I think that there’s a potential of a very good question here but maybe it should be expressed more precisely.
I won’t speak to the Congo or the Philippines because I know absolutely nothing about those places. But I don’t understand what is meant by Christianity failing to produce Europe in Mexico. How did it fail? If you were speaking to a Mexican and a Spaniard, aside from some differences in vocabulary and accent, what major differences would you notice?
I routinely have Spanish and Mexican students together in my classroom, and the differences are what I said, pronunciation and some words. But in everything else, these are clearly people of an extraordinary cultural closeness.
Spain reproduced itself exceptionally well in the New World. So well, in fact, that it’s almost funny to observe how identically the transatlantic world of Hispanidad struggled with democracy, coups, and dictatorships well after the rest of Western Europe / the Americas calmed down and figured out democracy. The difficulty with accepting modernity and capitalism, the eternal love affair with socialism, the enduring love of the Baroque in art, again, well after the rest of the world moved on from it. The similarities are endless. Gosh, even the siesta, the bulls, the soccer, the plaza, the café culture, the viejitos verdes, the compadrazgo, the sociability practices – I could go on and on.
The methods Spain used to reproduce itself in its American colonies are fascinating. Actually, one of my most successful public lectures is about that. It was a concerted, purposeful plan of action conducted precisely through the Christian institutions of Spain. And it succeeded completely. If you want to observe this through a contrast, look at the British presence in India. India remained India, a very distinctive civilization that ate the British influence for breakfast. That’s why I teach a course called “Intro to the Hispanic Civilization” and easily discuss Spain, Mexico, Paraguay, and Cuba together but nobody would teach “Intro to the Anglophone civilization” and discuss the UK and India as part of the same culture.
The issue of why some colonial powers reproduce themselves in the colonies and others don’t is of great interest but Spain is, without a doubt, one of the most successful in this respect.
Clarissa's Blog 
The Philippines was a Spanish colony. I’d say the Anglo culture also did a good job of reproducing itself in the New World.
LikeLike
The Anglo culture reproduces itself excellently where there’s either no population present or it can be removed. It’s utterly incapable of engaging large, complicated cultures to join in. Maybe incapable is the wrong word because the Anglo culture very specifically doesn’t want to do this.
LikeLike
I understood the question differently.
In Dominion, Tom Holland describes how Christianity led to humanism, contributed to prosperity of Europe and the discovery of science. In short, Holland sees Christianity as the major engine bringing what I call civilization and letting modern Westerners enjoy “a life worth living”.
Why hasn’t Christianity brought social and economic progress to “highly christian” third world countries?
Reminded of Max Weber’s claim that the Protestant work ethic fostered modern economic development through an “ascetic compulsion to save”.
LikeLike
Compared to what there was in today’s Mexico before Christians arrived, I’d say there’s been extraordinary social progress. People’s beating hearts aren’t routinely torn out of their chests in front of cheering multitudes, there’s no slavery, no cannibalism. If that’s not progress, I don’t know what is.
The economic issues are behind the point here because opulence is not a Christian value.
LikeLike
I interpreted it the same way as el did. Opulence is not a christian virtue, yes, but opulence is a by-product of all the characteristics that you mentioned which made western civilization what it was.
LikeLike