. However, there is nothing wrong with engaging in global commerce with the nations of the world and doing so on an equal footing; your multi-nationals shall be treated on their soil as you treat their multi-nationals on your soil. It is the business of the nation in question to ensure that its businesses and population are up to world competitive standards.
However, the issue with Papistry is not one of money, per se, but thought. The Papal Curia does not merely seek to collect tithes and encourage the consumption of particular brands, but to subvert the nation and insert itself via edicts, decrees, and bulls into the most intimate areas of the national life and the hearts of men. For non-Western nation and were papacy is an alien ideology, this most not be tolerated.
William Blackstone was never Lord Chief Justice of anything. He was a law teacher and textbook writer.
Not quite; he was not "Lord Chief Justice", but Justice of the Common Pleas; a position second only to Lord Chief Justice.
You are confusing the Catholic Church with Microsoft.
And what is your justification for the unique legitimacy and standing of the nation state itself, a relatively new historical creation?
The Church is motivated by social justice. Corporations are motivated by profit. Again, your list of accusations against the church more aptly applies to multinational corporations:
'aim to subvert nations' -> bribe or overthrow public officials and/or governments, advertising etc.
'insert itself via edicts' -> through privatization of public utilities and/or national resources
'collect tithes' -> indirect taxation
'decrees' -> economic blackmail, etc
'bulls into the most intimate areas of national life and the hearts of men' -> creating and promoting immoral wants/needs/behaviour.
The Catholic church is what it is; it has no other intention, but to being the nation into servile obedience to the magisterium and the Papal Curia. For non-Western nations and Protestant nations of the West, the Catholic church and obedience to a foreign master has no place and cannot be tolerated.
I don't defend the nation-state, per se. The nation-state is a European invention and they have largely been able to hold them together as long as there is a external source of rent or plunder (reserve currency status, colonies, minorities) to subsidies less efficient regions. Should peoples of the same ethnic/linguistic and/or religious background be united into a single state; maybe or maybe not; it is not the only form of political organization and not even the most successful. So, it is true the state and the "nation" are two separate entities, but today are used interchangeably; regardless, one should not wish to see either fall under the control of papist.
Social Justice! Servile obedience to old European men in purple dresses is social justice? The Catholic Church is motivated to make men mental slaves and reduce them beggary, idleness, and superstition. There is no "social justice" in the doctrines of Rome; only how to make men hapless sheep.
"Well, may the people of Italy rejoice over the fall of this incubus of the ages! If anyone would satisfy himself of what Popery is at its centre; what it does where it has had its fullest sway, let him make a little tour, as we have lately done, into the mountains in the vicinity of Rome, and see in a country extremely beautiful by nature, what is the condition of an extremely industrious population. In the rock towns of the Alban, Sabine, and Volscian hills, you find a swarming throng of men, women, and children, asses, pigs, and hens, all grovelling in inconceivable filth, squalor, and poverty. Filth in the streets, in the houses, everywhere; fleas, fever, and smallpox, and the densest ignorance darkening minds of singular natural cleverness. A people brilliant in intellect, totally uneducated, and steeped in the grossest superstition."
-
Spurgeon
It's nice to read that Vietnam's Catholics "are a growing force", "are a highly disciplined community", and "take traditional Catholic teaching seriously". It would be quite interesting to see someday children allowed to pray in school in Vietnam and perhaps the PRC, and not in the USA.
Children are allowed to pray in school in the USA. What is not allowed is for the teacher (or other school official) to require or even encourage them to do so. Especially not to push them to pray in a particular way. Even children are allowed freedom of religion -- without government authority figures telling them to pray or how to pray.
My use of the word "someday" suggests I mean at some time in the future.
Religion whose root is in the "Middle East" is usually radical and fanatic. Catholic was set up by "Emperor" Constantine, a warlord, and veritable European "culture" vanished. South America was "Christianized" by force, and NOT by love (the thief is always the loudest). Vietnam lags behind other Confucian nations (Singapore, Taiwan, China, Korea and Japan) because of this belligerent religion.
Does the small, Catholic minority have that much power to forestall development in Vietnam? Also, Singapore is a hodgepodge of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Bhuddism...
Some truth in what you write. Those countries colonized during the 19th c. by the world's leading Protestant power, Great Britain, usually advanced during colonization and emerged as functioning, independent nations.
Those colonized by the leading Catholic European power, Spain, have struggled to prosper and advance.
Whatever else my faith may be as a source of spiritual insight it has, especially since the 16th century, been a retrograde force for intellectual and economic development.
The closer the Pope . . . the lower the GDP.
If Francis can divert this stream of stultifying "stand-patism," as represented by the Curia, into a faith that liberates us both spiritually AND economically then future generations will remember him with gratitude.
Actually, Singapore is the world's most religiously diverse country... followed by Taiwan & Vietnam. Of Singapore, about a third of them are Buddhist.
Too bad the British didn't work their colonial magic in India & Pakistan.
They did . . . to a certain extent. By 1900 India had one of the largest railroad systems in the world. And the Indian state, as opposed to India-as-geography, was created, in part, by the Raj. When the Brits departed in '47 they left behind a functioning democracy. (Compare India with Congo!)
Pakistan? They've largely done it to themselves.
Really???
Actually; on a percentage basis, there are more Catholics in Singapore (7.1%) and in South Korea (10.9%) than in Vietnam (6.9%). Catholicism surely has not held back either Singapore or South Korea from prospering.
My aunty whom lives in Houston is a Buddhist, she thought it was best to let her daughter assimilate therefore sends her to a Christian school. She had to put up with my cousin constantly telling her she will go to hell all these years.
You forget the fact that the "Catholic" minority was never a power in S.Korea or Singapore, but it was the ruling power in Vietnam since France left Vietnam (at least in the South). Btw, if you've ever witnessed a Vietnamese "Catholic mass" you'll see how "powerful" a priest could be (the same is in the Philippines). The fact is that it isn't the percentage of a population. It's the question how the minority behaves within a majority.
St.Tello,
LOL. Does the minority in "Vatican" has that much power to dictate the world (e.g. the use of condom in the Philippines or in S. America)? The poverty is the foundation of the Catholic Church. The poorer a folk is the more it has to beg at the Church for "relief". Just look at S.America or the Philippines.
Are you the mouthpiece of the Cath. Church? As I said, the religions whose root are in the Middle East are always fanatic and radical. And Pakistan was Islamic. India is a home of 172 mio. Muslims (Wikipedia)
I'm not sure your analysis is accurate. Any religion can have "fanatical and radical" expression. You need only look at the mob of Hindu fanatics burning down a mosque in India a few years back. (Or the Japanese fanatics during World War II.) Both manage to achieve fanatic expression without any Middle Eastern roots.
At the same time, there are religions with Middle Eastern roots who have no sign of fanatacism or radicalism. Look, for just one example, at the Quakers -- pacifists, and not particularly radical on any other score either.
"Those countries colonized during the 19th c. by the world's leading Protestant power, Great Britain, usually advanced during colonization and emerged as functioning, independent nations.
Those colonized by the leading Catholic European power, Spain, have struggled to prosper and advance."
That's a fairly common argument, but it can't stand up to objective evidence. The essentially all-white British colonies of Canada, Australia,and New Zealand are prosperous; and so are the tiny East Asian city states of Hong Kong and Singapore. But Catholic powers never created any colonies based on those models. If you look inside of Asia, the Catholic colonized Philippines is more prosperous than the British conquered India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Burma. The average Latin American country ranks above all of the former British colonies in Africa or Asia (excluding Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia) in terms of human development.
Whether a country was conquered by Catholics or Protestants doesn't seem to have any impact on its long term development.
Yes, but whether they were settled by Protestant or Catholics appears to make much difference. Canada, New Zealand, and Australia (and the USA) were settler colonies of the British and they have done much better than Spain's and Portugal's former colonies of settlement in Latin America.
When it comes to colonies of exploitation; with the exception of Macau, none of the Catholic nation's former colonies are as successful as their peers. Malaysia, a former British colony, is far more successful than the Philippines; so is the former Dutch colony of Indonesia.
In the Caribbean, the former British colonies are the most successful and most have higher GDP per capitas than even the former Spanish settler colonies in Latin America.
Only in Africa is there a reverse in the trend of Protestant ruled versus Catholic ruled former colonies; although, the African nation that saw the most growth and development post- independence is Botswana, a former British colony.
However, is former Japanese colonies that have performed the best post-independence.
The British settler colonies were, for the most part, categorically different from the Spanish and Portuguese colonies of Latin America. The British displaced the local peoples to create colonies comprised of white settlers (accompanied by African slaves in the South) whereas the Spanish and Portuguese conquered and interbred with the local people creating a very different type of colony that evidently had worse long term prospects that likely had nothing to do with Catholicism vs. Protestantism. But I'll concede that the the Southern Cone of South America definitely has demographic similarities with the settler colonies of North America and Oceania, and though Argentina and Chile are well ahead of their neighbors they are clearly behind the USA, Canada, etc. Blame Catholicism for that if you will, but I doubt that is the best explanation.
Indonesia is not far more successful than the Philippines. In terms of HDI, Indonesia is at 0.684 and the Philippines at 0.660. They are roughly equal in terms of development or 'success' and the for the past 60 years the Philippines was generally ahead of Indonesia. Malaysia was a different type of colony than the other two. Whereas the Philippines and Indonesia were directly administered by centralized colonial bureaucracies in which all of the important positions were reserved for Europeans, Malaysia was a federation of British protectorates (with three city-states ruled by British governors thrown in) that was largely administered by the locals; and the fact that millions of people from China and India immigrated to Malaysia during the 19th and 20th century probably has more to do with Malaysia's comparative success than the presence of distant Protestant authorities. If you add Burma, Bangladesh, and India into the evaluation of European colonies in Southern Asia, it would be impossible to claim that Protestant colonial officials led to more successful countries than Catholic officials.
Amongst the independent countries in the Caribbean, Cuba has the highest standard of living (surpassing the Bahamas by HDI). Jamaica is behind Trinidad and Tobago and isn't much better better than the Dominican Republic. Haiti is far behind everyone else, but you can hardly blame the French Catholics for that.
Firstly, Trinidad and Tobago is a former British colony; it was ceded by Spain to the UK in 1802. Secondly, the use of "HDI" as opposed to GDP per capita can be extremely misleading; by that measure Cuba has a higher HDI than Kuwait and the Bahamas; which is absurd claim to any one who has been to all of those countries. HDI means "don't look at our GDP; we are poor, but happy". Only the Dominican Republic and Jamaica are on equal footing.
Now, the Spanish settler colonies did produce a mixed race population, but many Spaniards did settled in Latin America, Criollos, and did nothing, but engage in exploitation and plunder; even today. It is very difficult to argue that the difference in worldview created by Protestant values versus Catholic value played no part in shaping the societies. Religion influences culture and culture influences the practices of government; those practices are carried over even after a change of regime; the Philippines has a GDP per capita (PPP) 2/3 of Indonesia, but at the same level of Communist Vietnam; also a former Catholic colony.
You can discount the failures of the Spanish states of the Southern Cone and attribute them to other causes, but the fact remains that they are high in Catholic influence and low on Protestant influence (not counting crazy charismatic evangelicals). There are other value system that will also engender good governance, but Papistry is poison to any society that wishes to cultivate savings, discipline, rationality, individual initiative, and personal responsibility. Even if the workers of popery do not succeed in making you Catholic; simply to observe and adopted the habits of the papist can retard the progress of a society for generations.