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
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 governments 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 Jeffersons 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 Ive 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 heres 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. Theres 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 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 201-219 next last
To: Bill Russell
17th century English Protestants had almost as little love for the C of E as the Roman Catholic church. Think Cromwell: thousands of English settlers in New England returned to England to fight against the crown in the English Civil War.
Today, those who attack Catholicism (and Protestantism) due so out of a perverse desire to be enslaved because they are already enslaved to their passions, bodily or political.
81
posted on
11/12/2013 7:49:09 PM PST
by
pierrem15
(Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
To: cripplecreek
I grew up in a mixed family of Methodists, Baptists, and Catholics.
***
Same here! - and lots of friends with different beliefs.
All good people with solid values.
Take care!
82
posted on
11/12/2013 7:49:18 PM PST
by
pax_et_bonum
(Never Forget the Seals of Extortion 17 - and God Bless Americadd)
To: sinsofsolarempirefan
83
posted on
11/12/2013 7:56:01 PM PST
by
wardaddy
(i loved White Queen)
To: Slyfox
I read the writings of Washington and Jefferson to come to my conclusions. Jefferson never went to church, but he was a believer in God. In that regard he’s like the majority of Americans. Washington occasionally went to church with his wife, but he too was not a regular church goer. BUT, he was an exceptionally moral man, as was Jefferson. You can not be a great leader without being a very moral person.
84
posted on
11/12/2013 9:00:35 PM PST
by
NKP_Vet
To: NKP_Vet
You can not be a great leader without being a very moral person. Right you are - which is why Obama will never, ever be a great leader.
85
posted on
11/12/2013 9:12:20 PM PST
by
Slyfox
(Satan's goal is to rub out the image of God he sees in the face of every human.)
To: Dutchboy88
No, Catholicism, guided by the Holy Spirit has been around almost 2000 years.
Try another answer.
86
posted on
11/12/2013 9:23:52 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: goodwithagun
I wondered what happened to her.
87
posted on
11/12/2013 9:31:14 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: yellowdoghunter
Oh, really?
It’s the CINOs, the cafeteria Catholics who are liberals.
REAL Catholics, like the ones on FR, vote Republican.
88
posted on
11/12/2013 9:33:14 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: ifinnegan
89
posted on
11/12/2013 9:34:31 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Salvation; yellowdoghunter
It is the majority of baptized Catholic members of the Catholic church, and of Catholic immigrants, who vote democrat.
90
posted on
11/12/2013 9:37:07 PM PST
by
ansel12
( Democrats-"a party that since antebellum times has been bent on the dishonoring of humanity.)
To: RugerMini14
They are only CINOs — Catholics in name only.
REAL Catholics will always vote a conservative ticket.
91
posted on
11/12/2013 9:37:58 PM PST
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Hugin
Well, there was a long history of persecuting Protestant heretics. And also the fact that as late as the late 1800s the official position of the Pope was that republican government was against the will of God, and the only acceptable form of government was a Catholic monarchy. Well, yeah...there was that. ;o)
92
posted on
11/12/2013 10:39:58 PM PST
by
boatbums
(God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
To: Salvation; goodwithagun; Dutchboy88
She had asked for her account to be deleted, then at request of a few, hung around a while. After pushing things far enough to raise a tumult among more than a few FRomans, her earlier request was obliged. But it had nothing much to do with such as;
Former FReeper Jodyel made a similar statement.
likened to;
Could it have been that Catholicism is incorrect?
but was more along the lines of telling others they had demons.
As far as I can tell, there are more than few Roman Catholics who frequent this site -- who are indeed influenced by demonic forces. I can hear it in that which they express.
Yet they (Roman Catholics) are not alone in that sort of thing, so it would not be right to single all persons of that "faith" identification out, for singular criticism which can by the same tokens of discernment and measurement, as well extend accurately enough towards others also.
Please take note --- there is a world of difference between being influenced by demonic forces (Satan and his minions are fairly steady in what they attempt to do) and one being as is spoken of in pop culture --- "possessed".
As I was taught -- spirits attempt to work on our thinking (our thoughts) and our emotions. It is common enough to the human condition. This doesn't always automatically change when one becomes Christian. In fact, that's when the battling can really begin.
To: BlueDragon
In addition to the demons comment, she actually typed that Catholics are not Christians.
94
posted on
11/13/2013 3:09:50 AM PST
by
goodwithagun
(My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
To: Campion
Your church became the state church of the Roman Republic well before any of these, Campion, and tgat is why I called it the original State Church.
To: RegulatorCountry
THe Librorum Prohibitorm is a good example of how the onion must be peeled back. One must place prohibitions in the time and context of the censorships over the centuries in which it was used. There were certainly times in which books other than satanic texts were banned for more political, as well as the falsely interpreted conflict between faith and science, than religious reasons (a vestige and lesson learned from when the Church was too intertwined with political/royal institutions). Many of the more recent books were prohibited as not being definitions of Catholic Doctrine and opposed for use in the defining the Faith as handed down through the Church which Jesus entrusted to Peter. It did not necessarily mean that Catholics were absolutely banned from simply reading them — although it has been interpreted as such by many over the years. Today, approved books get endorsements or “non-objections” as opposed to filters and bans of books with ref to the Faith.
There is a decent and quick discussion posted below from this link. In the later part of the discussion, the author seems to blur the lines between the Librorum Prohibitorum and other instances of censorship.
http://catholicgene.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/index-librorum-prohibitorum/#comments
“The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) was a list of those books that the Catholic Church considered immoral or theologically erroneous. Over the centuries, from 1559 to 1948, twenty editions of the Index were prepared until, on 14 June 1966, Pope Paul VI officially abolished the Index.
Still, today, any works that address the teachings of the Catholic Church are submitted to a local Ordinary, an officer of the Church who has ordinary power to execute Church laws. The Ordinary submits the work to an expert who evaluates the work and, finding nothing objectionable, the expert provides a nihil obstat, meaning nothing forbids. The local Ordinary then grants an imprimatur, meaning let it be printed.
Books have been subject to censorship for almost as long as books have existed. If an authority discovered something in a book to which he objected, he might have the book destroyed and the author punished.
The Index Librorum Prohibitorum included a large number of works that expressed views that those charged with its compilation thought were in conflict with the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church. From 1571-1917, the duty of compiling the Index was assigned to the Sacred Congregation of the Index. From 1917-1966, the duty fell to The Holy Office. In 1966, with the abolishment of the Index itself, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced that, while the Index provided moral guidance for Catholics, it no longer had the force of ecclesiastical positive law and its penalties.”
To: goodwithagun; BlueDragon
In addition to the demons comment, [joydel] actually typed that Catholics are not Christians. Sauce for the gander. I know of a number of FRoman Catholics who have typed identical things about theologically conservative Protestant denominations, their leaders, and their entire membership.
97
posted on
11/13/2013 5:20:15 AM PST
by
Alex Murphy
("the defacto Leader of the FR Calvinist Protestant Brigades")
To: RegulatorCountry; Campion
Edict of Thessalonica
“The Edict of Thessalonica, also known as Cunctos populos, was issued in 380 AD. It ordered all subjects of the Roman Empire to profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. The edict made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.[1]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Thessalonica
98
posted on
11/13/2013 6:17:35 AM PST
by
haffast
(Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.)
To: Salvation; RugerMini14
They are only CINOs Catholics in name only. REAL Catholics will always vote a conservative ticket.
Would you define "REAL Catholics", in your own words?
Of the 1.2B "Catholics" your church claims, how many are "REAL Catholics"?
Do those that are not "REAL Catholics" have salvation?
Are Archbishops Dolan and Gomez "REAL Catholics"?
99
posted on
11/13/2013 6:27:52 AM PST
by
haffast
(Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.)
To: Salvation
Charles Carroll SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; SELECTED AS DELEGATE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION; FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; U. S. SENATOR
"On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts."21
"Grateful to Almighty God for the blessings which, through Jesus Christ Our Lord, He had conferred on my beloved country in her emancipation and on myself in permitting me, under circumstances of mercy, to live to the age of 89 years, and to survive the fiftieth year of independence, adopted by Congress on the 4th of July 1776, which I originally subscribed on the 2d day of August of the same year and of which I am now the last surviving signer."22
"I, Charles Carroll. . . . give and bequeath my soul to God who gave it, my body to the earth, hoping that through and by the merits, sufferings, and mediation of my only Savior and Jesus Christ, I may be admitted into the Kingdom prepared by God for those who love, fear and truly serve Him."23
Are these quotes questionable attributed to Charles Carroll by David Barton on his website "Wallbuilders"?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/davidbarton/index?tab=articles
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/wallbuilders/index?tab=articles
100
posted on
11/13/2013 6:41:57 AM PST
by
haffast
(Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson