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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-219 next last
To: RegulatorCountry

All of the colonies had state religions, which were maintained, for the most part, into the 19th century. (Pennsylvania was the first state to disestablish, in 1790, New Hampshire the last in 1877). It was argued that the 14th amendment did away with state religions, but at that point they were only left in two states, so it wasn’t that big a deal. They were not against a state religion so long as it was their religion.


61 posted on 11/12/2013 6:02:33 PM PST by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

All 13 had state religions, though the degree to which they tolerated those who were not part of the religion varied. New England tended towards Calvinism. Maryland south tended towards Anglicanism.


62 posted on 11/12/2013 6:04:12 PM PST by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hieronymus

I believe Rhode Island might have been the outlier who did not. Rhode Island whoever was the one state who seemed to teeter on civil war more than once in its history.


63 posted on 11/12/2013 6:08:36 PM PST by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

LOL
Have you heard the term’180* out of phase’?
Well, you are.
Who said the colonists have run off with the Presbyterian minister ?


64 posted on 11/12/2013 6:16:26 PM PST by aumrl (let's keep it real Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gusty

Digging around a bit more—all 13 did support some preferred religion with public money. The extent that certain groups were favoured and others were discouraged varied. Rhode Island was certainly among the most tolerant. Even after independence, GA, NC, NJ and NH all prohibited Catholics from holding office.


65 posted on 11/12/2013 6:17:49 PM PST by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

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

I generally see most Catholics as loyal Rat voters. Sadly.

66 posted on 11/12/2013 6:18:19 PM PST by RugerMini14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pax_et_bonum

yeah - I can buy into that.
Allies we need to be.


67 posted on 11/12/2013 6:18:58 PM PST by aumrl (let's keep it real Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

While Jefferson clearly embraced the ideas which Bellarmine expressed in De Laicis, he obviously was not Catholic himself.

There are a number of quotes that show up along with the one you have posted from Jefferson’s letter to Baron Von Humboldt. I don’t have time to do the research to find all the letters pertaining to Jefferson’s discussion with Von Humboldt. The particular quote you have posted appears to pertain the necessity of separation/independence between the altar and the throne. Unfortunately, Jefferson’s writing style in many of his letters is often misunderstood without reading the whole letter as well as the letter or issue he was responding to when he wrote it. One must also keep in mind his continued actions..... this leads to the letter to the Danbury Baptists Association. Many atheists claim the wall of separation means there should be no expression of religious belief in the political arena. Which is not what he meant in either his word or actions. He did not want the government establish an official religion and have religious tests for employment by the government as was done with the Church of England. He clearly saw no issue with prayer in the public square or in public buildings as evidenced by the fact that he regularly attended Sunday religious services in the House Chambers of the Capital Building while he was President.


68 posted on 11/12/2013 6:58:28 PM PST by Bill Russell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I am not particularity against Catholicism.

But I cannot help but notice, or at least this is my opinion, that most of the countries south of the Rio Grande down to the tip of South America are one or all of the following: very poor, very corrupt, socialists, full of drug cartels, very backwards. I believe the predominant religion south of the Rio Grande is Catholic.

I pointed out this coincidence to a devout Catholic a few years ago and was severely chastised. I expect no different here.


69 posted on 11/12/2013 7:04:37 PM PST by redfreedom (GOP = Vichy colaborators at best, traitorous 5th Columnists at worst.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

I disagree with your statements on the Church opposing religious freedom and forbidding the reading of Protestant Bibles. Unfortunately, peeling back all the layers of the “onion” to properly explain and discuss those issues with facts, and not hearsay, is probably beyond the levels of effort we are both willing to put into the discussion right now.


70 posted on 11/12/2013 7:10:22 PM PST by Bill Russell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bill Russell
I've debated those very points here before, it wouldn't be particularly difficult. For instance, the Index Librorum Prohibitorum was abolished in 1966 as a direct result of Vatican II. Within this list of prohibited books was every Bible used by Protestant Groups. Numerous Catholic authors advocating freedom of religion were censored right up through the fifties into the sixties.
71 posted on 11/12/2013 7:22:37 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

It did in New England. Those colonies were on the frontline in the wars with French Canada, where the priests not only opposed their protestantism but their aggression against the Indians.


72 posted on 11/12/2013 7:27:37 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Washington and Jefferson were members of the Episcopal Church, but were probably deists like the majority of the Founding Fathers, who didn’t ascribe to any particular religion. In all their writings they hardly ever refer to Jesus Christ, or God, but instead refer to a Supreme Being, Author of the Universe, Creator, etc. Washington would occasionally say Christian in his writings, but most scholars don’t think he was Christian. They all believed in God, no matter what they called Him.


73 posted on 11/12/2013 7:30:24 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gusty

It was not irrelevant to the English nobility when Mary was queen. She was smart enough not to remand reparations when she sought their approval for renewed relations with Rome, and this earned her their friendship. If she had lived another twenty years, English likely would have remained Catholic, because only in the City was she unpopular.


74 posted on 11/12/2013 7:31:46 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

“Republican government” meant Jacobinism to the Church. Tocqueville was not the only European Catholic who didn’t “get” the American notion of religious liberty.


75 posted on 11/12/2013 7:35:02 PM PST by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: redfreedom

“very poor, very corrupt, socialists, full of drug cartels, very backwards. I believe the predominant religion south of the Rio Grande is Catholic”.

Most of these countries are ruled by athiest strongmen. Most socialist are athiest.

At one time all the countries of Europe were Catholic. Then the socialist took control and Catholics for all intents and purposes were ran out of the country. France and Spain are prime examples.


76 posted on 11/12/2013 7:35:27 PM PST by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Our founders were not fond of state religions. Catholicism is the original state religion.

That's a strange claim to make. Anglicanism was unquestionably a state religion, down to bishops being appointed by Parliament. That's the "establishment of religion" most of the Protestant dissenters who founded the U.S. were rebelling against.

But Anglicanism was explicitly established by the state against Catholicism, which was viewed as a supranational religion hostile to the (English) state. And most of the medieval history of the Catholic church consists of fights of various kinds with secular rulers ... Canossa, Philip the Fair, the "lay investiture" controversy, etc.

Orthodoxy, too, was far more of a "state religion," after the schism, than Catholicism was before or since. In Tsarist Russia, the church was explicitly run by a state agency headed by a layman called the "Procurator of the Holy Synod".

Lutheranism in Scandinavia (Germany is a different and more complex case) was also more of a state religion than Catholicism has ever been, anywhere outside central Italy.

77 posted on 11/12/2013 7:38:16 PM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aumrl

yeah - I can buy into that.
Allies we need to be.

***

Then allies we are!

Nice to meet you.


78 posted on 11/12/2013 7:38:34 PM PST by pax_et_bonum (Never Forget the Seals of Extortion 17 - and God Bless Americadd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: redfreedom
But I cannot help but notice, or at least this is my opinion, that most of the countries south of the Rio Grande down to the tip of South America are one or all of the following: very poor, very corrupt, socialists, full of drug cartels, very backwards. I believe the predominant religion south of the Rio Grande is Catholic.

Correlation is not causality. Poland is very Catholic. Had she not been occupied by Orthodox Russians, destroyed by Nazi Germans and then had communism imposed upon her by atheist Russians, would she not be a relatively rich and prosperous nation today? (Keep in mind, in the 1680's, before Russia, Austria, and Prussia carved her up, she was rich enough and strong enough to save Europe from the Turks, which is probably why you aren't a Muslim today.)

Czechoslovakia was primarily Catholic in the 1930's, and had the highest standard of living in Europe.

Ireland was certainly very Catholic until recently. How free and prosperous might Ireland have been if it hadn't been under the boots of the English for the past 500 years?

Many people would argue that Latin America was never properly converted to the Catholic faith, but had the faith imposed on it by the sword while simultaneously being looted and enslaved by her Spanish conquerors.

79 posted on 11/12/2013 7:45:50 PM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
deists like the majority of the Founding Fathers

Where we get that term "deist" in relation to our Founders is from historians over the last 75 years or so who have endeavored to minimize any connection to religion our Founders had in reality.

All of our Founders believed that it was not their job to preach religion, because they had tremendous respect for the individual human conscience. That is one reason why the Constitution begins with - "We the People."

They purposely minimized their own religions in order to present the religious freedom of "We the People."

80 posted on 11/12/2013 7:47:31 PM PST by Slyfox (Satan's goal is to rub out the image of God he sees in the face of every human.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-219 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