Fox's writing here is a bit of historical historiography--he wrote over 350 years ago. Like virtually any history of his day, of course he is obviously biased...standards of history as a science had yet been written. Of course we as conservatives still see notorious bias both in history's first draft (the media) and in history text books and courses used in schools.
However, beyond Fox there are numerous and widespread historically reliable accounts that the medieval and renaissance Roman Catholic church did indeed surpress the vernacular bible, and ruthlessly persecuted and killed individuals and groups who for one reason or another didn't toe the official church line on any number of subjects (often SURPRISE...those issues, like corruption of the curia, or threatening fund-raising (see "indulgences")involved money and/or political power...)
You can say the Church didn't kill anyone...technically almost true...however judging one (or hundreds and thousands ) heretical and turning him over to the state (to burn alive) makes them as culpible or more as the high priests of Jerusalem turning Jesus over to Rome while chanting, 'crucify!' (the original word "outlaw" applied to heritics, and meant they were "outside the protection of the law" meaning anyone, especially local rulers, could imprison, torture or kill them, without penalty)
There is a reason why freedom of religion was so important to the (overwelmingly Protestant) founding-fathers of America--they were only a few generations away from the raging religious wars of Europe--which sprang up after the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and its highly intolerant Council of Trent declaration.
Until Roman Catholicism as a whole (not just the Vatican itself, which to a large extent has...) faces up to its history of persecution, corruption, and intolerance--focused on other Christians especially, will there ever be enough reform to reunify the Church.
If we are all guilty by association with the Vatican, why aren't we all absolved by association with the Vatican's penitential stance?
SD
It was so important to them that most of them didn't practice it or believe in it, at least not early on.
Religious tolerance in America started out at St. Mary's Towne, Maryland, a Catholic settlement. A few months later, Roger Williams founded Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, as a refuge from the religious intolerance of, not Roman Catholics, but Massachusetts Puritans. The experiment in tolerance at St. Mary's Towne ended when the Anglicans paid a friendly visit ... and torched the place.
I don't understand this comment at all. Nobody speaks for "Roman Catholicism as a whole" except the Vatican. It's like a foreign diplomat demanding an apology from "the USA as a whole, not just the Federal Government".
You wrote: “However, beyond Fox there are numerous and widespread historically reliable accounts that the medieval and renaissance Roman Catholic church did indeed surpress the vernacular bible, and ruthlessly persecuted and killed individuals and groups who for one reason or another didn't toe the official church line on any number of subjects (often SURPRISE...those issues, like corruption of the curia, or threatening fund-raising (see "indulgences")involved money and/or political power...)”
No, actually there are no such sources. The Catholic Church had no authority to kill anyone. The Catholic Church never suppressed the vernacular bible, although it certainly suppressed erroneous translations held by Albigensians, Lollards and some others. The Church was also not ruthless. An institution that is ruthless would never promote confession, amnesties before inquisitorial processes, the use of defense lawyers, the denial of evidence provided by enemies of the defendant, reconciliations, etc.
”You can say the Church didn't kill anyone...technically almost true...however judging one (or hundreds and thousands ) heretical and turning him over to the state (to burn alive) makes them as culpible or more as the high priests of Jerusalem turning Jesus over to Rome while chanting, 'crucify!' (the original word "outlaw" applied to heritics, and meant they were "outside the protection of the law" meaning anyone, especially local rulers, could imprison, torture or kill them, without penalty)”
Incorrect. The high priests violated their own rules, laws and apparently for some even their own consciences up to a point. Can you show me something similar on the part of the Catholic Church? Nope.
”There is a reason why freedom of religion was so important to the (overwelmingly Protestant) founding-fathers of America--they were only a few generations away from the raging religious wars of Europe--which sprang up after the Catholic Counter-Reformation, and its highly intolerant Council of Trent declaration.”
Incorrect. They believed in religious freedom because of the suffering they encountered at the HANDS OF THEIR FELLOW PROTESTANTS. If you could think you would realize that the Protestant Reformation happened in England BEFORE the Catholic Reformation (what you called the “Catholic Counter-Reformation”). That means Protestants were fleeing from Protestants when they left England. The pilgrims were not fleeing from Spain or Italy, but Protestant England and Holland. Also, the English colonies themselves often persecuted Protestants of different stripes than those running the colonies. Ever learn in grammar school about the origins of the colony of Rhode Island? Here is the first paragraph of a history of Rhode Island in the colonial period: “Rhode Island's first permanent settlement was established at Providence in 1636 by English clergyman Roger Williams and a small band of followers who had left the repressive atmosphere of the Massachusetts Bay Colony ******to seek freedom of worship. ****** Canenicus and Miantonomi granted Williams a sizable tract of land for his new village. Other nonconformists followed Williams to the bay region, including Anne and William Hutchinson and William Coddington, all of whom founded Portsmouth in 1638 ******as a haven for Antinomians, a religious sect ******whose beliefs resembled those of Quakerism. A short-lived dispute sent Coddington to the southern tip of Aquidneck Island (also purchased from the Narragansetts), where he established Newport in 1639. The fourth original town, Warwick, was settled in 1642 by Samuel Gorton, another dissident from Portsmouth. During this initial decade two other outposts were established: Wickford (1637), by Richard Smith, and Pawtuxet (1638), by William Harris and the Arnold family.”
Protestants running from Protestant persecution. Nothing new there. The two most free colonies, in the earliest years, were Pennsylvania (Quaker) and Maryland (originally founded for Catholics to flee to from Protestant persecution in England).
“Until Roman Catholicism as a whole (not just the Vatican itself, which to a large extent has...) faces up to its history of persecution, corruption, and intolerance--focused on other Christians especially, will there ever be enough reform to reunify the Church.”
The Church is unified. Protestant sects are not asked to “reunify” with the Church. Protestants are not in the Church. Only Protestants as individuals can come to the unity of the Church and reconcile or convert. When Protestants learn basic vocabulary, history, which books belong in the Bible, how to think, how to pray, how to worship, and how God works – in addition to their history of persecution, hypocrisy, anti-Catholicism, indifferentism and attacks on God’s Church – then they will be ready for full Christianity. Until then? They are stuck with the sects of their own creation.