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 last
To: Pelham

Actually, it was the the more devout Puritan, Increase Mather, who insisted the Biblical standard in rules of evidence requiring 2 or 3 witnesses to be applied, which led to the trials’ ceasing.


201 posted on 11/14/2013 6:06:53 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Accidents of history.

Then again, the sinking of the Spanish Armada might of had a Divine hand involved.

202 posted on 11/14/2013 6:15:00 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]

To: Cvengr

That’s true. But his son Cotton was also a Puritan minister and Cotton is generally considered one of the leading culprits in getting the witch trials going. And the children of another Puritan minister, Samuel Parris, appear to be the source of the first witchcraft accusations

My point is that the witch hysteria took root in Puritan New England. It didn’t take off in New York, Virginia, or anywhere else outside the baleful Puritan influence.

The Puritans were an odd and extreme bunch. They refused to celebrate Christmas and Easter, they didn’t permit music other than hymns, they wouldn’t allow their children to have toys. Maybe if the Parris girls had had dolls to play with they wouldn’t have entertained themselves with vivid accusations against their neighbors.

As far as the practice of Christianity went in colonial America the Puritans were nutcases. Learned maybe, but legalistic and joyless nutcases.


203 posted on 11/14/2013 8:12:51 PM PST by Pelham (Obamacare, the vanguard of Obammunism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

The Durch Rebels had a hand in it, too. They are the ones who kept the Spanish fleet from transporting the Spanish Infantry from Flanders to England. If they had got ashore in England, it would have been Katy bar the door.


204 posted on 11/14/2013 8:53:25 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

The Salem trials pretty much marked the end of the Witch-hunting period, which lasted several hundred years. Interesting is the fact the the Spanish Inquisition prosecuted few witches, because they recognized it for what it was.


205 posted on 11/14/2013 8:57:57 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

The witch craze took off with the publication of a book in the late 1400s, authored by a couple renegade Catholic priests if I recall correctly. The “Malleus Maleficarum”, the “Hammer of the Witches”.

In the preceding centuries the Church regarded witchcraft as nothing more than empty superstition but the authors of Malleus Maleficarum managed to make belief in witches as popular as zombies are in 21st Century America.


206 posted on 11/14/2013 9:37:50 PM PST by Pelham (Obamacare, the vanguard of Obammunism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

Well, the English had some of those also . Remember Lord Fairfax, with whose family Washington had many dealings? One reason for the Revolution was to keep the English aristocracy from taking the western lands that Americans wanted.


207 posted on 11/14/2013 9:41:35 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

“Today’s Catholicism is a wholly owned subsidiary of man. Got your ticket out of purgatory?”

I was really hoping for a rational response.

Oh, well, hope in one hand...


208 posted on 11/15/2013 12:06:31 AM PST by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Later changes in Puritan eschatology led to a more legalistic interpretations in their living, but for about 200 years, Puritan theology simply focused upon removing all Roman Ritual from their worship of Christ (hence the descriptor, Purity...from all Roman Ritual). Their earlier writings from 1558-1630 were much more fundamental than later backsliding.

They also weren’t as dour as many make them out to be. They didn’t forbid drinking or sex, but forbid wasting wine and extramarital sex. They also didn’t insist everybody become Church members, but recognized predestination and many were greatly influenced regarding Covenants.

They founded the school that became Harvard and made laws requiring literacy in all children.


209 posted on 11/15/2013 1:03:59 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

The witch trials probably had some original basis in fact, but due to liberal allowance in their rules of evidence, quickly spun out of control into hearsay and random accusations. It wasn’t until the more conservative Puritans intervened, insisting upon eyewitness testimony to be vetted by 2 or more, before accepted as evidence, that the trials were brought back into control.

Puritanism really began with Mary Queen of Scots, going out and putting her Protestant leaning clergy to being burnt at the stake and returning to Roman ritual in the Church of England. When Elizabeth brought back toleration of Protestantism, those in the Church who didn’t feel they went far enough to limit the Romanist traditions became “Puritans”.

Most bad reputations associated with Puritanism are advocated by pagan advocates of witchcraft, because their pagan views are adversaries to Christ first.


210 posted on 11/15/2013 1:15:40 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Actually, the witch trials began when they were playing with dolls during a time when they were closed in their house over a very extreme winter weather, perhaps a form of cabin fever. Also watching the girls was a Carribean, slave who told the girls stories from the Catholic written Malleus Malificarum about demonic sexual attacks. The types of dolls described in the witch trials were closer to voodoo dolls than a forerunner of Barbie.


211 posted on 11/15/2013 1:39:42 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

bttt


212 posted on 11/15/2013 3:17:52 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

I will stick with “uniquely Catholic” for the ideas Jefferson used. Cardinal Bellarmine was writing with the approval of the Pope to defend the independence of the Church from Henry VIII’s take over of the Church in England and forcing it into submission under the crown.


213 posted on 11/15/2013 3:20:30 AM PST by Bill Russell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

both sides at times. yes.


214 posted on 11/15/2013 7:08:50 PM PST by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
One reason for the Revolution was to keep the English aristocracy from taking the western lands that Americans wanted.

The Revolution was a grass roots uprising. Nobody commonly knew what was in the western lands. The colonial powers had difficulty finding any immigrants to settle in the their behalf in the colonies alone, hence the relaxation of all controls and promotion of any encouragement to find people who would inter into agreements to settle the New World.

Many didn't survive the natural world or the native attacks.

215 posted on 11/15/2013 9:35:45 PM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr

One obnoxious part of the Quebec Act was that it forbade settlement beyond the” Proclamation Line.” and set up the region as a kind of Indian Reserve. Washington was one of those who had staked claims in “:Ohio Country.”But many Americans moved west into the region indeed leading to conflict with the Indians.


216 posted on 11/16/2013 12:15:15 AM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

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

No, it's more like permanent malcontents and sticks in the mud don't figure into my consensus. Attacks on Christianity will always fall on the Catholic Church first, with evangelicals smiling and sitting by the sidelines shooting spitballs, until it spreads to them of course. Only then it becomes a "problem". The heavy lifting will usually be done by Catholics. In fact, my wish is that Catholics would return to the social activism of the early 1900's, when they had the ability to keep trash out of "entertainment", had a social community, and had a bit more concern for the society their children were growing up in. I really think we lost something with Vatican II, when the Catholic Church decided to be more of a church of people than a church of God. My hope is that the mistakes made there will someday be corrected. We had a Pope who tried. God willing there will be more. Personally I think there are much bigger problems than who has the better Jesus. What are called debates on the religion forum remind me of trying to have a civil discussion with a Libertarian Party member. Guilty of it myself I am sure.

The best thing I can say to you (or anyone) is take care of your family first and raise your children well and not to be ashamed of Jesus. Not saying "you" personally. That is where it starts. You would not believe the amount of people I have met who ask "are you a Christian" in hushed tones one would normally use as if they were trying to find a coke dealer.

Enough of a rant, it's Friday. Time to watch a hockey DVR.

217 posted on 11/22/2013 5:25:08 PM PST by Hacksaw (I haven't taken the 30 silvers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw; metmom
"...than who has a better Jesus..."

There's a LOT of truth in that statement, Hacksaw.

218 posted on 11/22/2013 5:35:39 PM PST by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
That is where it starts. You would not believe the amount of people I have met who ask "are you a Christian" in hushed tones one would normally use as if they were trying to find a coke dealer.

Ironic, isn't it, in light of the gay community that wears its sexual preferences on their sleeve?

If they aren't ashamed of who they have sex with, I'm not going to be ashamed of who my God is.

If I have to hear about their sex life. They're going to hear about my Jesus.

219 posted on 11/22/2013 6:04:25 PM PST by metmom ( ...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]


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