Posted on 07/24/2008 11:29:05 AM PDT by Publius804
July 23, 2008, 12:32 pm
Is Anti-Catholicism Dead?
By Sewell Chan
When Gov. Alfred E. Smith ran for president in 1928, his candidacy was derailed in large part by anti-Catholic prejudice. It has been nearly 48 years since John F. Kennedy became the first (and so far only) Roman Catholic president, but experts say that anti-Catholic sentiment — much of it originating in, or as a response to, immigrants in New York — remains an enduring force in American culture.
(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Why is the Times even worrying about it? Is it something they want to start again?
Pennsylvania is among those states that use a state constitutional amendment created by 19th century anti-Catholics as an excuse to stop school choice programs.
THey need to talk to the guy in Minnesota who wants to “abuse” the Eucharist, and view his blog, to know anti-Catholicism is alive and well
That’s o.k. The Catholics have Jesus on their side.
Nope. At least, not as long as there are homosexual activists demanding special rights. They absolutely HATE the Catholic Church, because it has been steadfast in the teaching that homosexual acts are sinful.
You wrote:
“Anti-catholicism began with the Protestant Reformation as a response against a dictatorial Rome interfering in the lives and freedoms of people (they ought to have a right to sin without payment of indulgences);”
That’s absolute BS. 1) Indulgences were granted to those who asked for them. Those who had money donated money according to their station in life. Those who had no money were expected to donate NOTHING. 2) The average person in no way saw their freedoms in regard to much of anything interfered with by the Church. 3) Anti-catholicism was not about freedom for the Protestant governments were often much more controlling and domineering than any Catholic bishop or government. Don’t sign on with the Act of Supremacy? Off with your head! Don’t want to be Anglican, but still want to be Protestant? You Puritans better leave for America!
“it flourished under Oliver Cromwell in England, died down, then briefly flared up again later during the reigns of William of Orange and his Stuart wife, Mary.”
That’s JUST Britain. Don’t forget Holland, Scandinavia, Germany, etc.
“In this country, anti-Catholism never really grabbed hold as Roman Catholics, with the blessings of the English monarch and Roman Catholic Charles II, landed on St. Clement’s Island where they celebrated the first English-speaking Mass in what was to become America and established the colony of Maryland in the 1600s.”
Never really grabbed hold? Ever been to old St. Joseph’s in Philadelphia? It’s built in such a way as to protect it from fire bombers and rioters! Gee, I wonder why? Ever here of Maria Monk, the Nativists, or the KKK? I guess not.
“True, Al Smith garnered 15 million votes in 1928 to Hoover’s 21 million but the vote total for him was twice that as four years ago when Democrat John Davis ran against Coolidge so, to say there was an anti-Catholic bias, is a fallacy.”
Again, nonsense. Politicians use what works. Ever look at the anti-Catholic literature from that campaign? Why would people produce it if there was no reason at all to think it would work?
“Smith lost because he was a RAT (I wish that he’d won because we wouldn’t have had the legacy of FDR to hang around our necks today).”
The legacy we do have is of a lingering anti-Catholicism that some here apparently want to pretend never existed on these shores.
“The legacy we do have is of a lingering anti-Catholicism that some here apparently want to pretend never existed on these shores.”
Why pretend? It flourishes right here on FR.
Is anti-semitism dead?
Balderdash! So does anti-Mormonism, anti-Episcopal (me), Anti-Jehova Witness, et al...the one thing that does seem to flourish away from criticism is fundamental Christianity; although I saw a lot of Baptists being bashed when Huckabee was running as well. So don't toot your victim horn!
You wrote:
“What are you, a victim?”
I have been a victim of anti-Catholic sentiment - including at my job a decade ago.
“You sound as though you’ve been pilloried by Cromwell himself for attending Mass. Hogwash!”
So someone has to be whipped to be a victim of anti-Catholicism?
“The few incidences of anti-Catholicism were confined to limited hate groups such as you describe (KKK).”
No, they weren’t. I think the Ursulines who had their convent burned in Massachusetts in the 1830s might disagree with you. You might want to study history yourself. Take your own suggestion.
“Incidentally the South in the 1920s, then Democratic, went mostly solidly for Smith (and also Kennedy in 1960). In the North in the 1800s, anti-Irish bias was mostly disguised as anti-Catholicism. Also, if you would study a bit of history, you’d find that during the 1500s it was quite common for priests to charge indulgences, especially in what was once the Holy Roman Empire: Germany.”
I have a PhD in history and it was NOT common for priests to charge money for indulgences. First, if you get a copy of Bettenson’s Documents of the Christian Church, you’ll see that people gave donations for indulgences. They were NOT routinely sold. Bettenson, by the way, was a Protestant. 2) Most indulgences - as is the case with all indulgences now - had nothing to do with money as either donated sums or “sold” items.
“And it was that blasphemous practice that inspired Luther to launch into his tirade against the Church.”
Maybe it was maybe it wasn’t. What Luther railed against in 1517 had nothing to do with what were talking about.
“BTW, I’m one who regards the Roman Catholic Church as the Mother Church of Christianity but most of her “children” that I meet here in FReeperland are just that—children!”
Children, red-headed step children, whatever, many of them exist for little more reason than to attack the Church.
IrishCatholic wrote this:
“Why pretend? It flourishes right here on FR.”
You responded with:
“Balderdash! So does anti-Mormonism, anti-Episcopal (me), Anti-Jehova Witness, et al...”
So you deny it exists - anti-Catholicism - while agreeing there is also anti-Mormonism, et al.? Make up your mind. The fact that other “antis” exist doesn’t mean anti-Catholicism does not exist.
Where were you working? The First Baptist Church of Podunk, Ark.?
“...So someone has to be whipped to be a victim of anti-Catholicism?
No, but someone DOES have to prove anti-Catholic discrimination...which, BTW, I don't believe exists anywhere but on the minutest scale, especially in a country which has followed a strict path of having no establishment of a national religion for 232 years.
“The few incidences of anti-Catholicism were confined to limited hate groups such as you describe (KKK).” No, they weren’t. I think the Ursulines who had their convent burned in Massachusetts in the 1830s might disagree with you. You might want to study history yourself. Take your own suggestion.
Okay, so you stereotype an entire nation for a small cabal of bigots? You might want to look at the number of Roman Catholics instrumental in fighting for our American Revolution, quite a few were on Gen. George Washington's staff (Gen. Thom. Smallwood, Lafayette for example) there were plenty of RCs who also backed England as many on both sides didn't apparently feel as picked on as you do.
“Incidentally the South in the 1920s, then Democratic, went mostly solidly for Smith (and also Kennedy in 1960). In the North in the 1800s, anti-Irish bias was mostly disguised as anti-Catholicism. Also, if you would study a bit of history, you’d find that during the 1500s it was quite common for priests to charge indulgences, especially in what was once the Holy Roman Empire: Germany.” I have a PhD in history and it was NOT common for priests to charge money for indulgences. First, if you get a copy of Bettenson’s Documents of the Christian Church, you’ll see that people gave donations for indulgences. They were NOT routinely sold. Bettenson, by the way, was a Protestant. 2) Most indulgences - as is the case with all indulgences now - had nothing to do with money as either donated sums or “sold” items.
Come on professor, you know that RC priests were abusing their flocks, greedily taking money to wash away sins. There can be no argument that the Church is as pure as you want to make it out to be...several popes in fact were notorious villans: Alexander VI, John XII, Benedict IX; Urban VI for example...but I suppose that you are going to attempt to defend them as well?
You wrote:
“Where were you working? The First Baptist Church of Podunk, Ark.?”
No, a state university.
“No, but someone DOES have to prove anti-Catholic discrimination...which, BTW, I don’t believe exists anywhere but on the minutest scale, especially in a country which has followed a strict path of having no establishment of a national religion for 232 years.”
You can also refuse to believe the earth isn’t flat if you like. I’ve seen and experienced anti-Catholic sentiment - online, and in person.
“Okay, so you stereotype an entire nation for a small cabal of bigots?”
No, I did no such thing. Why don’t you deal with what I wrote and not just make stuff up to deny the obvious?
“You might want to look at the number of Roman Catholics instrumental in fighting for our American Revolution, quite a few were on Gen. George Washington’s staff (Gen. Thom. Smallwood, Lafayette for example) there were plenty of RCs who also backed England as many on both sides didn’t apparently feel as picked on as you do.”
The number of Catholics in the American Rev. was small all around. Catholics were a minority to say the least.
“Come on professor, you know that RC priests were abusing their flocks, greedily taking money to wash away sins.”
Just to say that ALL priests were doing that is rather ridiculous when that was most certainly not the case.
“There can be no argument that the Church is as pure as you want to make it out to be...”
I never said every Catholic was pure, but the Church is always pure because it is from God, not man.
“several popes in fact were notorious villans: Alexander VI, John XII, Benedict IX; Urban VI for example...but I suppose that you are going to attempt to defend them as well?”
Why would I have to? You already proved my point by denying the obvious.
So on the one hand you say “balderdash!” and on the other you say it does- but no more than other religions.
Right, got it. Nothing to see here move along.
Got a little emotional there didn’t you?
2. The Roman Catholic Church bears little resemblance in form and practice to the early church. It was not until St. Gregory the Great, for instance, that priests were required a vow of celibacy.
3. In the early church the pope, officially the Bishop of Rome was no more powerful than any other bishop. Also, until popes were elected by the College of Cardinals, Second Council of Lyons circa 1270s, they were either elected by the clergy and the people of Rome or even handpicked as the Bishop of Rome. This sometimes led to nepotism as nephews, other relatives ascended to the papacy.
4. Marian philosophy was not a part of the early church, although she was revered to a large degree and regarded saintly but certainly not elevated to today's status.
5. Don't even get me started in the Spanish Inquisition, or the persecution of Galileo.
You wrote:
“1. The Roman Catholic Church is the mother Church of all Christianity—hence, no RCC,...”
The CATHOLIC CHURCH is Christianity. “Roman Catholic” is really just a term invented by 16th century Anglicans. Look in the OED if you don’t believe me.
“... no Christianity because, even though Paul had established some other Eastern sects,...”
St. Paul never established ANY sects. St. Paul established local churches not sects.
“... they would have likely died out without Western Civilization and such things as the Gutenberg Press.”
You are just making this up as you go along.
“2. The Roman Catholic Church bears little resemblance in form and practice to the early church. It was not until St. Gregory the Great, for instance, that priests were required a vow of celibacy.”
Irrelevant. Jesus praised celibacy for those who worked for God. Do you even know where he did that in the Bible? And celibacy hardly separates the church from its roots.
“3. In the early church the pope, officially the Bishop of Rome was no more powerful than any other bishop.”
Completely untrue - as shown by early Christians themselves. Have you never read Clement’s letter to the Corinthians? No, apparently not.
“Also, until popes were elected by the College of Cardinals, Second Council of Lyons circa 1270s, they were either elected by the clergy and the people of Rome or even handpicked as the Bishop of Rome.”
Irrelevant. How the man became pope - however it was legitimately viewed then - has no bearing whatsoever on his authority. If he was the pope, he was the pope.
“This sometimes led to nepotism as nephews, other relatives ascended to the papacy.”
Again, irrelevant.
“4. Marian philosophy was not a part of the early church, although she was revered to a large degree and regarded saintly but certainly not elevated to today’s status.”
Again, nonsense. Read what Irenaeus, Jerome, and others wrote about Mary. It would really help if you knew what you were talking about.
“5. Don’t even get me started in the Spanish Inquisition, or the persecution of Galileo.”
I have no reason to believe you know no more about those issues than you do about these. Throw in the kitchen sink while you’re at it. Do whatever you want to to evade.
Early popes were more or less nothing more considered than Bishop of Rome. The power over entire church came much later; and, indeed, I have read Clement’s letter to the Corinthians--to paraphrase you, irrelevant!
Also, Paul did establish other churches in the eastern part of the Roman Empire which were in no way connected with Rome. But, (and this is my opinion) I do not believe they would have survived without the influence of later Western influence--probably consumed by paganism or, worse, Islam when the Ottomans came on the scene.
Go turn in your Ph.D., YOU DON'T MERIT IT!
You wrote:
“I really am having a difficult time believing that you truly possess a doctorate in history considering the hogwash that you spew out.”
Amazing. You make completely unsubstantiated claims and you then attack me. Again, read Bettenson’s Documents of the Christian Church. Read Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. I am at least listing sources that support what I say while you are making baseless assertions and offer no support whatsoever. Here’s an example:
“Marian worship was begun well after more than 1,000 years of church history...”
1) No Catholic worships Mary. 2) You originally said “4. Marian philosophy was not a part of the early church, although she was revered to a large degree and regarded saintly but certainly not elevated to today’s status.” So now you’re changing horses in mid-stream. I think you need to read Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought, before you further embarrass yourself. Also, it would help if you learned about the develop of doctrine since that is apparently completely foreign to your understanding of reality.
“she was only declared bodily assumed into heaven back in the 1950s.”
By the pope, infallibly, yes. But it was always believed in by millions and millions of Christians. Again, read Gambero’s book.
“Yet, through out Scripture (even in the Apocrypha and other ancient texts) there is not one word of her performing any miracle or being anything other than a lucky Jewish virgin in God’s lottery pool.”
There didn’t have to be - the Bible is about God, not Mary. Also, you are ignoring what the early Church fathers wrote about the woman of Apoc. 12.
“Most certainly she did not suffer agony on a cross and die for world sin.”
No, she was simply pierced by a sword of pain while watching her Son be killed. (Luke 2:35) It would help if you knew the Bible.
“Early popes were more or less nothing more considered than Bishop of Rome.”
Again, read Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. Then, when you’re done that, read Butler’s Jesus, Peter and the Keys.
“The power over entire church came much later;”
No, it always existed. Again, read Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. Then, when you’re done that, read Butler’s Jesus, Peter and the Keys.
“... and, indeed, I have read Clement’s letter to the Corinthians—to paraphrase you, irrelevant!”
I doubt you have for it isn’t irrelevant.
“Also, Paul did establish other churches in the eastern part of the Roman Empire which were in no way connected with Rome.”
Paul never established a church that wasn’t part of the Church. St. Paul, who preached the fact that the Church was the Body of Christ, would never have done so.
“But, (and this is my opinion) I do not believe they would have survived without the influence of later Western influence—probably consumed by paganism or, worse, Islam when the Ottomans came on the scene.”
Your opinion is meaningless since it is based on imaginary events.
“Go turn in your Ph.D., YOU DON’T MERIT IT!”
I most certainly did merit it, while you’re showing you don’t merit being taken seriously by anyone. You can’t substantiate anything you say thus far nor have you even tried. You’re showing us all what your posts and musings are worth.
You wrote:
“Father Luigi Gambero is a 20th Century author and scholar, hardly a 1st Century one.”
His book is on the early Church fathers - not the 20th century.
“His belief in “perpetual virginity” is, IMHO, analogous to belief in tooth fairies because you’re not going to convince me that a Jewish man (Joseph) never had normal relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.”
He doesn’t discuss his belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He discusses the belief of the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
“Indeed there is evidence of Christ having brothers and sisters and, if you’d look up the translation of the Greek word “adelphos,” you’d see this evidence in early Scripture.”
Incorrect. Adelphos is not limited to blood brothers. Maybe YOU should look up the meaning of the word. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0090.html
“Even s and gospel scholar, affirms this evidence, in spite of traditional RC teaching to the contrary.”
In the future, when you are brazen enough to post things from websites without attribution as you did above, I suggest you do the honest thing and list the websource: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/32/story_3253_1.html
You’ve gone from posting things without any substantiation whatsoever to simply borrowing comments from websites (that you pass off as your own) that still don’t prove your point.
“I believe Fr. Gambero also claims that the early protestant churches believed in perpetual virginity which is laughable, especially if you would bother to read the early English Common Book of Prayer in setting the tenets and canons of Anglicanism.”
You really have no idea of what you’re talking about do you? Here, let me school you in this like everything else:
Proof that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in Perpetual Virginity of Mary: http://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/luther-believed-in-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary/
And trust me, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/luther-calvin-and-other-early.html
And about Anglicans: They once believed in it and some have never stopped believing in it. They’re still writing about it in seminary - and make sure you read the end of the paper right before the bibliography: http://www.btw3.com/classfiles/HT1/PerpetualVirginity.pdf
And about the Book of Common Prayer...as Anglicans themselves admit in the ARCIC II:
Following the traditions of the early Church and other Reformers like Martin Luther, the English Reformers such as Latimer (Works, 2:105), Cranmer (Works, 2:60; 2:88) and Jewel (Works, 3:440-441) accepted that Mary was ‘Ever Virgin’. Following Augustine, they showed a reticence about affirming that Mary was a sinner. Their chief concern was to emphasize the unique sinlessness of Christ, and the need of all humankind, including Mary, for a Saviour (cf. Luke 1:47). Articles IX and XV affirmed the universality of human sinfulness. They neither affirmed nor denied the possibility of Mary having been preserved by grace from participation in this general human condition. It is notable that the Book of Common Prayer in the Christmas collect and preface refers to Mary as ‘a pure Virgin’.
A PURE VIRGIN. Hmmm....
And: In the seventeenth century writers such as Lancelot Andrewes, Jeremy Taylor and Thomas Ken re-appropriated from patristic tradition a fuller appreciation of the place of Mary in the prayers of the believer and of the Church. For example, Andrewes in his Preces Privatae borrowed from Eastern liturgies when he showed a warmth of Marian devotion “Commemorating the allholy, immaculate, more than blessed mother of God and evervirgin Mary.” This re-appropriation can be traced into the next century, and into the Oxford Movement of the nineteenth century.
EVERVIRGIN MARY. Hmmmm...
Listen, we could continue this all the live long day but so far you’ve been shown to be wrong over and over again.
“And, if we’re going to venerate Mary to Godly status,...”
And who EXACTLY could possibly do that? There is no way to venerate anyone to any status they don’t hold. Veneration doesn’t change the saint.
“...believe in her immaculate conception and Holy assumption bodily into heaven as well as deify some of the super Saints (Ann, et al) then we might as well revert back to polytheism and worship Jupiter and his Roman host.”
I suggest we just hold on to reality and not make stuff up as you do or post things without attribution as you do.
You were wrong about the Reformers’ views on Mary.
Wrong about the Anglicans’ view of Mary, etc.
What will you get wrong next?
Meandog, in my previous post to you a portion of the text you lifted (without attribution) from somewhere else on the net was accidentally deleted by me.
Here it is as I originally found it and the website from which you apparently took it without having the courtesy of giving attribution:
“Even John Meier, a moderate Roman Catholic Jesus and gospel scholar, affirms this evidence, in spite of traditional RC teaching to the contrary.”
In the future, when you are brazen enough to post things from websites without attribution as you did above, I suggest you do the honest thing and list the websource: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/32/story_3253_1.html
Here’s the quote as it was found by you apparently:
“But the normal meanings of the Greek words indicate they were (and John Meier, a moderate Roman Catholic Jesus and gospel scholar, affirms the same thing, in spite of traditional Catholic teaching to the contrary).”
I just wanted to make sure everyone knew you were taking things in your unsubstantiated posts from other authors without proving the appropriate attribution. It’s always sad when someone feels the need to pass of others’ work as their own.
Have a nice day!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.