The Catholic Church's influences on civil libe...

Originally posted by mrzenu
I am assuming it was only negative. Can anyone find any documents that show the church had a positive effect on civil liberties?

joined yesterday. 0 moves. hmm. how about u tell us who u really are?

Originally posted by lioyank
joined yesterday. 0 moves. hmm. how about u tell us who u really are?

Good job, Sherlock. A pertinent question.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If you're talking about the sex abuse scandals, then the hostility certainly predates it.

When did the hostility arise, and when did it become a staple of American society?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
When did the hostility arise, and when did it become a staple of American society?

This article by Fr. James Martin, S.J. might help:

To understand the roots of American anti-Catholicism one needs to go back to the Reformation, whose ideas about Rome and the papacy traveled to the New World with the earliest settlers. These settlers were, of course, predominantly Protestant. For better or worse, a large part of American culture is a legacy of Great Britain, and an enormous part of its religious culture a legacy of the English Reformation. Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, in his landmark book American Catholicism, first published in 1956, wrote bluntly that a "universal anti-Catholic bias was brought to Jamestown in 1607 and vigorously cultivated in all the thirteen colonies from Massachusetts to Georgia." Proscriptions against Catholics were included in colonial charters and laws, and, as Monsignor Ellis noted wryly, nothing could bring together warring Anglican ministers and Puritan divines faster than their common hatred of the church of Rome. Such antipathy continued throughout the 18th century. Indeed, the virtual penal status of the Catholics in the colonies made even the appointment of bishops unthinkable in the early years of the Republic.

http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=606&issueID=281

Originally posted by lucifershammer
This article by Fr. James Martin, S.J. might help:

To understand the roots of American anti-Catholicism one needs to go back to the Reformation, whose ideas about Rome and the papacy traveled to the New World with the earliest settlers. These settlers were, of course, predominantly Protestant. For better or worse, a large part of American cult ...[text shortened]... blic.

http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=606&issueID=281

400 years ago? They had every right to be hostile to the church 400 years ago. It was a monster. Its own actions gave rise to the hostility against it.

600 years ago, was hostility toward other religions a staple of Catholic society?

I want to know why you think the people of today have hostility toward the Church. Are you saying it's just out of tradition, that its actions haven't helped the hostility to persist? Your article says the hostility was only cultivated until 1800. Why does it still exist 200 years later?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
400 years ago? They had every right to be hostile to the church 400 years ago. It was a monster. Its own actions gave rise to the hostility against it.

600 years ago, was hostility toward other religions a staple of Catholic society?

I want to know why you think the people of today have hostility toward the Church. Are you saying it's just out of tradition, that its actions haven't helped the hostility to persist?

400 years ago? They had every right to be hostile to the church 400 years ago. It was a monster. Its own actions gave rise to the hostility against it.

Did it?

Unless I am much mistaken, most of the early settlers were Protestants (EDIT: especially from the British Isles) who travelled to the New World to escape persecution from fellow Protestants.

Why would the hostility of these settlers be a result of the actions of the Church?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]400 years ago? They had every right to be hostile to the church 400 years ago. It was a monster. Its own actions gave rise to the hostility against it.

Did it?

Unless I am much mistaken, most of the early settlers were Protestants (EDIT: especially from the British Isles) who travelled to the New World to escape persecution from fellow ...[text shortened]... testants.

Why would the hostility of these settlers be a result of the actions of the Church?[/b]

I don't understand your position.

Are you saying that the settlers' hostility toward Catholics arose out of being persecuted by other Protestants? How do you suppose this came to be? It doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't understand your position.

Are you saying that the settlers' hostility toward Catholics arose out of being persecuted by other Protestants? How do you suppose this came to be? It doesn't make sense.

Okay - let's shelve (but not forget) the background of the settlers for the moment. It's relevant - but we're too early in the discussion for that.

You said that the Church was a monster 400 years ago, that its actions gave rise to the hostility against it and that the settlers had every right to be hostile to it. Could you elaborate?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

You said that the Church was a monster 400 years ago, that its actions gave rise to the hostility against it and that the settlers had every right to be hostile to it. Could you elaborate?

The Crusades and the Inquisition, in which the church exhibited hostility toward other religions.

If the Church had a right to be hostile toward other religions, then others had a right to be hostile toward it.

If it didn't have that right but acted as if it did and reaped the benefits of that improper action, then it ought not complain when others do the same.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
400 years ago? They had every right to be hostile to the church 400 years ago. It was a monster. Its own actions gave rise to the hostility against it.

600 years ago, was hostility toward other religions a staple of Catholic society?

I want to know why you think the people of today have hostility toward the Church. Are you saying it cle says the hostility was only cultivated until 1800. Why does it still exist 200 years later?

I want to know why you think the people of today have hostility toward the Church.

There are a number of factors. "Cultural prejudice" is certainly one major factor. Another would be the 20th century clash between "liberal" ideology and Church teachings - particularly on sexuality, contraception, abortion etc. The sex abuse scandal was like a lighted match in a barrel of gunpowder.

Are you saying it's just out of tradition, that its actions haven't helped the hostility to persist?

No, nothing so grandiose. The Church hierarchy has certainly made mistakes in the 20th century - but these mistakes did not generate the hostility we see today ex nihilo.

Your article says the hostility was only cultivated until 1800. Why does it still exist 200 years later?

Actually, the America article provides a continuous link for American anti-Catholicism through the late 1800s to the early and mid-1900s. There was never a break.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]I want to know why you think the people of today have hostility toward the Church.

There are a number of factors. "Cultural prejudice" is certainly one major factor. Another would be the 20th century clash between "liberal" ideology and Church teachings - particularly on sexuality, contraception, abortion etc. The sex abuse scandal was like a lighted match in a barrel of gunpowder.[/b]

Do you think disagreement and political activity based thereon constitutes hostility?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The Crusades and the Inquisition, in which the church exhibited hostility toward other religions.

If the Church had a right to be hostile toward other religions, then others had a right to be hostile toward it.

If it didn't have that right but acted as if it did and reaped the benefits of that improper action, then it ought not complain with others do the same.

The Crusades and the Inquisition, in which the church exhibited hostility toward other religions.

Let's start with the Inquisitions. As I pointed out, the settlers were largely from the British Isles - which never had an Inquisition. The countries that did have Inquisitions - Spain, Italy etc. - were the most staunchly Catholic right up to the latter half of the 20th century.

As to the Crusades, popular conception of the Crusades was extremely positive and largely romanticised in Europe and America right up the 20th century - look at the popularity of Walter Scott's novels in the 19th century, for instance*.

The "Inquisition & Crusades" explanation is far too simplistic.

If it didn't have that right but acted as if it did and reaped the benefits of that improper action, then it ought not complain with others do the same.

Are you saying that Americans were justified in being hostile towards and discriminating against fellow Americans simply because they were Catholic?

---
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Popular_reputation

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think disagreement and political activity based thereon constitutes hostility?

That depends. Political activity can be hostile if it employs personal attacks, attacks on reputation, highly charged rhetoric/polemic etc.

Even if the political movement does not directly use the above-mentioned tactics, it can be supported by an external movement that does in order to further the political movement in question.

Originally posted by lucifershammer


Are you saying that Americans were justified in being hostile towards and discriminating against fellow Americans simply because they were Catholic?

I'm saying the Church is not justified in complaining on their behalf and painting itself as a victim, for it has been guilty of and has prospered from committing the same wrongs.

As I mentioned before, the Catholic League isn't interested in its members' civil rights qua humans. It's interested in promoting the Church's ideals and maintaining its power. If this weren't the case, it would be litigating against the Church on behalf of molestation victims. It's only concerned with promoting those rights that will ultimately help preserve the Church. I don't recall the Catholic League litigating on behalf of any Protestants, even though it claims to be a proponent of religious freedom for all Americans.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm saying the Church is not justified in complaining on their behalf and painting itself as a victim, for it has been guilty of and has prospered from committing the same wrongs.

As I mentioned before, the Catholic League isn't interested in its members' civil rights qua humans. It's interested in promoting the Church's ideals and maintain ...[text shortened]... any Protestants, even though it claims to be a proponent of religious freedom for all Americans.

I'm saying the Church is not justified in complaining on their behalf and painting itself as a victim, for it has been guilty of and has prospered from committing the same wrongs.

Who, then, is justified in complaining on their behalf?

As I mentioned before, the Catholic League isn't interested in its members' civil rights qua humans.

From the Catholic League website:

...the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.

Motivated by the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, the Catholic League works to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened

1. The purpose of the CL is to defend the rights of Catholics.
2. The main focus of those rights deal with participation in public life.

If a body is formed to protect the right against discrimination of African-Americans, you don't expect it to be the first to jump to the defence of Native Americans. If a body is formed for rape counselling, you don't expect it to jump to do anti-bullying campaigns.

If this weren't the case, it would be litigating against the Church on behalf of molestation victims.

Is there any shortage of litigators for the victims these days?

I don't recall the Catholic League litigating on behalf of any Protestants, even though it claims to be a proponent of religious freedom for all Americans.

Do you think the CL's litigation over the Pledge of Allegiance excluded Protestant interests?