Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What drove English and American anti-Catholicism? A fear that it threatened freedom
Catholic Herald ^ | November 12, 2013 | DANIEL HANNAN

Posted on 11/12/2013 3:47:47 PM PST by NYer

The US Declaration of Indepdence: Thomas Jefferson saw Catholicism as despotism

The US Declaration of Indepdence: Thomas Jefferson saw Catholicism as despotism

Foreign visitors are often bewildered, and occasionally disgusted, by the spectacle of Guy Fawkes Night. The English are not a notably religious people, yet here they are wallowing in what looks like a macabre orgy of anti-Catholicism.

In fact, of course, the event has transcended its sectarian origins. To the extent that participants are aware of any historical resonance at all, they believe they are celebrating parliamentary democracy – which needs protecting, these days, from the Treaty of Rome, not the Bishop of Rome. Fifth of November bonfires serve as a neat symbol for what has happened across the English-speaking world. A political culture that was once thought to be inseparable from Protestantism has transcended whatever denominationalties it had.

Guy Fawkes Night used to be popular in North America, especially in Massachusetts. We have excised that fact from our collective memory, as we have more generally the bellicose anti-Catholicism that powered the American Revolution. We tell ourselves that the argument was about “No taxation without representation” and, for some, it was. But while constitutional questions obsessed the pamphleteering classes whose words we read today, the masses were more exercised by the perceived threat of superstition and idolatry that had sparked their ancestors’ hegira across the Atlantic in the first place. They were horrified by the government’s decision, in 1774, to recognise the traditional rights of the Catholic Church in Quebec.

To many Nonconformists, it seemed that George III was sending the popish serpent after them into Eden. As the First Continental Congress put it in its resolutions: “The dominion of Canada is to be so extended that by their numbers daily swelling with Catholic emigrants from Europe, and by their devotion to Administration, so friendly to their religion, they might become formidable to us, and on occasion, be fit instruments in the hands of power, to reduce the ancient free Protestant Colonies to the same state of slavery with themselves.”

Puritans and Presbyterians saw Anglicanism, with its stately communions and surplices and altar rails, as more than half allied to Rome. There had been a furious reaction in the 1760s when the Archbishop of Canterbury sought to bring the colonists into the fold. Thomas Secker, who had been born a Dissenter, and had the heavy-handed zeal of a convert, had tried to set up an Anglican missionary church in, of all places, Cambridge, Massachusetts, capital of New England Congregationalism. He sought to strike down the Massachusetts Act, which allowed for Puritan missionary work among the Indians and, most unpopular of all, to create American bishops.

The ministry backed off, but trust was never recovered. As the great historian of religion in America, William Warren Sweet, put it: “Religious strife between the Church of England and the Dissenters furnished the mountain of combustible material for the great conflagration, while the dispute over stamp, tea and other taxes acted merely as the matches of ignition.”

John Adams is remembered today as a humane and decent man – which he was. We forget that he earnestly wondered: “Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion?” Thomas Jefferson’s stirring defences of liberty move us even now. Yet he was convinced that “in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

Americans had, as so often, distilled to greater potency a tendency that was present throughout the English-speaking world: an inchoate but strong conviction that Catholicism threatened freedom. Daniel Defoe talked of “a hundred thousand country fellows prepared to fight to the death against Popery, without knowing whether it be a man or a horse”. Anti-Catholicism was not principally doctrinal: few people were much interested in whether you believed in priestly celibacy or praying for the souls of the dead. Rather, it was geopolitical.

The English-speaking peoples spent the better part of three centuries at war with Spain, France or both. The magisterial historian of the Stuarts, J P Kenyon, likened the atmosphere to that of the Cold War, at its height when he was writing. Just as western Communists, even the most patriotic among them, were seen as potential agents of a foreign power, and just as suspicion fell even upon mainstream socialists, so 17th-century Catholics were feared as fifth columnists, and even those High Church Anglicans whose rites and practices appeared too “Romish” were regarded as untrustworthy. The notion of Protestantism as a national identity, divorced from religious belief, now survives only in parts of Northern Ireland; but it was once common to the Anglosphere.

When telling the story of liberty in the Anglophone world in my new book, I found this much the hardest chapter to write. Being of Ulster Catholic extraction on one side and Scottish Presbyterian on the other, I am more alert to sectarianism than most British people, and I’ve always loathed it. But it is impossible to record the rise of the English-speaking peoples without understanding their world view. Notions of providence and destiny, of contracts and covenants, of being a chosen people, were central to the self-definition of English-speakers – especially those who settled across the oceans. Protestantism, in their minds, formed an alloy with freedom and property that could not be melted down into its component elements.

And here’s the almost miraculous thing: they ended up creating a uniquely individualist culture that endured when religious practice waned. Adams and Jefferson led the first state in the world based on true religious freedom (as opposed to toleration). From a spasm of sectarianism came, paradoxically, pluralism. And, once it had come, it held on. “I never met an English Catholic who did not value, as much as any Protestant, the free institutions of his country,” wrote an astonished Tocqueville.

Best of all, Anglosphere values proved transportable: they are why Bermuda is not Haiti, why Singapore is not Indonesia and why Hong Kong is not China. There’s a thought to cheer us, whatever our denomination, all as the orange sparks rise from the bonfires each year.



TOPICS: Catholic; History; Mainline Protestant; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catholicism; founders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-219 next last
To: pax_et_bonum

It’s just that after the war is over, we can get back to squabbling about the LITTLE things that are SO important to us!


181 posted on 11/14/2013 5:24:18 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Today we Protestants mostly see Catholics as natural allies and assets in our fight to save America.

several months ago I referenced that Obozo's intent was to close down Catholic hospitals, using HHS mandates. IIRC only you and one other protestant commented on what a loss this would be. Quite a few of the others here cheered it on, not realizing that if the Catholic Church loses on this they are all next, and will fall like dominos.

I only hope that this is an over vocal minority.

182 posted on 11/14/2013 5:52:35 AM PST by verga (We used to be the land of the free. Now weÂ’re just the land of the freebie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
The State of Maryland was founded by Catholics.<>Actually a majority of the Colonists that come over to Maryland were Protestants. It was not so much a "Catholic" colony as one in which all religions were tolerated.
183 posted on 11/14/2013 5:57:26 AM PST by verga (We used to be the land of the free. Now weÂ’re just the land of the freebie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: verga

Appeal to Conscience Clauses in the Face of Divergent Practices among Catholic Hospitals

“Catholic hospitals in seven states—California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Washington—were studied to determine if diversity of practice existed in the provision of direct female sterilizations. Inpatient discharge data was requested for three years (2007-2009) from the 1,734 hospitals, secular and Catholic, within the states. Of these hospitals, 239 Catholic hospitals were identified of which 176 provided obstetric services. The records of these 176 hospitals were searched for those containing the diagnostic code from the ICD-9-CM coding system for sterilization for contraceptive management. Eighty-five or 48% of these hospitals provided a total of 20,073 direct sterilizations in violation of the ERD.”
http://catholichospitals.org/#Introduction


184 posted on 11/14/2013 8:09:18 AM PST by haffast (Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: rwa265
"Actually, I played absolutely no part in garaging it. However, God’s Word and His covenant does not mean much if we don’t receive it. I was just wondering how the Word was delivered to you and how you are so certain that you have the correct understanding. Who passed on the teachings of the apostles to you?"

Please re-read my post. I did not say that you played any part in garaging it. It is your org which wants to lay claim to the Word of God, as if they were instrumental in its delivery to mankind. This is preposterous, over-bloated arrogance on the part of Rome. They may have garaged the Ferrari, but there was no such thing as the RCC when the Scriptures were completed....but such a confession would require them acknowledging real history.

And, it was the Spirit of God operating on my soul with the words of the text which opened my eyes and rescued me. No absolution from a "priest", no 7 sacraments, no membership in Rome, no anything...just faith granted by the grace of God. Eph. 2. May want to read the real message of salvation, my FRiend. It is free, if God has elected.

185 posted on 11/14/2013 9:40:03 AM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

“Beside, Catholicism is not incorrect nor correct. It’s a faith. So, set your head straight, you having faith in something that others do not, does not equal wrong or right for either side.”

It is an error to believe that Catholicism—or Christianity in General—is supported only by faith.


186 posted on 11/14/2013 9:42:10 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Please re-read my post.

I did re-read the post, and you are correct. You did not say I had any part in preserving the Word. Still, I wonder how you received the words of the text. Did you come upon them yourself or did someone bring them to you? Was it the Spirit only working on your soul, or did the Spirit also speak to you through others?

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12 that some God has designated to be first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers, etc. Did you have any teachers give you instructions on the Scriptures, or has it only been through the Spirit of God that the Scriptures have been open to you?


187 posted on 11/14/2013 11:39:05 AM PST by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: dsc
It is an error to believe that Catholicism—or Christianity in General—is supported only by faith.

No. Today's Catholicism is a wholly owned subsidiary of man. Got your ticket out of purgatory?

188 posted on 11/14/2013 12:21:07 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: verga

http://www.celebrateboston.com/history/maryland.htm


189 posted on 11/14/2013 12:25:45 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: rwa265
"I did re-read the post, and you are correct. You did not say I had any part in preserving the Word. Still, I wonder how you received the words of the text. Did you come upon them yourself or did someone bring them to you? Was it the Spirit only working on your soul, or did the Spirit also speak to you through others?

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 12 that some God has designated to be first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers, etc. Did you have any teachers give you instructions on the Scriptures, or has it only been through the Spirit of God that the Scriptures have been open to you?"

Okay, I am puzzled here. What are you getting at? If I asked you, "Did you eat any peanut butter and jelly before becoming a Catholic?", would you wonder where I was going? Well, did you?

190 posted on 11/14/2013 12:27:05 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: RugerMini14

“I understand that. But it doesn’t change the fact that Catholics vote Rat by a significant margin. I wish it weren’t true but facts are facts”.

White Catholics voted republican. Look it up.


191 posted on 11/14/2013 12:33:49 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Dutchboy88

Okay, I am puzzled here. What are you getting at?


Just trying to understand your posts.

You stated that “...it was the Spirit of God operating on my soul with the words of the text which opened my eyes and rescued me” and “... no anything...just faith granted by the grace of God. Eph. 2. May want to read the real message of salvation, my FRiend.”

Is just reading the message of salvation all we need to do to understand the message? No anything else? Or does the Spirit sometimes use others to deliver His message to us?


192 posted on 11/14/2013 1:46:18 PM PST by rwa265
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Ironic that it is Catholics that are leading battles in the courts today and not the Bornigans.

The fact is Christians of all stripes are fighting the good fight. I refer you to the ACLJ, AFA, FRC and many others defending Christians and Christian moral and legal issues.

I could point out how packed our SCOTUS is with supposed Roman Catholics and we still do not have Roe vs. Wade resolved.

193 posted on 11/14/2013 2:08:17 PM PST by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rwa265
"Is just reading the message of salvation all we need to do to understand the message? No anything else? Or does the Spirit sometimes use others to deliver His message to us?"

The Scriptures plainly tell us that if a person is drawn to Jesus (in reality, not just in an emotional dither), they are drawn by the Holy Spirit. They are born from above. They may have been exposed to hundreds of human inputs (the way I was), or none (the way Paul was). But, none of those human inputs are the effectual work which brings a person to Christ. That is solely the work of God (..."no man comes to the Father unless I draw them...John 6)

In my case, I had heard variations on "Come to Jesus" for many years. I had "gone forward" as a child, and graduated from a Christian University with a degree in Theology. None of it helped...until the words of the Scripture seemed to attack my stubborn heart 15 years later. It rendered me helpless before the Rescuer. If anything, much of the human input I had heard clouded the words of the Scripture the way I see the RCC cloud many friends and acquaintances.

There is no human intermediary who actually causes salvation in another. In Cor. Paul tells us that some plant, some water, but it is God who causes the increase. Does that mean we should not speak to one another about Christ? No. But, I tend to believe Paul...he was one stubborn goat. Yet, Jesus broke his heart and rescued him from himself.

If all of this is to somehow give a kudo to the RCC, then I can plainly tell you that they are NOT delivering the Gospel to their constituents or the world. Just speaking about Christ, saying His name, or writing material about Him DOES NOT NECESSARILY HELP. The RCC is (perhaps unbeknownst to itself) peddling what amounts to a modern-day Judaizer religion, a warmed-over, reincarnation of the Law. In the Scriptures, there are no "priests", except for Jesus the High Priest according to order of Melchizadek (check the letter to the Hebrews). There is no Law, there is no repetition of the sacrifice (His was once for all), there is no intervention, holy water, icons, Sainthood (capital S), no Mary adoration, no anything but Grace granted through Faith...and that not of ourselves, it is a gift, NOT of any work, lest someone boast.

That is the message of Eph. 2, and 90% of Paul's writings. It is the message the RCC cannot face into and will not allow to penetrate its Vatican walls. It stubbornly holds onto ITSELF and its homemade religion. Whatever small role they had garaging the text over the years (and it was small), the Message of Rescue would have gotten to those who are among the elect, NO MATTER WHAT. Does that help you understand my posts?

194 posted on 11/14/2013 2:19:39 PM PST by Dutchboy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet; RugerMini14
White Catholics voted republican. Look it up.

If you want to contest a claim, you provide the evidence. Nobody is going to waste time doing your work for you.

Unsubstantiated claims are that. Unsubstantiated.

For the record, all those Catholics who've told me of their dem voting patterns and justified it with the reasons given were all white.

Not a single non-white Catholic has ever told me their voting habits.

195 posted on 11/14/2013 2:44:35 PM PST by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: metmom

59% vs 40% of White Catholics voted for Romney over Obama.

75% vs 31% of hispancic “Catholics” voted for Obama over Romney. Now you know the reason democrats want to tear down the Southern border and make illegals automatic citizens. Do you think for one minute that these hispanic “Catholic” voters are voting their conscienous and living up to their professed faith? Of course not, they are voting for free goverment handouts and nothing else.

By the way blacks (no matter the denomination), voted for the Kenyan 95% vs. 5% for Romney.

Finally Catholics and Protestants tend to have the same voting patterns. You take your faith seriously and you vote for the party that actually believes in God, and that’s the republican party. You don’t go to church, or attend church but twice a year, or you’re an athiest, you are a very reliable democrat vote. Been that way for years.


196 posted on 11/14/2013 3:38:32 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

Thanks for the statistics.


197 posted on 11/14/2013 3:56:05 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Ironic that some Catholics are blind to the fact that they are far from alone in the moral battles being waged in the U.S. courts today. A few of them are:

Nah, I've been left with the consensus that Catholics are far alone. The people coddled on the religion forums hate Catholics far more than any decay of rights in the US. They would still be arguing about the Pope while Hamid comes to saw their heads off. Not a problem though.

198 posted on 11/14/2013 4:19:38 PM PST by Hacksaw (I haven't taken the 30 silvers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
Nah, I've been left with the consensus that Catholics are far alone. The people coddled on the religion forums hate Catholics far more than any decay of rights in the US. They would still be arguing about the Pope while Hamid comes to saw their heads off. Not a problem though.

So, what you are saying is facts and reality don't factor into your consensus?

As for the people being "coddled on the religion forum" hating Catholics, you demonstrate further your OWN biases against non-Catholics. The hate you claim is permitted (coddled, you say) is really nothing more than legitimate criticism aimed at CatholicISM rather than Catholics, in general. This goes along with the persecution complex some express every time there is anything negative said about Catholicism or the Vatican on this religion forum yet not a word when Catholics post their regular anti-Protestant polemics disguised as RF topic threads. Why not address your concerns to those people who certainly ARE coddled and who take full advantage of JR's kindness and permission to the detriment of ALL Freepers?

199 posted on 11/14/2013 4:45:04 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

And we would be living on land grants instead of title deeds.


200 posted on 11/14/2013 5:24:13 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-219 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson