Talk:Anti-Catholicism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Umm, why put an attention tag on a talk page? If the article needs attention, put a more specific tag (NPOV maybe) there.

Just to remind people that it is wiki convention to put your comments at the bottom not the top of this page.....

Comments which constitute new threads should be added to the bottom not the top of the page!
Comments which are follow-on to existing threads should be added to those threads wherever they may be located on the page. However, comments added to old threads (i.e. near the top of the page) may not be seen by as many people as those added to the bottom of the page. You makes your choices and you takes your chances. Also, please sign your comments.
--Richard 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Remove this entire article[edit]

This article should be removed. It is of no reference value. It is merely a forum for either anti-catholic bigotry or pro-catholic defensiveness. It has absolutely no informational credibilty. It's like having pages devoted to anti-assembly of god or anti-elvis fans. --4.234.84.130 20:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)98percenthuman

I must disagree strongly: I found the article very useful after linking here (from a look at Willis Carto and then Nativism in the USA). Specifically and self-conciously anti-Catholic rhetoric and movements have played a significant political and social role in more than several nations over the past 500 years. It is quite useful to have a page that rolls that whole process up into one thematic heading, such as this. If anything, the shame is that point-of-view emotionalism (from ALL sides!!!) seems to hobble the value of this article a bit, at times, and that the article focuses on anti-Catholicism in English-speaking nations. 72.230.110.131 18:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well that would make sense if you also are willing to remove: Category:Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Protestantism, Category:Anti-Protestantism, Anti-Mormonism, Anti-Shaker Anti-Christian prejudice, Anti-Judaism, Islamophobia, Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, and Anti-Hindu.--T. Anthony 10:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the term for religious or political opposition to the Roman Catholic Church irrespictive of any mischaracterizations, stereotypes and negative prejudices?

  • Ummm, most people just call it not being Catholic. Most people =aren't= Catholic. Does this mean that the whole world is involved in a vast Anti-Catholic conspiracy? I have seen few articles that were as rabidly biased as this one.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.40.167.36 (talkcontribs) .

I fear this article is destined to be over-run by Catholics posting their slanted views of what constitutes Anti-Catholicism; in a public forum it is inevitable. Perhaps what is needed is for the staff of Wikipedia to decide what they want the article to say, based on their own views on the subject, which I'm sure they have... and then lock the article. As a former Mormon, I have tried to contribute some interesting factual information to one of their pages, with references, and it has vanished in less than 60 seconds. The Catholic church is large enough and has enough adherents that, if they are given the opportunity, this article is going to exhibit their party line. Niri Gihimu

The last sentence of the preceding comment seems a little conspiracistic. However, it is true that a neutral point of view must be kept. Right now it needs to be cleaned up and made so. Wikipedia has locked several other articles that were constantly edited towards users biases. Perhaps after this is cleaned up that should happen here. P.L.A.R. 00:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)



Comments should be added to the bottom not the top of the page!

Balance[edit]

For balance, the page should acknowledge that the charge of anti-Catholicism has been leveled for a variety of different reasons not directly related to the issue. The Brooklyn Museum censorship issue comes to mind. In that case, the mayor of New York attempted to defund the museum because of an exhibit including what he deemed to be an offensive depiction of the Virgin Mary, purporting that it was anti-Catholic. In that case, the charge was motivated by a desire to suppress alleged blasphemy. In the case of the current scandals involving the Vatican Bank, as well as the better known priest child abuse cover-ups, back channels at high levels within the Church hierarchy, perhaps even the current Pope, have been reported to blame Jews for fabricating the scandals to further Jewish interests. This clearly anti-semitic motive is enough of a hot button issue to keep everyone involved "off the record", but the reports are pretty convincing that the tendancy to blame media reports concerning Church scandals on Jews is a real problem.

Also, uncritical reliance on literature produced by the Catholic League, which advocates political positions in the USA in very harsh terms, and frequently resorts to extreme ad hominim attacks against those with whom it disagrees, takes this article out of the realm of reasonable scholarship. While the Catholic League's positions deserve attention, they should not be cited as an unimpeachable, objective source.

I think that the charge of anti-Catholicism and anti-Christianity in general has been leveled by conservatives in the U.S.'s "culture wars" as a means to silence cultural liberals and advocates of church/state separation. This deserves attention in this article.


Adam Holland 21:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay I guess, I'll do a bit on that, but proceed with some caution. Limiting any reliance on the Catholic League is a good idea. However there is a valid historical aspect to the concept, not just conservative scaremongering. Initially the article was too much "anyone who disagrees with the Catholic faith is Anti-Catholic," and that was very wrong. At the same time though I'd hate for this to go the other way too much and become yet another Wiki article on how Catholicism really is so terribly unpleasant they possibly get whatever they deserve.(Which is where I think it's starting to head)--T. Anthony 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
As for the Brooklyn Museum issue I personally don't think art of any kind should be government funded. Because when a group holds the purse strings it's just common sense that sooner or later they'll want control. The kings and governments of ye olden days who gave patronage to artists were quite clear on that point. Hence artists like Goya had to make their criticism subtle or in least subtle enough to fool their patrons. To want that kind of painting to have municipal support in a city with a Catholic mayor was either rank stupidity or complete naivete on that man's part.--T. Anthony 04:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence

It is often manifested in the refusal to recognise the name of the Catholic Church by insisting that it be only referenced as the Roman Catholic Church.

Uh, "Roman Catholic Church" is the name of the denomination. To omit the word "Roman" is to confuse a single denomination with the "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" of the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, which is generally recognized by all Anglicans, most Protestants, and probably many Roman Catholics, as including the entirety of Christianity, whether Roman, Anglican, Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox. That many Roman Catholics do regard their denomination as being, in one way or another, the entirety of Christianity, is beside the point.




The last few edits here were very good. The earlier version had a very un-neutral POV, and assumed that being opposed to Catholicism for whatever reason was always wrong apriori. Good job.


Surely some mention should be given to the child abuse scandals (Ireland and worldwide) in relation to anti-catholicism or at least criticism. This is a major issue for the Catholic church, for both those who follow and oppose it.

Yes, but you put it at the beginning and I don't think you did a good job of it either. I'll look through it to see what, if anything, in it is worth salvaging.--T. Anthony 03:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To user T. Anthony >> So you decided to take absolutly everything from the article? This is the typical respose that is leading to the downfall of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and the reason they are losing respect, ignoring that child abuse was ever a problem- stupid. Also i took that article from a newspaper article so if was badly written it just needed some editing not deleting, that just proved that you are not neutral and any further edits you make on this article should be scrutinized.

That information was already elsewhere so I provided a link to it. A long discussion of the sex abuse scandal in an article on a historic phenomenon was unnecessary.--T. Anthony 23:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
By unnecessary I mean there is an article for that scandal. This isn't really an article about that and the information was just plopped in with little explanation of relevance. I have kept most of it this time though, against my better judgment, and the link is still there.--T. Anthony 23:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

nonsense blanked —No-One Jones (m) 20:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) This article should be called Anti-Catholicism not Anti-Catholic!

Now it is. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This Article should have more information and some pictures. This article needs to have the history of Anti-catholicism as well1

Indeed, there's a great deal of stuff out there for which this article only scratches the surface. Within the religious field, the Great Apostasy article is pretty good, has been wrestled over a long time, and covers a lot of the same ground. I started a second section on political Anti-Catholicism, which wants even more expansion; needs to mention Titus Oates for instance. The Orange Order probably ought not to be left to a see-also. The Kulturkampf and the French Revolution need to be discussed in fairly broad detail to make it less US and UK-centric. -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have flagged an NPOV dispute over this article, as it uses the term "Anti-Catholicism" to lump together a very wide range of issues, from some obviously wacky stuff, to contributions to legitimate historical or theological debates which the author happens to disagree with.--PatGallacher (talk) 13:39, 08 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Pat, could you be more specific? Perhaps you could list issues here that you feel do not belong in this article, or just go ahead and edit it as you see fit. Also, regarding your statement that the article lists some issues "which the author happens to disagree with" as being anti-Catholic: please keep in mind, there is probably never a single author of a Wikipedia article - at least not for very long. If you feel one or more contributors have biased the article, lets fix it! Thanks, Harris7 18:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can see a number of problems. The claim that the RCC has chosen to ally itself with various sorts of authoritarian politics, monarchism, Fascism, and Falangism in particular, seems to me to be pretty fairly well borne out in history. (See, e.g., the Syllabus of Errors). Claiming that to call attention to this history is "anti-Catholic" strikes me as strongly POV. I'd like to see a reference that anyone has ever claimed that the RCC was allied with Freemasonry, or for that matter that if such an alliance has been suggested, it is considered somehow derogatory because Freemasonry is supposed to be bad for some mysterious reason. -- Smerdis of Tlön 19:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole article is very dubious. Isn't a Protestant, a Muslim or a Jew by definition anti-Catholic, since any debate between a catholic and protestant theologian going to include attacks of various kinds on the beliefs of the other faith? Is it "anti-catholic" to dispute the Pope's claims to be head of the universal church?

If by analogy with anti-semitism we are going to define anti-catholicism as attacks on catholics or the church that are generally regarded as irrational, exaggerated and hate-inspired, then I think the following things should be removed:-

  • The idea that the Church suppressed a golden age of feminism and liberalism that supposedly existed prior to the establishment of Christianity.

IMO this idea is nonsense - but is anyone advancing this seriously? That said, it is arguable that the catholic church has historically been hostile to women, but is hardly unique in such an attitude - most Abrahamic faiths share such an attitude.

  • The idea that the Catholic Church opposed all advances in science and thought, Galileo Galilei, while ignoring its huge positive contributions in these spheres. Roger Bacon, Copernicus, Gregor Mendel etc.

In the case of Galileo (whose works were on the Index for 200 years), it was, or can be so argued. In other cases, it wasn't. It's a legitimate topic for debate. As was the hostile attitude of protestant churches to science at the same time. White's famous article attacked both.

  • It is worthy of note that Gallileo was not condemned for heliocentrism, but rather for declaring that the Bible be taken literally in apparently geocentric passages, and was consequently false. Other heliocentrists, e.g., Copernicus, were pious Catholics.--Thomas Aquinas
  • The idea that the Church was a uniquely repressive institution that was concerned entirely with the acquisition of wealth and power.

Surely a legitimate subject for debate. The Popes exercised temporal power down to 1870 and didn't give it up willingly.

  • The claim that the Inquisition killed fantastically huge numbers of people in the Middle Ages, either heretics or witches (figures are sometimes quoted in the millions). See Black Legend

Claims on the numbers vary. But then so they do for any atrocity you care to mention. Witches of course were killed by Catholics and Protestants alike. That doesn't mean they were not killed by Catholics, or that the Inquisition didn't exist.

  • The claim that the crusades were a completely unprovoked attack on Islam, and that the crusaders were particularly venial and brutal compared to their opponents.

Again, there is room for debate here. Such a debate shouldn't be suppressed. There is evidence that Jews and Christians fared better in Muslim countries than Jews and Muslims in Christian countries.

  • Actually, Jews and Muslims in Catholic nations were permitted to practice their faith without government molestation. This is a position supported by the Church, even in the Middle Ages, considering that Aquinas' Summa Theologica, which received nihil obstat and imprimatur, condones it. Only those who acted as though they were converts while secretly practicing their old religion received governmental punishment or sanction.--Thomas Aquinas
  • Claims that catholicism was allied with movements such as Freemasonry, Fascism and Nazism.

The Freemasonry claim sounds like a joke. The others - clearly individual catholics became Fascists and Nazis, and others died as martyrs at the hands of the Nazis. The official attitude of the Church is a matter for debate, once again.

  • The Church, officially, was vehemently opposed to Nazism and Fascism. Consider the anti-Nazi encyclical "Mit Brenneder Sorge," written in German to specify the audience (most encyclicals are written originally in Latin). Merely because Catholics were among their numbers does not imply Church approval.--Thomas Aquinas
  • The claim that the Catholic Church did nothing to stop six million Jews from being murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust.

It clearly did nothing very useful to stop it. But then neither did the Protestant church. Again, a fit subject for debate.

  • The assertion that the Church was silent during the Holocaust is laughable. Jews and other victims were allowed to stay in the Pope's summer home, Castel Gandolfo, to prevent persecution, and Pope Pius XII was so fervently anti-nazi that Hitler ordered him (unsuccessfully) kidnapped.--Thomas Aquinas

Clearly, SOME people who advance these arguments do so out of prejudice. However having noted that the arguments should be tackled on their merits or otherwise.

  • Da Vinci Code

This is a work of fiction. The claims regarding Jesus and Mary Magdalene can be seen as blasphemous, but would be so seen by Protestants (and possibly Muslims) as well.

  • The Catholic Church has also been attacked for opposing birth control, abortion, homosexuality and for not ordaining women as priests and bishops.

Good grief. Is criticising the church for its doctrines and actions anti-catholic? For pete's sake, CATHOLICS make these criticisms - are they anti-catholic too?

Seriously considering a request for deletion

Exile 14:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, especially, that the last section at least is over the top, attempts to set up a straw man, and that what little of value in it probably ought to be merged into the religious or political sections. Roman Catholics are understandably eager to portray any criticism of their religion as a matter of "bigotry," and this tendency needs to be guarded against. Still, the topic is valid and with enough edit wars might approach a reasonably NPOV state. Nothing here strikes me as falling within the deletion guidelines. It's an encyclopedic topic, and NPOV disputes don't count. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On second thoughts you're right. It does need a lot of "attention" IMO.

If it were to be retitled "Criticisms of Catholicism" or "... of the Roman Catholic Church" and the wacky anti-catholic stuff given as a subsection or in a separate article? Or just list the criticisms noting that some of them appear to be the result of bigotry.

Exile 10:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can the Catholic church claim any credit for Copernicus? He only went public on his heliocentric theories a few weeks before his death, aware of the stir this would cause. His works were banned by the Catholic church along with Galileo's up to the 1830s, and a few years after the ban was lifted, when they unveiled a statue of him in Warsaw, no priest would officiate at the ceremony. This suggests that he could have met the same fate as Galileo if he had lived longer. In what way is the popular image of Galileo wide of the mark? PatGallacher (talk) 11:25 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Copernicus was in fact never condemned by the Catholic Church. As a substantiation, I offer the lack of any heresy trials against him.--Thomas Aquinas

I've had debates on this subject elsewhere. The present Pope admits the Church erred in its treatment of Galileo. I wonder if that makes the Pope anti-catholic?

16:42, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Considering a rewrite - keeping the content but making it more NPOV in tone. Difficult!

Exile 22:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It definitely needs a rewrite; a great deal of it is a blatent attempt to gain unwarranted sympathy. If you try and overthrow a country, one might expect that country to dislike you. Likewise with scientific progress; though the chruch has not always been a barrier to it, it has often in the past been quite a barrier to science, and is known to spread lies about contraceptives (particularly condoms) in South America and Africa. Saying things like "It set back the progress of science" is more than likely true, as a number of scientists/inquiring minds did not publish/kept quiet/did not do certain bits of research for fear of upsetting the church, as in the case of Gallelio. Claiming this to be anti-Catholic is nonsense; it is a matter of common historic record. The exaggerated claims of the Inquisition (which was brutal, but which has also been inflated) might be classifiable as anti-Catholic, but mentioning it and the Crusades is hardly anti-Catholic. It is tantamount to saying that critizing the policies of Israel is anti-semetic, or of palastine as being anti-Arab.
Admittedly the church has moved forward in the 20th century, acknowledging evolution, mending some of the rifts with other religions, ect. However, it is not perfect and critizing a faith or an organization is not an act of bigotry. I disagree with a great deal of church policy. My parents do too - and they're Catholic. Titanium Dragon 04:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

I would like to request that some assistance be given to filling in The Two Babylons page! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Page rewrite[edit]

As this page was previously heavily biased (the general consesus here appears to agree with me on this), I have rewritten the page. It now describes what types of behavior are generally characterized as anti-Catholic. Hopefully, I've kept the POV neutral, but as I am Catholic, maybe some subconcious bias slipped in, so correct as needed. Kenj0418 01:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Seems NPOV has been restored. Removing catagorization. PhatJew 10:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticising Catholic dogma[edit]

I change the line that read:

Criticising Catholic dogma, and then silencing those Catholics who speak in defense of the teachings of their church.

back to:

Criticising Catholic dogma

because:

  1. Silencing someone from expressing their religious beleifs is beyond the scope of this article. If the comment was meant to say that they were not provided a forum to express their beleifs along with those critcising them, then it is irrelevant (see next item).
  2. The critism itself is what is generally labeled as anti-Catholic. For example, if a Baptist group were to critise the Catholic's veneration of saints or Mary, this view would be considered anti-Catholic regardless of whether a Catholic rebuttal was allowed or not.

Kenj0418 18:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Is a good-faith criticism of Catholic dogma, on a purely theological/intellectual basis and submitted in a civil and respectful way by a well-meaning Protestant as part of a Catholic/Protestant ecumenical dialogue anti-Catholic? My own connotations for "anti-Catholic" include motivations of malice or at least reckless disregard of what Catholic doctrine really teaches, as opposed to what the challenger believes it to be. BTW, "doctrine" and "dogma" aren't really interchangeable, and I'd propose substituting "doctrine" for "dogma" throughout.

Just my $0.02 worth.

I changed Criticising Catholic dogma after having been shown to be incorrect to Criticising Catholic dogma. Reasons: the "after having been shown to be incorrect" part is highly POV. But I have to admit that I'd prefer removing the whole sentence, since criticising a catholic dogma in an non-polemic, scientific way is IMHO not anti-catholic per se. 85.124.182.40 22:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this page of any value?[edit]

What is the purpose of this page? All it accomplishes as far as I can see is to point out that a person who is against Catholcism in any way can be described as anti-Catholic. But then a person opposed to baptist could be called anti-Baptist or a person opposed to cats could be called anti-cat. All this page seems to do is define the prefix anti and define it only in one very limitted context. If wikipedia really needs to explain what "anti" means (which I don't think it does as it isn't a dictionary) then anti should be given an entry not anti-catholic. If there is some pattern of anti-Catholicism or particular anti-Catholic movement (as with anti-Semitism) then I can see having an entry. But the entry does not deal with anything like that. It's just hodge podge of ideas that some people see as anti-Catholic.

At one time, I tried to add some historical information to the page, mostly relating to politically motivated persecution of Roman Catholics by other Christians in the UK and USA, with links that discussed the penal laws and similar topics, like the Kulturkampf in Prussia. This material was apparently not wanted here, and almost all of it has been removed; it will appear in the history. Not sure what the criteria for being included is now, other than the implied charge that any criticism of Roman Catholic practices is anti-Catholic bigotry. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree - it has been reduced to saying almost nothing, when the reality is, there is a very definite historical "movement" of anti-Catholicism, especially in the US and UK, which was well outlined in the previous version of this page. So, I have reverted this article back to its pre-rewrite state, and, for starters, removed a couple of the less useful or unsupported statements. As mentioned above, why bother mentioning that the Church is criticised for its stand against abortion, female clergy, etc. - those are simply criticisms or arguments against the Church, not anti-Catholicism, per se. I have also added a reference to Karl Keating's excellent reference, itself a history of anti-Catholicism. - Harris7 05:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The current value of this page is disputable, certainly. A Catholic myself, I see obvious slant both for and against Catholicism. I believe that this page could potentially have value, if it were cleaned up and restricted to neutral, factual information about noteworthy anti-Catholics, events, and general information. Certainly there is an anti-Catholic movement, and there could be some useful information found here. As of now, there is too much opinion seeping into the article. - Phrackattack 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I added back most of the text from the previous version as a replacement for the older "historical anti-Catholicism" section, which seemed to me to be a caricature and pretty over the top; the edited version struck me as more neutral and plausible. I did add one bit from the reverted version, linking to the so-called "Black Legend", because a link to that page struck me as worth keeping. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV disputes[edit]

First, I agree that the scope of this article should be expanded to include historical and modern instances of anti-Catholic persecution or intollerance (either real or perceived). However, I have the following NPOV complaints with the article as it stands now: Kenj0418 06:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

  1. In general, the older portions of the article which have been restored are heavily biased against those with Anti-Catholic views, and in some cases depict straw man versions of anti-Catholic views. Also numerous times various authors works are refered to as anti-Catholic. I have not read any of these works (nor would I care to), so I will give the editor the benefit of the doubt and assume that the authors of these work would declare them as anti-Catholic and/or they are so blatantly anti-Catholic that such a label would not be disputed.

Traditional anti-Catholicism (which originated during the Reformation) is promoted by Protestant Fundamentalists such as Ian Paisley and Jack Chick, while the new secular anti-Catholicism is generally promoted by secular organisations

  1. This makes use of the terms 'traditional anti-Catholicism' and 'secular anti-Catholicism', without any explanation of these or how they differ. (The best I can guess is one is Protestants who don't like Catholics, the other are atheists who don't like Catholics). These terms should either be defined or removed.
  2. This makes a blanket statement regarding Protestant Fundamentalists, which should likely be limited (ie. some Protestant .... such as ...) if this statement remains

According to a report by the Catholic League, the Internet has many anti-Catholic websites. Traditional anti-Catholic works include Charles Chiniquy's 50 Years In The Church of Rome and The Priest,the Woman and the Confessional in which he accuses Catholicism of being pagan. Such sentiments are common among some Protestant fundamentalist Christians, denying as they do that the Catholic Church is a Christian church. Proponents often reference Scripture, such as the Book of Revelation, chapters 17 and 18, which they claim depict the Pope as the Antichrist and the Catholic Church as being the "Whore of Babylon". Proponents of anti-Catholicism also claim that the Mass is an abomination in the eyes of Jesus Christ. Many anti-Catholics also claim that Catholics worship Mary.

  1. Proponents of anti-Catholicism also claim that the Mass is an abomination in the eyes of Jesus Christ. -- This is a blanket statement regarding all anti-Catholic's. Surely some (even most?) do not see the Mass as an abomination. This statement should be backed up and qualified, or removed.
  2. These accusations continue to have some currency because (in Political anti-Catholicis) - This statement is apparently the opinion of the editor. If it is someone elses opinion, then it should be cited as such. If it is the editor's own conclusion, then it should be removed.

Kenj0418 06:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup issues[edit]

  1. Much of the 'Religious anti-Catholicism' section is redundant with the 'Actions frequently labeled Catholic' section. (more of a cleanup issue than an NPOV issue)
  2. "the Internet has many anti-Catholic websites" - does this statement have any value? The Internet has many anti-Whatever websites; the Internet is a big place. (cleanup issue) {EDIT} There is a larger problem in that this article lumps all Protestant apologetics into the same bucket. Is Jack Chick really of the same calibre with the same objectives as, say, Alpha and Omega ministries? {/EDIT}
  3. Such sentiments are common among some ... is confusing. If they are only common among some, then they are not common. Perhaps something similar to "Those that beleive the Catholic Church is pagan usually site..."
  4. The section "Contemporary anti-Catholicism" needs to be integrated into the rest of the article. Currently it is just appended to the older version.
  5. "and Dan Brown, whose best-selling The Da Vinci Code" - Regardless of Dan Brown's religion or lack of religion, the mentioned are religious, not political, and this example should be placed in the religious section if the current originization remains (cleanup issue)
  6. The See-Also list also needs to be cleaned up. Just be cause another article is mentioned in this article (Jesuits for example), doesn't require a see also link. That is the purpose of the Wiki-links in the article.
  7. Several anti-Catholic works are referred to in the article, only one appears under Additional Reading -- is there a reason for this?

Regarding the cleanup/organizational problems. I propose the following organization for the article:

  1. Intro (defining different uses of term, that is oppression/intollerance vs. strongly held views in opposition to the Catholic Church (or its teachings, etc)
  2. Historical examples of catholic oppression/intollerence
  3. Contemporary Anti-catholicism (incorporating much of Relgious Anti-catholicism and contemporary sections)
  4. Literary examples of Anti-catholicism

Kenj0418 06:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Political Anti-Catholicism[edit]

The article could use some discussion of French mistrust of the Church since the revolution. -- Temtem 04:14, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto for the Mexican Revolution.

I should have read this Talk page before adding my comment about "anti-clericalism" at the bottom. Anyway, the "French mistrust of the Church" is a perfect example of what I meant by "anti-clericalism". It is partly a result of the post-Enlightenment struggle of church vs. state. It is also a result of people wanting the church to have less control over their lives.
Richard 07:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Wouldn't it make sense to include the enormous Anti-Catholic sentiment which exists in the radical Ulster Loyalist movement of Northern Ireland. From figures like Rev. Ian Paisley, Mad Dog Johnny Addair and groups like the DUP, UVF, UDA, Red Hand Commandos and the United Kingdom Unionist Party? - Chris Gilmore

Cleaning up, addressing NPOV issues[edit]

I've removed Some anti-Catholics think the Catholic Church is closer to Islam than Christianity, which seems pretty POV, though it maybe can be reformulated in a better way, with more concrete examples.

Are there any references for the bit on haiti ? I'm not sure that really counts as catholicism, it's more about power politics.

I also rephrased the bit on "anti-catholic authors", so that it doesn't designate them as anti-catholic any more, while acknowledging there influence in anti-catholic sentiment. Flammifer 15:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You know how it is in Detroit. . .[edit]

The claim is made in the photograph caption that anti-Catholicism is more prevalent in Detroit than elsewhere. The photo seems to have been made of a billboard that seeks to draw people to a website (that apparently no longer exists) that purported to contain "free proof" that the Pope was the Antichrist. Even given that the billboard was erected in Detroit, I'm not sure this is enough to make the case that anti-Catholicism is unusually common in Detroit. Anyone care to explain? Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the billboard is actually from Oregon, and I have never heard that there are a lot of anti-Catholics in Detroit. In fact, I'd suspect the opposite. -- Temtem 20:35, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


Detroit reference taken down[edit]

T. Anthony: I took down the mention of Detroit under the picture and replaced it with a statement that the picture refers to a website. "I think it's from Oregon" sounded a little too uncertain to me so I just didn't say where it's from.

Picture surely not from detroit or metro area, mountians and or rolling hills do match the topography of the area.

Although I'm Catholic I did see the article was fairly biased. In the last week I've tried to cut out several things that indicated any kind of criticism of Catholicism is Anti-Catholic. I've instead tried to focus on Anti-Catholicism that considers Catholicism to be a cult, Satanic, an evil conspiracy, an object to be attacked violently, etc. I've also copied pictures from other articles that struck me as appropriate. However I'm not entirely satisfied with the Bismarck one, but I'm not sure what to replace it with at present.

There are some additions I made I fear will be unacceptable. Hence when I wrote that paragraph largely concerning Dostoevsky I expected a backlash. In fact how I had it originally written seemed unfair even to me. I've tried to indicate he simply made use of the themes and that his hostility was mostly against the hierarchy. Still I felt the article was too Protestant-specific on the issue of Religious Anti-Catholicism so wanted to use an Orthodox example. In support of that choice mention of Dostoevsky as using Anti-Catholicism or simply being Anti-Catholic occurs in my copies of The Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces and The Brothers Karamazov.

Of greater concern to me is the use of an unscientific Yahoo! search I did for the topic. I'm open to removing that or if another editor wants to drop it I'm amenable to that. However the role of the Net in modern hate-groups can be important so it seems like there should be some way to mention it. Picture surely not from detroit or metro area, mountians and or rolling hills do match the topography of the area. Lastly by admitting to have done much of the editing this week I'm aware I'm risking it all being undone. However this is Wikipedia and as you say you can't get too attached to any edit you make. Still as a Catholic, whose relatives in the South suffered real persecution for it, I'm interested in this topic so I hope the article can be made useful and fair as possible.

Note: I replaced the picture of Bismarck with one of Miguel Pro's execution. Although elements of it sound debatable I put the internal link to him with it. It struck me though as a more arresting image than sour old Bismarck:).

Addendum: I've noticed that since I posted this it's been reverted a few times. In a way I can see that as I may have put in too many pictures and was maybe long-winded. However the part on the Mexican regime seemed pretty valid to me so I've put much of that back. If anyone is offended by that I'm willing to hear the reason.

Also I wonder if the quotes from John Jay and Samuel Adams offended some people. If so I won't put them back. In the case of both though they are not my opinion, they are based on actual writings of both. In the case of John Jay I do have several sources for it.

The Search Engine Test[edit]

I tried testing this claim..

To demonstrate: if "Catholic priest" or "Catholic Nun" is typed into most search engines, it's likely that most sites that show up will be former nuns or priests, bitter against Catholics, or tales of scandal.

  • Catholic Priest [1]: A mix of critical sites and others. The first was the Department of Labor basically saying that the Catholic Church is hiring...
  • Catholic Nun [2] A little more accurate, but not perfect. Karmafist 03:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


The Net[edit]

You know I wrote that thing about priests and nuns, but afterward it did strike me as too subjective and likely off. Later, I think, I replaced it by saying that Anti-Catholic slogans get you more hits than Anti-Protestant ones. I think that's still true. "Catholicism is a cult" should get more then "Protestantism is a heresy." Checking it just now through your link "Catholicism is a cult" gets 665 pages. "Protestantism is a heresy" got about 230 hits. Although admittedly this could be because there are maybe three times as many Catholics as Protestants depending on whether you count Anglicans as Protestants. Either way I took that version down too, or maybe I never submitted it in full, because of the various problems with it. For one in both cases the sites with those statements could be rebuking those ideas. Therefore I have no way to check how many sites actually claiming either position are out there then. Further some of the sites seriously holding those ideas are generalized racism/bigotry sites that could be offensive.

I think the current version of the page simply talks about a Christian humor site noticing that the angriest or most vicious jokes involve Catholics. This is true I believe, but admittedly I haven't checked "Ship of Fools" lately. On that I do not mean to suggest they are an Anti-Catholic website as I really don't know. I'm just reporting what they said they received.

Anyway the "priests and nuns" thing was an early effort and probably mistaken. I apologize if it annoyed you. If it's still on the page I don't know what to say. T. Anthony

Vague curiosity[edit]

I imagine this will always be NPOV, but I wonder if there is a way to have something about this subject that would be less controversial. Although I was mistaken in thinking "Anti-Catholicism" was a topic in the encyclopedias I know it is of some historical relevance. Maybe put what's useful in this article in one of the articles on the Know-Nothings or Nativists movements?--T. Anthony 08:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism in Russia[edit]

A good source : http://www.yale.edu/ycias/europeanstudies/empire/Paper-Weeks.pdf

Hey thanks. It's the wrong hour for me to look over it, but I figured the parts about Russia are kind of poor at present. Although I knew Anti-Catholicism was significant in Russia in that period.--T. Anthony 10:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've made a few changes because it was pretty biased in its wording. I didn't remove much factual information except for some things at the end I thought were irrelevant but if anyone feels differently just put it back in. XYaAsehShalomX 11:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks okay I think. I made a slight change on Haiti, I don't think giving Voudouns freedom is itself Anti-Catholic really which is how it was reading, but otherwise I don't see a problem yet. Although it's a weird hour for me so I may later.--T. Anthony 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Copernicanism was not furthered by the RC Church, so stop referring to him as such, the remark that he was not condemned in life is a weazel expression if I have ever seen one. Copernicus "Revolutionibus" was condemned in 1616 and remained on the index uintil 1740. Please stop undoing my edit. --Isolani 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No it's not a weasel expression, it's a statement of his actual life. The Chinese condemned Wei Jing after death then changed their mind several times back and forth. That doesn't retroactively unmake Wei Jing as a Chinese official. Still I'll accept him being off, but what was the deal with mentioning Savanorola when doing so?--T. Anthony 21:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Copernicanism was not furthed by the Church, except that Copernicus was indeed a Catholic priest, working for the church. That is something that is usually omited when criticizing the Church and its followers. Can we say something to that effect?--Cuchullain 20:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Saying that the Catholic church furthered copernicanism is like saying that the RC Church furthered the Theology of Jansen (Jansenism) because he was an ordained bishop and was never condemned during his lifetime. The deal with savanorola was that one of the charges made against him was that he held 'the heresy of copernicanism', showing that copernicanism wasn`t 'furthered' in any way by the church. Otherwise, no offence intended and sorry if I did offend anyone. I get a bit touchy at times. --Isolani 23:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Giordano Bruno? Girolamo Savonarola was excommunicated in 1497 for prophecy and sedition. In 1497 Nicolaus Copernicus was just starting his observations and had not yet even written his Commentariolus. Still I get that Copernicus is more of a Catholic rather than a person whose science was supported by the Catholic Church.(A meaningful difference) Protestantism was rising in Poland towards the end of his life though so I think if he'd wanted to quit being Catholic he could've done so. Also to keep the number of names roughly the same I'll add somebody.--T. Anthony 00:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Citations needed[edit]

I tagged a bunch of statements in the Abuse of the term section as wanting sources. I stopped short of tagging the whole article as unsourced, though it is. An article like this, that, by its nature, makes a bunch of accusations, really needs to be well-sourced. --Elliskev 13:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I had that section because someone indicated I wasn't allowing stuff about the sex scandal in. I wasn't allowing it in because it's mostly a modern issue, but the guy was insistent so I threw that stuff together. I'll just remove pretty much that whole thing now.--T. Anthony 20:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I have to say I'm not totally out of sympathy with the recent edits. I did add criticism sections, but I kind of wish that hadn't been necessary. There is no similar section at Anti-Protestantism even though Protestants have certainly killed a fair amount of people for their religions. They've likely killed less because they've been around less. That said I think those sections have validity as a historical explanation for behaviors and perhaps the solution is to add a section to Anti-Protestantism rather than remove one from here.

However Philip Jenkins book is a valid mention I feel. Possibly skepticism about his position can be raised, but it is an actual book. It is written by a actual historian, rather than say by a journalist or something, and published by a prestigious university. I gave the ISBN though to add to that.--T. Anthony 07:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not just that Protestants have been around for less time. Here are some other reasons...

  1. there have also been fewer of them
  2. there is no single unified doctrine or leadership to take aim at
  3. they tend to split off into denominations and sects rather than killing those who disagree (unless they are Catholics--remember the slaughters in England and Ireland, including the famine)
  4. they have wielded less temporal power and therefore have not aligned their interests with those of the state as closely (except in England, parts of Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandanavian countries-actually most Protestant countries)
  5. the virtuous tendency of Catholics to stay focused on the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than on the obvious flaws in the claims of Protestants.

Moreover, anti-Protestantism isn't identified separately because most people who have anti-Protestant sentiments have anti-Christian sentiments, opposing both Catholics and Protestants equally. The only ones who don't are Catholics and Orthodox Christians. In contrast, anti-Catholicism encompasses both Protestants AND secularists.

One could make a case for specific "anti-x" sentiments (e.g. "anti-Mormonism, anti-Jehovah's witnesses") etc. But "anti-Protestantism"? I don't think it's an easily defined concept.

--Richard 15:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The first two lines, hyperlinkism, chronology?[edit]

Any article who's page-head introduction is this negative and/or dismissive is in need of a re-evaluation. It simply doesn't read like an encyclopedia article introduction. Granted, this is a pretty weighty article (as are most anti-<insert policy, group, or belief system here> articles), but that hasn't stopped us before. If we can agree on anything, it has to be the dignity of the information we're trying to collect here. The introduction to this page doesn't seem to share that sentiment.

Beyond that, the page seems to be suffering from a great deal of link-to-everything/insert-a-million-quotes syndrome, which makes for impressive, if not actually substantive, writing. I get the feeling that those who have attempted to balance the article out have felt compelled to do so by providing external-source-link counterweight, which might even the article out overall, but certainly degrades the read quality and muddies the page. Many of the best articles (and consequently, a good bulk of really great practices behind them) aren't especially fond of the external link arrows. It's imporant to have grounds for contributing specific statements, but riddling your paragraph with links isn't going to make it any more credible than being true in the first place. Put the source links in the bottom, where they belong, and paraphrase long passages which aren't directly pertinent. Anything which requires half a dozen inline external sources is probably (but not always) heading off the deep end.

Generalization? Of course. But it helps... a lot.

I also get the impression that it attempts to provide a sort of "field guide" for recognizing and categorizing anti-catholic behavior. My own understanding of the wikipedia leads me to believe a chronological, rather than categorial, organization of this page would provide a better backbone for further edits without miring the whole affair in NPOV and personal sensitivity issues, which are simply going to occur in pages like this. I'll watch this page for a while, and if nothing comes about, i'll do my best to rework it chronologically.

Hopefully something new will come of it, and the page will take on a new, less burdened, life.

Helicon 07:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed the introduction. Next I'm going to improve the organization and the selection of detail. While I'm not going to solicit approval before I make each change, I'm happy to explain or discuss if asked. --quo 17:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that was quite an improvement. I went ahead and killed the last sentence as well. It doesn't really add anything factual and i have a feeling it might have raised some eyebrows. If you have an objection to the cut, let me know. Helicon 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jack Chick[edit]

Why were all references to Jack Chick taken out of the article? He is the best example of contemporary anti-Catholicism AND he has more than religious disagreements with Catholics. Consistantly depicting Catholics as physically ugly and mean and accusing them of being part of a global plot to take over the world isn't a legitimate criticism (religious or otherwise) by any standard and deserves a bit of attention in this article so that people can see that the term "anti-Catholic" wasn't just invented by the Vatican or conservatives to gain sympathy, but has a real basis in a widely distributed publication. Also, why is there no mention of the Catholic penal-codes enforced upon Ireland for several centuries which included such things as prohibiting a Catholic from owning a horse worth more than 5 pounds or inheriting the property of his father? Surely the lable "anti-Catholic" would not be out of line for that. Contrafool 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Contrafool. I removed much (but not all) regarding Jack Chick because I felt the previous level of detail overstated his importance. One sentence about him and his ideas remains under 3.3 Conspiracy Theories, where I also put mention of the Da Vinci Code.
If you disagree with my treatment of this, please re-add whatever you think appropriate. However I would rather see this article fleshed out with stronger details such as the one you mention -- Catholic penal codes in Ireland would be a terrific addition to the History section.
The previous versions of this article suffered from poor selection, balance, and organization of detail. I took a big whack at it and erred on the side of boldness, trusting that others (like you) would flesh it out again, but hopefully more thoughtfully and with more attention to NPOV than before. Many socially and historically significant instances of anti-Catholicism go unmentioned here, and I'd like to see this article evolve to be more informative while maintaining a neutral tone and a coherent structure.
On that note, I am uninterested in classifying any criticism as legitimate or not. I think this article should simply describe anti-Catholicism, give it socio-historical context, and detail significant historical and contemporary examples. We should not attempt a comprehensive list of ways Catholicism has ever been criticized. Nor should we use this as a soapbox to discuss Catholic doctrine. We should be careful to select and balance details according to their significance to history or society, NOT according to what we feel is legitimate/outrageous or incendiary.
Finally, I think the convention on talk pages is to add new entries to the bottom (unless you are responding to another's comment) so that the page reads chronologically. This helps new contributors make sense of the running dialogue. It's for this clarity that I moved your comment, also taking the liberty of giving it a new heading. --quo 03:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Need a section on anti-clericalism, especially in Europe[edit]

Maybe it's just the Anglo-American bias of the authors/editors of this article but I noticed that there is nothing in this article about "anti-clericalism" which was a huge sentiment in Europe in reaction to the heavy-handed control that the Catholic Church imposed on Catholic Europe through the clerical hierarchy (archbishops, bishops and priests).

Anti-clericalism is a recurring theme in European politics, culture and literature. Also in Latin America.

I'm not arguing for or against "anti-clericalism". I'm just saying omitting mention of it is a major flaw in this article.

In fact, it's telling that there is almost nothing about anti-Catholicism in Europe. This is another huge hole in the article.

Richard 06:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

American Catholics were Pro-Franco?[edit]

American Catholics being pro-Franco is a big claim, please list your sources.

strong majorities favored Franco as did nearly all bishops. historian John Diggins said "'at first glance it does appear that the American clergy had indeed composed a political choir in behalf of Fascism.' Diggins portrayed a large number of Catholic clergy led by figures like Cardinal William O'Connell of Boston and Father Charles E. Coughlin who found occasion to praise Mussolini. He outlined the views of the major Catholic periodicals and discovered that only the Paulist-sponsored Catholic World took exception to fascism with any consistency. ....Ryan's critique of both the doctrine and practice of Italian fascism set him apart from the vast majority of Catholic thinkers and spokesmen. Most Catholics who addressed the matter ignored questions of principle and simply measured fascism in the light of the interests of the Vatican and the Italian church and reacted favorably towards it." Wilson D. Miscamble, "The Limits of American Catholic Antifascism: The Case of John A. Ryan" Church History. Volume: 59. Issue: 4. 1990. Page 523+. also: Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism, pp. 182-190. and Diggins , "American Catholics and Italian Fascism," Journal of Contemporary History 2 (1967 ): 51-68 Rjensen 22:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
More often I think you saw hostility to the Republican side which was seen as Soviet-backed and hostile to the faith. This view is not entirely unjustified although Basque Catholics faced abuse by Franco. Anyway yhe Vatican had stated previously that the Republic was hostile to the Church, but never said anything against Franco as far as I know. This is unlike Mussolini or Hitler both of whom were criticized in encyclicals by Popes.I think some American Catholics supported Franco as the lesser evil or chose no side. I think it is fair to say the majority then did not side against Franco anyway, but I'm not sure if it's accurate or not to say the majority supported him. America was isolationist in the 30s to a large degree so my guess would be that most American Catholics didn't have strong opinions on Franco one way or the other.(I am a church-attending conservative Catholic BTW. Also "you did not see me, I am not here)--T. Anthony 08:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is the data from Gallup poll Dec 16 '38) Which side do you sympathize with in the Spanish civil war—the Loyalists or Franco?

National total 76% for Loyalists 24% for Franco Catholics 42% for Loyalists 58% for Franco Protestants 83 for Loyalists 17 for Franco source: Cantril Public Opinion, 1935-1946. Page 808. Rjensen 08:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There you go, good job. It looks like they weren't given the choice to say "neither" so I'm still curious what that'd be. It's a strong majority, but 42% is a sizeable minority too.--T. Anthony 12:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization and expansion of this article[edit]

I have been unhappy with the organization of this article for some time because it takes primarily a geographical approach which leads to a fragemented narrative. I think it would be better to start with a conceptual explanation of what anti-Catholicism is.

IMO, anti-Catholicism has three major manifestations: opposition to doctrine, opposition to leadership + hierarchy, and rabid irrational bigotry (things like blood libel about the Mass).

This aticle should discuss each of these separately. I am willing to make an initial effort on the first two manifestations: opposition to doctrine and opposition to leadership. I am struggling with an appropriate section title for "rabid irrational bigotry".

The best title that I can think of is "Anti-Catholic bigotry" but I'm worried that it might be considered POV because labeling an opinion as "bigoted" is itself POV. If anyone can suggest a better title, I'm open to discussing it.

A historical approach could also work but it needs to start much earlier not with anti-Catholicism in England. A brief discussion of the reasons behind the Reformation would really help ground a lot of the motivations for anti-Catholicism.

This article, as currently written, assumes too much knowledge about the history of the Catholic Church, particularly the Reformation. It's too confusing to just dive into historical details by country without providing context.

--Richard 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

rewrite is a good idea but don't call people "bigots" when they fight over theology--too much blood has already been shed over transubstantation and consubstantiation. Please never use the word "rabid" -- it suggests a mad dog that should be killed immediately. "irrational" does not seem useful when talking about religion. (Is it irrational to believe in saints? in the Trinity? in limbo?) thanks. :) Rjensen 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
By "rabid irrational bigotry", I mean the sort of stuff that is along the lines of anti-Semitism (see Talk:Roman Catholic Church for a more detailed discussion). The best example of what I mean is "blood libel" about the Mass. I don't see that as being legitimate difference of belief about doctrine or church governance. I see that as "rabid, irrational bigotry". Now, I would never use those words in the text of a Wikipedia article but, here in the Talk Page, why not? Let's call a spade a spade.
P.S. I agree that it might be difficult to figure out where to draw the line on the definition of bigotry. Is the assertion of Bob Jones Sr. in that category? How about Jack Chick?
--Richard 00:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Do we feel the need to make this differentiation on other religious/anti-religion biases? Is Anti-Judaism divided in such a way? Plus I think it ends up being misleading. Only really sensitive people think that those who disagree with Papal Infallibility or the celibate priesthood are anti-Catholic for doing so. It's only anti-Catholic if they blather on about how those two things make the Catholic Church a sexually oppressive Fascist force for reactionary zealots or something.--T. Anthony 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's the problem. The folks over at Roman Catholic Church don't want much discussion of criticism of the church in their article. Actually, after I researched other articles on Wikipedia, I found that there is more criticism of the Catholic Church in the Roman Catholic Church article than there is in most other articles about religion or ideology (see my comments about this on Talk:Roman Catholic Church).

So, I figured I'd put some of that stuff here. Not because I have a POV ax to grind about the Catholic church but because I feel that is important to document this stuff somewhere (maybe in Protestantism?).

I figured I'd put it here but there seems to be a sentiment that this article should be for strong bigotry along the lines of anti-Semitism.

I should comment that there are two different articles anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism and another related one anti-Zionism. There's only this one article anti-Catholicism and a related article anti-clericalism. I can't figure out where to put these discussions about papal supremacy and papal infallibility.

Your thoughts and suggestions are solicited.

--Richard 10:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. The only confusion I was having is that it might end up either leading to justifying hatred of Catholics or going the total opposite direction by making any criticism of Catholicism to be anti-Catholicism and I don't think that's true either. By definition I think anyone who is not Catholic disagrees with Catholicism on some issue. I disagree with Methodists on some things, but I think it'd be very weird to think of myself as anti-Methodist. I'm not pro-Methodist either. I guess mostly I just don't care to be honest. Anyway I'll get back to you because I don't have much constructive to say at this hour.--T. Anthony 11:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The fact that some Christians believe Catholic teaching is unbiblical can be sourced[edit]

Hi there. Earlier, I read the introductory paragraph to this article and I was very shocked at the amount of bias used by the author who discussed the various Catholic doctrines and described Catholic teachings as "un-Biblical." While that may be your personal opinion, I didn't think it was suited for an objective page like this is supposed to be. [Keegan] 07:40 EST 10 May 2006

It's true that the statements are unsourced but that doesn't mean they can't be sourced. Much of Wikipedia is unsourced until someone challenges it. It just takes more effort to source something than to put something in that you know to be true.

In this case, what's true is that some people believe that Catholic teaching is unbiblical. The text is not asserting that Catholic teaching is unbiblical just that some people believe it to be.

Those opinions aren't mine although I see that there's an element of truth in them. The text is saying some people believe that. And there are definitely people who believe it. Bob Jones Sr. (of Bob Jones University in South Carolina) is one of them.

I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities to find out that many Christians believe that Catholics are not Christian. That's not my fault. It was a big shock to me when the first person said it to me. I dismissed them as a fringe cult. Since then, I've learned that it is a bit of an extreme view to say that Catholics aren't Christians but it is a common view to say that some Catholic teachings are not rooted in the Bible.

Catholics themselves will say that some teachings are based on tradition. Go read the Roman Catholic Church article to understand this.

--Richard 15:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

please source the claims. Note that Bob Jones Sr died decades ago. Rjensen 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your response, Rjensen. I have encounted (much to my chagrin) Christians who believe that Catholics aren't Christians. Sourcing such people would be a great addition to the article, but i dont know if its most suited in the intro.

Furhtermore, while saying why some other Christian sects disagree with Catholic doctrine is legitimate the article as it was didn't really do that. It was more along the lines of "Some Christians object to the Catholic Church because its teachings are unibiblical." It was not objective and did not express the point that "Some Christians object to the Catholic Church because they believe its teachings to be unbiblical." I think the second one is a little more objective. Furthermore, the casual use of the term Marianism is improper and a subtle jab at the true Catholic view. Thirdly, the Catholic view of salvation had been mis-stated as "works alone," a common misonception.

So, if part of the article is to explain doctrinl disputes, it should A) not be located at the top of the article, and most importantly B) be accurate and objective.

[Keegan] 10 May 2006 12:30pm EST

It doesn't matter that Bob Jones Sr. died years ago. If he said it, it's a source. Martin Luther also died many years ago as did many people who are cited in Wikipedia.

I have moved the text out of the intro and into the "Opposition to Catholic doctrine" section and added the Catholic rebuttal about "tradition". Yes, more sourcing is always helpful but the urgency of sourcing is only high if there are people who dispute the factual basis of the text. There is no dispute that some Christians feel this way. There may be dispute whether they are right or not but that is a theological dispute not a factual dispute.

Rjensen, one of your recent edits adding derogatory terms is highly POV and against Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. Please cease and desist. There are far more mature and sophisticated ways to attack a POV that you disagree with. Please use them.

--Richard 19:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fact is Bob Jones died in 1968 (at age 85), and his anti-RC attacks came in 1920s. There do not seem to be any citations in last 40 years, suggesting that this line of attack has petered out. When editors are challenged it is their responsibility to prove they have been relying on a reliable source, which is not the case here. And please leave the tradition business out of it. Rjensen 19:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


http://www.bible.ca/catholic-organization.htm

http://www.conservativeonline.org/journals/04_12_journal/2000v4n12_id05.htm (Tyndale Theological University)

http://www.scionofzion.com/rc.htm

http://www.chick.com/bc/2002/confession.asp (Our dear friend Jack Chick)

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r005i.html

http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/4_3/pages/mohler.html (President of Southern Baptist convention on Larry King Live)

Nuff said? Sheesh.

--Richard 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, rjensen, for providing a "proof by example" of why an encyclopedic article about anti-Catholicism can serve a pedagogical purpose in educating fervent "knee-jerk loyal" Catholics who are blissfully unaware of the fact that a significant number of non-Catholic Christians consider Catholic teaching to be unbiblical to the point of making the Catholic Church a non-Christian church.

For extra credit, you might ponder these question:

  1. Are Mormons Christians? Why or why not?
  2. Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians? Why or why not?

--Richard 21:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

yes: now source every sentence--and not with some cartoonist or some offbeat newspaper column. How about official statements by the Southern Baptist (or other) church, please, or a scholarly study that has been well received by numbers of people. Not some informal comments made offhand to a reporter. Key words are "many" "cult" nonbiblical" and "nonchristian." Rjensen 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Catholic born in Arkansas. Because of that I'm well aware that there are Protestants who still consider Catholics to be not Christian, unbiblical, etc. I think though that the article should be clear that this is their opinion, not fact. Anyway if you want sources on this I know of some, but they generally try to balance it.

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist...To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine "that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified," the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds.[3]

The Roman Catholic system of church governance, based on extra-biblical teachings such as papal primacy, resulted in severe abuses of religious freedom as the church was allied with the state...If, in expounding on what the Bible teaches, Seventh-day Adventists fail to express love to those addressed, we do not exhibit authentic Christianity. Adventists seek to be fair in dealing with others. Thus, while we remain aware of the historical record and continue to hold our views regarding end-time events, we recognize some positive changes in recent Catholicism, and stress the conviction that many Roman Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ.Seventh-Day Adventist Church

Not sure that's what's wanted, but individual ministers in several religions do still reject Catholics as Christians.

However for those who said that the criticism needed a page separate from the page on the Roman Catholic Church so why not place it here I have some objections. I think the following articles do deal with criticism of Catholicism: Criticism of the Catholic Church, Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, Cases of child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, Class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others, Involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Ustaša regime, Clerical fascism, Hitler's Pope, and likely others.--T. Anthony 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... Why didn't somebody mention Criticism of the Catholic Church before? That does seem like a logical place to put the stuff that I've been inserting here. Is there anybody who disagrees with moving the stuff that is more related to church governance (papal primacy) and church doctrine (papal infallibility, sola Scriptura, sola fides, etc.) to that article?
--Richard 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I just found out about it a few hours ago. I just assumed it existed before that, but I really didn't know for certain. Wikipedia is full of criticisms of various religions. I think there was a Criticism of Islam article and there's probably others. Catholicism is the largest single Christian denomination and also one of the oldest. Hence it gets more articles than most.--T. Anthony 09:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I did some editing but this article gain a lot of cruft from the last set of edits. Dominick (TALK) 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, it's not the way that I would have liked to have written it but User:rjensen kept deleting text without justification other than insisting on an unreasonable standard of sourcing. He's stopped for now but I had to really lay it on thick to get to a point where he could see that it was not just some fringe lunatics who maintained that the Catholic Church is not Christian.

This is the first real edit war that I have engaged in and I hope that I have conducted myself honorably. It took a lot of self-restraint not to dish out as good as I was getting.

I am all for making it clear that these are opinions not facts. However, I do think it is important to document the existence of those opinions.

--Richard 04:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Neat. I'd like to add you don't have to even indicate they're false either. I know of Protestants who I consider mostly friendly, but they believe the Catholic Church is not biblically justified on many points. To a degree I don't even think the Catholic Church is biblically justified in the way that they mean as I don't want it to be Sola Scriptura. Anyway saying that the Catholic Church is biblically justified could also be taking sides and I could see the difficulty there too. Keeping things NPOV can get maddening at times. I think that's part of why I left for almost two months.--T. Anthony 09:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Question for all: T. Anthony provided some additional evidence to back up the assertion that some non-Catholics consider the Catholic Church to be non-Christian. I am very appreciative of his providing citations to back up the text.

However, is it worth putting that stuff in the text as it stands now? As dominick said, there's lots of cruft in the text already. I tried to clean it up but, to satisfy rjensen, I put far more in the way of evidence than I would have if everybody had just said "Uh huh, we all know that there are people who have those opinions". We could just clobber the naysayers by providing boatloads of proof that people really do say this stuff. rjensen insisted on having every sentence sourced. I think that's an unreasonable standard. Few articles in Wikipedia are held to that standard.

At this point, I'm loath to add any more evidence because I think it would make the article less readable. I think the text that was there last night is preferable to the one that is there now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardshusr (talkcontribs) .

Cleanup needed[edit]

I added the cleanup tag because even a quick skimming of the article showed so much sloppiness, I found it genuinely distracting. Some particular issues:

  • Spelling and punctuation errors.
  • Citations could be formatted much better.
  • Some section headings have only one or two sentences. These should probably be either expanded to at least a short paragraph, or the subheading should be removed so the stub is merged with its parent section.

Those are the just the things that jumped out at me the most. Any article like this is bound to have some potential POV problems too; I hope everyone can also try write clearly as you figure out what the content should be. Wesley 12:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New working definition[edit]

Thank you, Wesley, for your comments. Indeed, this article needs a lot of reworking. To start, I have re-written the working definition of anti-Catholicism in the first paragraph. I have employed the distinctions which Scott Hahn makes about the matter. Without using such an inflammatory term in the article itself, anti-Catholicism is a form of bigotry, that is an irrational negative pre-disposition or even hatred. This takes the matter out of the realm of mere disagreement. With such a definition, we may make more headway in cleaning up this article. I welcome all comments as a concensus on this definition will affect future editing decisions. --Vaquero100 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


Theological Disagreements[edit]

I have been giving this some thought. It seems to me that even strong theological disagreement may be made in an atmosphere of charity and mutual respect. Failure to recognise this fact is how Christians in general and Catholics in particular are accused of being anit-gay, when mere disagreement does not imply hatred or animosity. This is a very important distinction which is essential to maintaining civility in a pluralistic society.

Okay, off the soapbox. I would like to suggest that theologically distinct positions be mentioned on the Roman Catholic Church page with a link to the page of the group or church or movement which holds such disagreement. For instance, sola scriptura should be discussed at length on a reformation page. The RCC article should make reference to such a topic and refer to reader who wants more information. The same should hold for theological disagreements over the papacy, for instance, provided they are rational responses to the papacy. However, claims that the pope controls the world's media, has plans to take over the world or was the driving force behind Hitler, for example, really does belong here. Again, I would welcome any and all comments. --Vaquero100 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, Vaquero. I agree with you. However, the folks over at the Roman Catholic Church article disagree with you. They want to restrict any discussion of theological disputes to those which are INTERNAL to the Catholic church. The sort of disputes with Protestants that I have been writing about here do not, in their opinion, belong in that article. That is why I moved them here. See below for a discussion of whether theological disputes belong on this page or on the Criticism of the Catholic Church page. Your thoughts and comments are welcomed.
--Richard 15:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the theological stuff should be on the Criticism of the Catholic Church page. The most bizarre/fringe theological notions, like the ones about secret pagan rituals being at the Vatican for example, would stay here.--T. Anthony 08:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, I agree with you. However, I did that on Thursday morning (yesterday). I moved all the theological and church governance stuff to the Criticism of the Catholic Church article based on discussion here. Dominick reverted my move and made the "Making a MESS of a MESS" comment below. At the current time, the vote is two-to-one in favor of the move, T. Anthony and Richard in favor of the move and Dominick against. That's a pretty thin margin and damn small quorum to be called a "consensus". I'd like to hear what other people think.
--Richard 08:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm all confused here. I think the immediate effect of the move could mess things up a little, but then you just clean it up afterwards. In the short-term I maybe see what Dominick meant, but in the long term I think moving most of that stuff is a good idea.--T. Anthony 11:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, we now have 3 in favor of the move and 1 against (Dominick). I'm going to start a vote just to try and reach a more formal "consensus". For the time being, I am not going to issue an RfC unless someone else feels that we should do so.
--Richard 08:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't almost the whole article go over to Criticism of the Catholic Church, in that case? The consensus seems to be emerging that reasonable people can have strong differences about theology without being labelled bigots. The same is true of political disagreements as well. If the Pope issues a proclamation inviting people to overthrow your government and threatening foreign invasions and civil wars, opposition to the Papacy does not seem irrational. The same is true if the Roman church hierarchy starts political campaigns seeking to establish censorship or take away personal liberties. Smerdis of Tlön 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are aware there has been outright persecution of Catholics and hatred of them for things they don't actually believe? You do know of the Know-Nothing Party, Titus Oates, PRI anti-clericalism, etc. Take out honest theological disagreements and anti-Catholicism would still make a pretty large article.--T. Anthony 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Straw vote for the purpose of determining consensus[edit]

QUESTION: Should differences regarding church doctrine and church governance be moved to Criticism of the Catholic Church? Anti-Catholic bigotry will stay here.

Votes in favor[edit]

  1. Richard
  2. Wesley 16:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. TheMusicalGenius 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes against[edit]

Making a MESS of a MESS[edit]

IF you must move things, discuss them in detail here. The move became a mess on TWO article instead of just this article. Dominick (TALK) 14:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, I acknowledge that there might be more than one opinion about where stuff belongs. Nonetheless, I did make the move based on prior discussion in this Talk Page. The fact that YOU disagree with what other people said doesn't mean that YOU are right and the others are wrong. I thought I was making an uncontroversial move of stuff that I either moved here or wrote myself. I don't think I moved out much that had been here before I came to this article. (I grant that I may not be 100% accurate on this but it's true for the most part.)
When I first moved that stuff here from the Roman Catholic Church article, somebody said "Hey, this article should be for stuff more along the lines of anti-Semitism." I explained that I was looking for a home for it and it seemed to be out of place in the Roman Catholic Church (see my comments to that effect above). When somebody (I think it was T. Anthony) mentioned the Criticism of the Catholic Church article, I thought "Yeah, that way we can leave Anti-Catholicism for stuff that is along the lines of anti-Semitism.
I thought this was an uncontroversial move. Apparently, it's not. Let's discuss it. I think my previous comments on this Talk Page show that I try to be reasonable. It would be great if we can agree on a systematic definition of what belongs in each of the three articles Roman Catholic Church,Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism.
Personally, I agree that disagreements over church doctrine and church governance are not the same kind of animal as irrational bigotry. If this article is about irrational bigotry, then none of the stuff that I moved this morning belongs in this article. Believe it or not, it's not bigotry to suggest that some Catholic teachings (saints, indulgences, purgatory, etc.) are unbiblical. You may not agree but, at the end of the day, it's a theological argument.
Comparing the Catholic church to the "whore of Babylon" and the pope to the AntiChrist? Hmmm... It is a theological dispute but maybe this is crossing over into the area of irrational bigotry. Maybe those charges should be documented here with reference to the Criticism of the Catholic Church article for the detailed explanation.: --Richard 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't followed all the content moves, but I just wanted to say that it makes sense to distinguish between plain bigotry and reasoned disagreements, like you're doing. Many times what begins as a reasoned disagreement can be turned into plain bigotry though, and that's where the line gets blurry. Identifying someone as a "heretic" can be an expression of strong theological disagreement in one context, and incitement for mob violence in another. See the Christianity and anti-Semitism article for how some people interpret the New Testament as inherently antisemitic because antisemites have quoted it and claim to be motivated by it, for example.
Once everyone agrees on which stuff goes where, the intro sections should make clear what is and is not in each article with a link to the other, so that the distinction might have a chance of being maintained in the future when new contributors come along and don't read the volumes of Talk pages to learn what's been hashed out. :-) Wesley 16:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The moves are a bad idea, without a serious merge. Moving the discussions to splintered pages is a worse idea. Lets hash out the issues FOR the moves. If selected items are better covered elsewhere then item by item they can be done. The wikiproject issues are not discussed here.Dominick (TALK) 18:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Having the discussion on multiple Talk Pages is a bad idea. That's why I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy subpage to create a single forum for editors of multiple articles a place to discuss this kind of issue. As documented on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiProject Catholicism/Strategy, the fact that you don't understand or don't agree with the WikiProject standard for conducting project-related discussions isn't justification for not having those discussion forums.
Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject and Template:WikiProject before continuing this discussion. It's your prerogative to disagree but understand that it is you that is proposing something that is a departure from the norm.
--Richard 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Use the processes. Make a request to move, thats why it is there. Lets leave the wikoproject discussion there. Dominick (TALK) 19:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm confused. I understand a "RFM" to be a request to move an entire article. Actually, I'm not sure that there is such a thing. Maybe you can point me to a page documenting the process.
At the risk of being pedantic, you can always move a page to a title that isn't already occupied by another article. Of course, some people might object so you want to do this carefuly.
If the new title IS already occupied by another page, then you actually start with an AfD on the other page and then you can do the move yourself.
I will not request the RfM because I believe there is no consensus for it. If you believe there is one, then go ahead. I think it wastes people's time voting on something that won't win.
--Richard 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Since the most discussion on this topic is happening on the Talk:Roman Catholic Church page, I have started a vote there. Since I have identified five different options (some of which are not very likely winners), there may need to be a run-off if there is not a clear runaway winner. Please visit the Talk:Roman Catholic Church page and express your opinion if you have one.
--Richard 22:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mass Merge Discussion[edit]

Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Mass_Merging Dominick (TALK) 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Anti-Catholicism in Literature and popular media[edit]

I've tried to make more cultural, chronological and thematic sense out of this and have rewritten some parts and re-arranged others - though it is still very far from perfect. Although this is a serious subject I can't help thinking that there is a rich vein of absurdity in trad Anti-Catholic sentiments, of which I have provided hints...Colin4C 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


Strange Syntax[edit]

What is this meant to mean? (from intro):

'The charge of anti-Catholicism is usually intended to assert bigotry.'

It appears to suggest that charging someone as being 'anti-Catholic' is a bigoted assertion....which seems to be the opposite meaning to the one intended....I guess....Colin4C 14:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints & The Catholic Church[edit]

I am by no means an expert in editing a wiki. However, I am LDS, and have more than enough resources to prove that the shown relationship of "Mormonism" to anti-Catholicism is absolutely false. No offence to the author. There may be a correlation, but not as it's shown here. I will try to summerize as best I can. The founding of the LDS church isn't "partly due" to the anti-Catholic bias in upstate N.Y. Joseph Smith questioned religion because of the amount of relious battle from church to church at the time. Joseph Smith also wasn't Catholic nor had anything to do with the Catholic church. Who knows, the bias might have helped in causing him to question. But overall not in causing the founding of the LDS church. As Joseph recounted the "first vision" it was Christ who commanded him to restore his church. So whether this is believed to be true or not; the doctrine of the church is that the reason it was restored was that it was commanded of Christ. Martin harris did not join the LDS church to promote anti-catholicism. Though **at first** he did publish the Book of Mormon as a buisness venture he continued, after joining the church, to publish it out of desire to spread it to others. Also, the official viewpoint of the LDS church(Found on www.LDS.org) is that the "Whore of Babylon" is NOT refering to the Catholic church, and thus is not even related to this article. This is refering to any church which is not supporting the cause of good and is seeking its own gain. Retroactive baptism is incorrect termanology. It is more properly known as "Baptism for the Dead". The reason given for this practice is also close but not accurate. The Vatican "Refuses to dignify" is incorrect. The Vatican has ignored the matter. Ignoring isn't refusing. The Vatican might not seen any need for addressing the matter. If I am wrong, then please give a citation or quote to go off. The way it was worded was just contradictary.

The LDS church is not anti-Catholic or related to anti-Catholicism. Though there may be members of the LDS church who are, and of the Catholic church who are anti-Mormon; there is no official anti-Catholic standpoint from the church. The Bias definition in the first paragraph states that it is not a mere disagreement on theology etc. Though the LDS church has different beliefs, it is not in any way anti-Catholic and has no official "bias" against the Catholic church. Therfore, I suggest that this article is full more of speculation, opinion, and viewpoints. It does not provide any information or statistc. I do not mean to just edit out the whole paragraph but as it is written it is inaccurate. I tried my best to fix this. After doing so I realised that it doesn't relate to anti-Catholic "bias" at all. I want to say that I do not have an agenda either. If you rewrite a more accurate section then I would completely encourage it. If I edit that, it would only be for proper terminology or trying to help relate it to this article. Just as it is does not relate. (sorry for the length) TheMusicalGenius 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not a representative of the LDS Church. However, I do have the resources to back up my information with official documentation. TheMusicalGenius 03:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add one more thing. Though this might sound like a doctorinal battle or being too picky etc. This could in any way be seen as needless. I gave comment to doctrine to show only that the proper terms and the real doctrines of the LDS church and historical records, if not altered, show that there is really no connection between the LDS church and the bias of anti-catholicism. I apologize for the length of my comments, but I feel it is only neccicary if to prevent a dispute. TheMusicalGenius 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can show where the lds church was and is anti-catholic. For example some of the older temple ceremonies were explicitly so. If you like I will put them in the article and let people judge the lds church by its own words.

Here is a sample from the 1984 temple endowment does it look anti-catholic? It sure does: "LUCIFER:: Then with that enmity I will take the treasure of the earth, and with gold and silver I will buy up armies and navies, Popes and priests, and reign with blood and horror on the earth!"

_________________________________________

WOW! I almost couldn't believe my eyes. I couldn't begin to explain how horrible your additions were.

You used 3 points. The first does not have a citation. There is NO way of prooving it is valid or even remotely real. The only places online you can find it are anti-mormon websites. Go figure. Almost nothing leaves an LDS temple. If someone was sneaking documents out of an LDS temple they would have had to lie more than numerous times to numerous people to get into a position to be able to do so. They would be completely disregarding and disrespecting so many people that they would hardly be trustworthy enough to give them a penny without at least wondering if they would steal it. If you can get an official church publication and site it, then you would at least have SOME ground. Also the word POPE is NOT catholic in origin. and it refers to popes as in MORE THAN ONE.

The two quotes from LDS scripture you gave do not specifically name any religion. Some people, LDS and not, have SPECULATED pre-1980's and post as to whether the "great and abominable church" mentioned is a specific church. You should get on LDS.org and search for an official definition of it before putting anything about it on here. I'll even help you, the new beta website which can be found on LDS.org has a much better search.

You merely gave speculation and honestly if you are calling the LDS church anti-catholic. If anyone is showing bias. It is someone who is ONLY speculating and showing a supposed temple script which wouldn't be allowed out of the temple. You are full of it. I don't care if someone hates the LDS church or the Catholic church. Most people that know me know how un-bias I am. If I somehow have bias, then it is against ignorance or idiocy.

First, the thing I am trying to defend on here... is being at least A LITTLE proper. Second, I will be the first to say I know LDS members who are anti-catholic; not many, but I do. I also know people of other religions who are and people with no religious affiliations. Whether some are anti-catholic or not. Labelying a whole religion as anti-catholic would have to actually have some ground. If you find officials of the LDS church stating anti-catholic comments then you could actually have something to go on.

In the LDS church there is a priesthood office called "priest". Which would easily show that if your reference is real EVEN THEN it wouldn't be valid in that it was refering to an evil form of the word or position. If I say "Evil will take over and the devil will do this and his evil church and its bishops will be blah blah blah..." does that mean that LDS bishops are evil or that it is refering to a certain church because they use the word bishop. No it doesn't and there are also more than enough religions or groups that use the word bishop. Pope is NOT confined to the catholic church. If it was, the supposed statement still isn't refering to the Catholic pope.TheMusicalGenius 00:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

New Article "Opposition to Catholicism"[edit]

How about a new article entitled "Opposition to Catholicism", which could then obviously contain both history and current information? Or "Movements in opposition to Catholicism"? 88.111.175.83 17:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Ellen

I couldn't agree more. Creating an article with the label "Opposition to Catholicism" would be for one a better worded title(In my opinion) and it would certainly give a clean slate so this articles mistakes would get erased. Eventually it would be suggested to be merged etc. A clean slate can be good for some articles that have many wrong facts and too much opinion. I think this article perfectly fits into that category. TheMusicalGenius 04:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how things would be laid out after creation of this new article? There are two existing articles Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism. Do you see Opposition to Catholicism replacing one or both of these two articles?
--Richard 05:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism is the accepted way of referring to these beliefs and actions. Would you label anti-Semetism as "opposition to Judaism"? Probably not. Leave the title alone.Cestusdei

I know it's difficult to draw a clear line between the two but earlier discussion has agreed that Anti-Catholicism is supposed to cover the more rabid, somewhat less rational (whatever that means in this context) hatred of Catholicism along the lines of Anti-Semitism. Criticism of the Catholic Church is supposed to cover issues which are more mainstream. The criticisms can come from secular sources or religious sources but are generally considered to be rationally based rather than just virulent bias.
Once again, drawing the line between these two can be difficult and POV but this line is also supposed to be the difference between Criticism of Judaism and Anti-Semitisim.
So, my question remains: what does Opposition to Catholicism add to this framework? If we were going to do anything, it might be to rename Criticism of the Catholic Church to Opposition to Catholicism but I don't see what the point would be. We want Anti-Catholicism to keep its name because it is deliberately chosen to parallel Anti-Semitism which is widely understood to be an irrational bias against or hatred of Jews.
--Richard 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. What would be the point? How many articles are needed on people who disagree with or hate Catholicism? Either it starts looking like a "pity us poor persecuted Catholics" or it looks like "let's pile on so we can repeat criticism of them." If the issue is discomfort with this term I guess I'd just have to shrug. "Anti-Catholicism" is the term used in history books, scholarly studies[4], etc. That some would prefer a three word "Opposition to Catholicism" is interesting, I guess, but not persuasive.--T. Anthony 09:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a title that clearly defines the scope of the article. "Anti-Catholic prejudice" would be rather unambiguous for people not familiar with the term, or who think of it as having a second meaning of being an opponent of Catholicism without necessarily being prejudiced. "Criticism" sounds fair and rational and "prejudice" sounds unfair and irrational (and "anti-Catholicism" is supposed to have the prejudice connotation or denotation). "Opposition" could be either, so that would be good if you were trying to combine both with a neutral title. -- Beland 22:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia listed as anti-Catholic website[edit]

Is Wikipedia supposed to be listed as an anti-Catholic website, or is this a joke? 82.41.225.44 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be vandalism.Elcocinero 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely untrue, but yeah vandalism.--T. Anthony 03:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I notice that Antisemitism doesn't link to antisemetic sites. Why should this one? Freder1ck 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Freder1ck

Eleanor Roosevelt[edit]

I strongly question the value of having a section on Eleanor Roosevelt on the Anti-Catholicism page, when (a) no other individual has an entire section devoted to them, and (b) it repeats word-for-word the content under Eleanor Roosevelt on The Catholic issue. If Eleanor Roosevelt's anti-Catholicism is considered to be important in the US, that information can be better provided by a link than by copying the information so that it appears on both pages. Yonmei 07:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sexual and reproductive rights[edit]

I'm unhappy with this section, in particular with the example offered of ACT-UP throwing used condoms at the altar. It's presented as if it were an anti-Catholic act of blasphemy, rather than a political protest against Cardinal O'Connor's consistent opposition to civil rights for lesbians and gays and his appointment to Reagan's AIDS commission. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/John_Cardinal_O'Connor

When the Catholic church hierarchy publicly opposes civil rights for a specific group, I don't see how it can be considered anti-Catholicism for that group to be in public opposition to the church hierarchy. Either this section needs to be considerably expanded, to show the background to LGBT opposition to the Catholic Church, and let the reader judge if this constitutes anti-Catholicism on the LGBT community's part or homophobia on the part of the church hierarchy, or it should be deleted. Yonmei 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that throwing used condoms on the altar is not blasphemous? Or that blasphemy is an acceptible tactic to use if you disagree with church policy? Colin4C 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that when a representative of the Catholic Church is persecuting LGBT people, it is hardly "anti-Catholicism" when they resent his persecution and act on that resentment. In my opinion, of course: however, if we are to include LGBT reaction to Cardinal O'Connor's persecution as "anti-Catholicism", then his persecution should be given the right name: homophobia.
This doesn't quite work. O'Connor did not vandalize an LGBT organization and was not in the midst of assaulting a LGBT person. There was no clear or present reason to attack him. Even if there was that wouldn't imply action against his church as relatively innocent bystandards attend. Even if you feel he preached hate against LGBT people that is not a justification for trespassing and vandalism. If I went to the headquarters of Chick Publications and threw stuff at their employees I'd be arrested. You surely realize O'Connor's attitude toward LGBTism is nowhere near as bad as Jack Chick's views of Catholics?--T. Anthony 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
To the point: the group who threw used condoms on the altar did not do so just because they felt like committing blasphemy: they did so as an act of protest against the Catholic Church's lethal objections to condom use. Context must be given, and let the reader judge. Yonmei 12:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


Yonmei, all you've said here is that you're dissapointed in the fact that some LGBT people have resorted to violence to get across their dislike of the Catholic Church and its teachings.
This comment is unsigned - who wrote it? Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


1. Quite obviously, the act of throwing used condoms on the altar was meant to be blasphemous Otherwise, they would have thrown the condoms somewhere else-- but they knew throwing them on the altar would be extremely offensive, especially for Catholics, who have a very special reverence for what takes place on the altar.
Indeed. And the Catholic Church's objection to the use of condoms in safe sex - which objection has been bolstered by lies about condoms not working to protect users or condoms actually spreading HIV - is extremely offensive to everyone to whom human lives are more important that the doctrine requiring Catholics not to use condoms. Offense for offense: Catholics who believe it's better for people to become infected by HIV and die are offending those who think it's better for people to use condoms and stay alive; ACT-UP in throwing used condoms on the altar was returning offense for offense. I personally think both sides were wrong. But ACT-UP rethought their position after the event, and has not done a protest like that since: the Catholic church has still not unequivocally come out in support of condoms to save lives, and continues to lie about their effectiveness.Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Any act perpetrated against a spiritual leader is also perpetrated against the thousands of Catholics who look to him for guidance, and who believe the same things he does. The fact that these extremists desecrated both the altar and the Eucharist was obviously meant to inflict severe offense on Catholics, who believe that the Eucharist is the physical presence of God. As you can read in the article, this disgusting act of violence was perpetrated during Mass, so that every Catholic present would be offended. If they had only wished to hurt the Cardinal, they wouldn't have done it in front of thousands of people, in a public space, and in the manner they did it.
See above for the disgusting offense that the Catholic leadership, and Catholics who supported the Catholic leadership in their position, were perpetrating (and are still perpetrating) to people who believe that human lives are more important than religious doctrine. Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind that nothing in this article is untrue! Also, your claim about Cardinal O'Connor somehow violating the rights of LGBT people seems absurd. As you can see in the WP article on this event, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power), the violent protest was aimed at fighting a sex-education issue. What these extremists were trying to say is that Cardial O'Connor did not have the right to opinions about homosexuality that were not in line with theirs. In other words, they were trying to impose censorship on his legitimate right to free speech and free thought.
Yes, by that definition, I suppose they were. Exactly as Wikipedia editors try to impose censorship on those who attempt to insert lies into Wikipedia. Cardinal John O'Connor was telling lies about LGBT people and lies about how to avoid getting AIDS. You're right that he had a right to tell his lies: but the truth also matters, as all Wikipedia editors ought to acknowledge. O'Connor was a vandal: Wikipedia exists as a useful resource because Wiki editors do not allow vandals to insert lies based on religious doctrine into Wiki articles - and often the vandals claim they're being "censored" when they're only being edited to allow the facts to be clear.Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks,

Pianoman123 19:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Plainly, Cardinal O'Connor himself wanted to
I can find no reference to this action by ACT_UP in the wiki article you linked to, but I fail to see how a protest against Cardinal O'Connor's actions and statements can in any way be considered censorship. O'Connor had a right to say whatever he liked, however nonsensical and hateful: he had no right to expect the people he was attacking so hatefully to censor their response to him.
Further, it's rather odd for a Wikipedian to argue that it's "censorship" to demand provision of full accurate information, and for lies - whatever the source - to be clearly identified as lies. The Catholic Church has, in general, been a dishonest source of information about how to avoid HIV infection: ACT_UP are not guilty of censorship in saying so.Yonmei 12:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)



Look again, the info is in the article, a few paragraphs from the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power
So it is, thank you: I was looking under Actions, and it's listed under

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power#Criticism_and_controversy Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Ok, this is getting into a bit of trolling, and it's losing track of what we're debating here.

Also, you've completely misconstrued the events we're discussing. Point by Point:

"I fail to see how a protest against Cardinal O'Connor's actions and statements can in any way be considered censorship."

Protest is fine, but there's a difference between protest and violence, desecration, and offense to thousands of Catholics. The act can be considered censorship because it was obviously not meant simply as a protest, but also as a terroristic threat, meant to intimidate the Cardinal so that he might not make such a statement again. If these protesters really wanted to engage his arguments on rational grounds, they should have done so, and the Cardinal would have responded in a rational way. But they decided not to use rational arguments, and instead use a very uncivil means of making nothing more than an elaborate insult. And personal insults do not constitute arguments.

"O'Connor had a right to say whatever he liked, however nonsensical and hateful: he had no right to expect the people he was attacking so hatefully to censor their response to him."

Please identify why the Cardinal's words are hateful and nonsensical. Simply saying it's hateful does not make it hateful. Just because you disagree with him and aren't tolerant of his views, does not make his words nonsensical. He did nothing to harm any LGBT people...that much is undisputable.

Really? He prevented Dignity's AIDS advice group from meeting in Catholic properties in NYC. Only Father Mychal Judge defied the Cardinal to give Dignity a home: the Cardinal's intent was that LGBT Catholics with AIDS should be harmed, even if Father Judge frustrated the Cardinal's wish. Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What the LGBT people did is hateful, because it was a form of violence.

If you think that, then you think - presumably - that "pro-life" picketers outside clinics are hateful because what they do is a form of violence - screaming abuse at women going into the clinic. Yet I recall you arguing otherwise on the pro-life page. Changed your mind?
I would consider screaming at women going to an abortion clinic is hateful and counterproductive.--T. Anthony 04:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, reading the account of the protest in the Cathedral, while the Cardinal's actions against LGBT people were hateful, the protest in the Cathedral was over the line. Nevertheless, I think it important to give it context, or to omit it: the Cardinal was the first to give offense, and this should be made clear. Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What the Cardinal did was not hateful, because he merely made a rational/intellectual argument against a form of sex-education he saw as unfitting for kids.

He made an irrational, religious argument, against allowing children to have full, clear information and being able to make up their own minds. He may have thought that if children were kept ignorant or lied to this would be "protecting" them, but we needn't collaborate with this view. Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Your unintentional point is that Anti-Catholicism has justifications, ones you clearly feel can be valid, so we should explain why in each case. Because you can't pick and choose if you want to be NPOV. If we include the justifications of LGBT rights groups we have to include Protestant justifications about Papal abuses or the Biblical reasons why the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod deems the Papacy the Anti-Christ.--T. Anthony 04:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually - I just noticed this comment from you - we can "pick and choose". We can choose the scientific and/or historically documented "justifications" over the irrational, pure-prejudice justifications. It's obviously pure bigotry to claim that the Pope is the Anti-Christ: but it's historically true that many Popes in past centuries have abused the authority of the Papacy, though this does not mean we should accept undocumented slurs against Popes. You are right to point out that throwing used condoms on the altar is blasphemy: but it comes in the context of Catholic campaigning against life-saving safe-sex campaigns.Yonmei 10:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So in his mind, he was trying to protect kids, but somehow you think that's hateful.

Well, yes. I think keeping children ignorant, and lying to them, is hateful, even if someone tells themselves they're only doing it to "protect" the children. Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, in the second part of your phrase above, it sounds as if you condone what these people did. I think that's absolutely reprehensible.

I think that allowing HIV to spread, rather than support the use of condoms, is absolutely reprehensible. That's because I believe human lives matter more than religious doctrine. The Cardinal evidently believed otherwise. While I disagree with what the ACT-UP protesters did, and think it (not absolutely) reprehensible, they did it in reaction to the Cardinal's absolutely reprehensible behaviour in valuing religious doctrine over human lives, and I think that context needs to be given on the wiki page.
I think you can be right on things as you were on Mychal Judge. In this case you are quite clearly not. The worst countries for AIDS are non-Catholic. In addition to that I don't see much evidence that Catholics who are celibate before marriage and faithful in marriage are worsening the AIDS epidemic. You are also undervaluing the role of people avoiding testing until it is too late, poor equipment for testing, unequal sexual relationships in parts of Africa due to sexism, etc. Lastly practicing homosexuals or those having pre-marital sex are already not obeying what the Catholic Church wants, so why should its message on condoms be significant to them? Still even if you're correct that the policies are worsening AIDS you should know this is not the intent. Catholicism is a religion, so it will have certain rules on behavior. These may not be based purely on science. In addition how is the ACT-UP incident different than a member of some Pentecostal church doing the same? After all in Latin America there has been outright violence against Pentecostals committed by Catholics and many Catholics feel it is a grave sin to leave Catholicism for Protestantism. Or the Communists for that matter as Catholic bishops in parts of Eastern Europe were Anti-Semitic or "reactionary."--T. Anthony 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
"Further, it's rather odd for a Wikipedian to argue that it's "censorship" to demand provision of full accurate information, and for lies - whatever the source - to be clearly identified as lies. The Catholic Church has, in general, been a dishonest source of information about how to avoid HIV infection: ACT_UP are not guilty of censorship in saying so."

Let's remember that I am the one requesting the inclusion of information here, and that you are the one who has expressed discontent with the full information presented in the article. Your opinions expressed here are simply hate speech against the Catholic Church, and of course, they are not supported by any facts, but seem to be blind opinions, and nothing more...obviously not appropriate for WP!Pianoman123 16:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not engage in personal insults against me. I am not anti-Catholic, and I consider it abusive to be told that I am. If you repeat this insult, here or elsewhere, I shall refer it to the wiku administrators. Try to deal with this issue on an impersonal level without personal abuse. Yonmei 19:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)



Hi Yonmei-- it's regrettable that you interpreted my arguments as insulting. I hope the above statement is made in good faith, and I hope you're not just trying to take the moral high ground by threatening some type of action against my account. I have a right to point out statements I find hateful and offensive, just as you do, and which you have done in several places. I believe you when you say you're not anti-Catholic, but it seems that you are against several principles of Catholicism. For that reason, I did not call you anti-Catholic, but instead made comments only about your criticisms.
The article we're discussing is about anti-Catholicism, and it's important to differentiate between what's simply invective against Catholicism and what's NPOV and appropriate for WP. Again, all the opinions you've explained above are simply opinions...I'm really not sure why they've been repeated over and over again...when you say that the Cardinal's actions are hateful, your reasoning is your own, and is not shared by everyone.
Regarding my last paragraph-- my main point there is that your accusations against the Cardinal/Catholicism were in line with what most people would call "invective" or "abusive speech" since they were negative accusations and lacked documentation or explanation. Several of my arguments were made in reaction to some of your statements which I found personally offensive. It's a bit odd for you to come back and say that I am doing the offending.
And just to clear things up...If you'd like me to point out which of your statements I found to be personally insulting and offensive, just let me know in your next post, and I'll spell them out.
Putting this all aside, we haven't made much progress in determining whether this section should go or stay in the article. It seems that since we haven't gotten very far, we should open it up to others' opinions, and leave it in for now, since there seems to be no reason (other than personal opinions) to exclude it.

Thanks for your responses,

Pianoman123 00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I accept that you didn't intend to be personally offensive - neither did I. (In fact, I thought for such a contentious topic, we were doing quite well on the no-personal-abuse topic!)
Leaving aside all the irrelevant detail with which this argument has become festooned - my position is still what it was. I believe that the section on Sexual and reproductive rights in the main article ought to include the political context and current events at the time these actions occurred, rather than presenting them (as at present) as a random act of anti-Catholicism. But I think you're right that the two of us need to step aside from this discussion and let others decide. Yonmei 12:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, once again, there was nothing in what I wrote that should have been found offensive; all of what I wrote was in critique of your comments, not you.

Anyways, whether or not the LGBT activists' principal intention was to exercise anti-Catholicism or merely to make a ruckus in protest is probably impossible to determine (since we can't get inside their minds). Nor can either one of us get inside the mind of the Cardinal and say that he was exercising hate, simply based on his actions. One thing is clear, though. What the LGBT people did was illegal, but what the Cardinal did was perfectly legal and within his authority as the "manager" of his diocese. I'm certainly for whatever contextual material you can find, as long as it doesn't appear to provide a disproportionate sympathy for a certain point of view (in this case, portraying LGBT activists in a positive light).

Also, I still find it problematic that you've re-added the link to the Safe Sex WP article. The title of that article is another matter, but in the context of the Anti-Catholicism article, I think it's innapropriate. My reason is that the Catholic Church does not endorse the title "Safe Sex." The reasons are not pertinent here, but in any case, the article--as it stands--bestows moral normativity on "Safe Sex." Thus the Church is made to look bad, as it is "against" something purported to be "Safe" by its supporters. The word "safe" is always a positive word... see what I mean? Pianoman123 00:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, yes, I do see what you mean. But I don't see why medical and scientific facts that help to keep people alive should be obscured or ignored because those facts make the Catholic Church look bad. The facts are the facts. The Catholic Church does oppose safe sex, even though safe sex saves lives. One can oppose the Catholic Church's objection to life-saving safe sex practices without being "anti-Catholic". Yonmei 11:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


I'm calmer now, but I still have this difficulty. One can oppose statements about women in the Qur'an without being anti-Muslim, criticism of a religion being different than hostility. (See article Criticism of the Catholic Church if that's what you want to discuss) However if you go to a mosque and vandalize it over the issue that is an Anti-Muslim act. By extention ACT-UP criticizing Catholic Church statements on condoms or homosexuality is merely criticism. Going to its churches and vandalizing them is a hostile action, not a critical one, so is anti-Catholic. If Catholic priests went to an office of Planned Parenthood and threw around pictures of aborted fetuses that would also be a hostile action. That said I don't object to you linking to a safe sex article. I think your view on that issue is simplistic in the extreme, but as long as you're not linking to your talk page your view shouldn't enter into such a link.--T. Anthony 20:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with any of your comments here, Anthony - if there was a previous comment I might have disagreed with, I missed it, so we can both be glad of that. *smiles* Yonmei 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


T. Anthony is right about the above view of contraception/safe sex. It's simply not responsible to claim in such reduced and simplistic terms that contraception contributes to the common good in the manner Yonmei suggests. Since Yonmei has addressed the contraception issue in terms of life and death, I'm assuming she's referring to the AIDS/condom situation, and not the main uses of contraception (desired prevention of and destruction of pregnancy). Pianoman123 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, no - use of condoms to prevent pregnancy are also life-saving, of course. Not only because the prevention of pregnancy where pregnancy is a threat to life of the mother saves the woman's life, but also because the prevention of pregnancy where neither partner in heterosexual intercourse intends to have a child, means the woman doesn't need to have an abortion. So both for contraception and for safe (ie non-STD transmitting) sex, use of condoms saves lives.Yonmei 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
First I'll admit I wasn't entirely clear what I was saying. On the safe sex issue there are many reasons where I'm unconvinced this is as significant as some argue. Some of my reasons are more mainstream, judging by AIDS researchers I've read, than others. They're also not quite the same as Pianoman's. First the Catholic Church believes homosexual sex is a sin whether they use condoms or not. In fact I think it'd be fair to say that according to Catholic teaching condoms have no effect on the issue of homosexual sex as it is non-procreative by design. Perhaps there are homosexuals avoiding condoms because of the Catholic Church, but if that's true I don't quite understand why. Second AIDS is mostly being spread in Africa and the more patriarchal parts of the Third World. Women's inequality and inability to control/influence the behavior of their sexual partners is significant there. Condoms will not solve that and it's ability to even ameliorate it I think is open to legitimate debate.
Condoms, if properly used, reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 90%. That's a significant, life-saving amelioration.
True, but this was not my only issue. First I think the husband of women are more likely to be the one's keeping them from using condoms than the Catholic Church. The majority of the AIDS ridden nations are not Catholic. The exceptions are Lesotho, Zambia, and a few others. Even then I'd like to see your evidence that AIDS is higher among the Catholic population. It may well be, the condom issue is not actually one I'm strong on, but if you had not made a persuasive case.--T. Anthony 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has, via official Vatican statements and untrue statements from African archbishops and other church authorites, been attempting to obscure this important fact. There are first-hand, direct statements to substantiate the fact that some Catholic dignitaries have been spreading lies about the usefulness of condoms to prevent HIV transmission.

Yes there are some Catholic dignitaries who claim all sorts of foolish things. There were Catholic officials who said the Reverend Moon was going to bring out a glory day. The Catholic Church has a huge hierarch and "some Catholic" whatevers say any manner of foolish things. Although ultimately not engaging in anal sex and having one or less partners is safer than anything you're suggesting. You likely think people won't or can't do that, the Catholic Church has more faith in people than that.--T. Anthony 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are second-hand claims that some Catholic priests in Africa have even been telling their congregations that condoms are "laced" with the HIV virus. *(BBC report)

Secondhand claims that some priests say crazy things? I can give actual statements of a Nobel Prize winner saying AIDS is a conspiracy to kill Africans. There are thousands or tens of thousands of Catholic priests in Africa. Some of them likely do say the stupidest things imaginable. So do some in the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, or any religious/charity group.--T. Anthony 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Condoms won't solve the AIDS crisis: only a vaccine will do that. But, there's no doubt that the Catholic Church was unwilling to put saving lives ahead of a doctrinal objection to condom use, and obstructed rather than supported distribution and endorsement of condom use in Africa. Who knows how many married women might have lived rather than died if they and their husbands hadn't been lied to by the Catholic church, or if the Catholic Church in Africa had got behind distributing condoms everywhere, how many lives might have been saved? I do not believe that criticism of this behaviour makes me "anti-Catholic": I became aware of this issue because of many devout and faithful Catholics who were outraged that their Church should do this thing: they believed that saving lives comes first, points of doctrine come second.Yonmei 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


Yonmei, you're wrong here, and you're tring to have it both ways. You can't make that kind of accusation against the Catholic Church and say it's not anti-Catholic. Why? Because you make it sound as if the goal of the Catholic Church is for people to get AIDS (that would make it a malicious goal). No reasonable person would believe this...Catholicism is not part of one of these vast conspiracies people always talk about. I encourage you to read Church documents elaborating on why the Church disapproves of artificial contraception-- that may help you understand exactly what it is you're criticizing and grossly oversimplifying. Don't you understand? The reason AIDS is spreading is because people are having sex. The Church is not making them have sex, and is not giving them AIDS. To ignore this is sheer absurdity.

Pianoman123 07:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And also, it's incorrect for you to say that the contraception issue is one of "doctrine" against "saving lives" and "facts." You can't have it both ways here either...you have to concede that your own pro-contraception stance is as much of a doctrine as the Catholic Church's stance against it. I don't agree with what you've been saying about the "facts" about contraception, but even if I did, you have to be willing to make theological arguments against the Church's position if you want to challenge it. You see, you believe that your opinion on contraception is based on facts. In the same way, the Church believes its position is also based on facts (many of them theological facts).


There might have been some abuses in certain areas. That said it's not some trivial meaningless issue. The failure rate should have been dealt with more honestly in some areas. There's really no way they could've supported widespread condom use, I'm not going to bother to explain why as we're both set on this, but Humanae Vitae did indicate confirmed medical reasons could cause exceptions. The bishops could've chosen to refrain from discussing its effectiveness one way or the other. Perhaps they could've even made it clearer that it's morally irrelevant in cases of homosexuality, pre-marital sex, or adultery. I think it being irrelevant then should be implied, but in parts of the Third World the clergy is somewhat poorly educated. I think this is getting long and I'm quite tired so I'll stop there.--T. Anthony 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contraception issue getting pregnant when you "didn't intend to have a child" does not automatically mean you must have an abortion. Contraception only avoids these abortions if you believe in the idea of "planned" and "unplanned" children in the first place. The idea is widespread in modern society, but it's not universal or a fact of nature. It's a cultural concept, largely an artificial one. In most of history children more often just happened, or didn't, with "life being what happens when you make other plans." (to mangle John Lennon for a purpose I doubt he'd tolerate)--T. Anthony 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The contraception issue is not really relevant to this article, but I will just say that being able to plan your family - decide how many children you will have - is of course a relatively modern/artificial concept: it stems from access to reliable, safe contraception. I cannot see any reason to condemn because of this, when history has shown that whenever people have access to reliable, safe contraception, in general, they then make use of it - regardless of any cultural constraint. Only lack of access prevents use. John Rock, a devout Catholic, assumed that the contraceptive pill would be approved for Catholic use, since effectively it works like the Rhythm Method - the only difference is that the pill is exclusively under the woman's control, whereas successful use of the Rhythm Method requires the man's cooperation.
If he believed this he is misinformed. Contraception is placing a pill/drug in your body. You simply have to see advertisements on TV to know this is not the same as whatever non-drug method is used. In particular for smokers and women with certain types of blood-clotting disorders. In addition to that the Rhythm Method has largely been supplanted by others. Lastly sex is ideally an act of two people. The idea it is offensive to have the man involved in methods to increase or decrease fertility strikes me as peculiar.--T. Anthony 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, historically speaking, the idea that's widespread in modern society that a family can have many children and they will all live to adulthood is also an artificial, modern construct: infant mortality was once as widespread a fact of life (and still is, in many countries) as lack of access to reliable and safe contraception was. Being able to decide how many children you will have is a modern miracle based on both contraception and the fact that in the US these days, only 5 children out of a 1000 die before they reach the age of 5: even fifty years ago, 30 would have died. In the [19th century http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/bluetelephone/html/health.html] the infant mortality rate even for well-off families was 80 to 100 deaths out of every 1000, and for low-income families was as high as 300 out of every 1000. The change from 300 to 5 is an artificial change, as artificial as contraception - and just as life-saving.

Yonmei 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a degree in history I'm aware of infant mortality rates in historic times. Still you can't honestly compare the desire to save children from dying to the notion of "planned pregnancies." There's a very different psychology involved and the notion that most naturallly want that kind of control over their children's spacing, as much as they would want to save their kids lives, is in my mind an extraordinary claim.
Really? Because wanting to plan when and how many children you have seems to me to be the most natural thing in the world: parents naturally want to provide for and care for the children they have, and this requires parents not to have more children than they can provide for and care for. And people naturally want to take care of their own health - and pregnancy is a terrific strain on a woman's system. You think it's extraordinary that parents should want only the children they can afford to take care of properly, and that women should want to be pregnant only as often as they can do so safely? I find both motivations entirely natural, and not in least "extraordinary".Yonmei 08:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
One that does not fit the evidence as I know it. Contraception prevalency rates in Austria[5] is barely above fifty percent. In addition to compare contraception as being life-saving at the level of the decline in infant mortality is at best deeply misleading and at worst is bordering on mendacious. Maternal mortality declined before widespread availability of the pill and would have done so regardless. It's because of improved medicine, maternal healthcare, safer Cesarians, etc. I'll concede that some have been saved due to contraception, but it is nowhere near comparable to the change of 300 to 5 per thousand in infant mortality. In fact even if the entire decline in maternal mortality is due to contraception, which it's not, it's doubtful you'd reach parity with the decline in infant mortality. Still I've said too much on this as it's offtopic.--T. Anthony 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's drop it. Yonmei 08:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty of scientific and sociological research suggesting that contraception does not contribute to human flourishing, and that it doesn't meet its own goals. One can't say that "the facts are the facts" on something which can be disagreed upon by reasonable people. It sounds, then, that Yonmei believes that no reasonable person can have a view against contraception.Pianoman123

Not at all. I recognise that there are plenty of reasonable arguments against various forms of contraception. But that regular reliable use of contraception saves lives directly and prevents abortions is undeniable: the facts are the facts.Yonmei 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: whether "safe sex" is really "safe," and whether "safe sex" can ever exist at all is debatable, and is by no means at a consensus in any public sphere.

At the level of ideas, I submit just a few of a many issues to contemplate when discussing contraception and our normativity towards it. Contraception allows people to think that they're entitled to have sex without its natural consequences. This view can, by definition, never contribute to anything but people having sex with less and less inhibition. Result? Over 50% of women who seek abortions were using contraception at the time they conceived.Pianoman123

Though most of them were using contraception incorrectly Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States - it appears that abortion rates could be cut considerably bu ensuring that everyone is taught, as early as possible, how to use contraception reliably and to use it every time. (This is borne out by abortion rates in the Netherlands, where sex education does compulsorily include contraceptive information, and where contraception is freely available/accessible to all.) Over 60% of women in the US seeking an abortion already have at least one child.Yonmei 09:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Think of contraception as a police officer wearing a bulletproof vest. If someone comes up and shoots him, there's a decent chance he'll live (unless he's hit in an unprotected area). But it's well known that police officers don't always wear their vests, or use them properly, and are sometimes injured as a result. More importantly, if the goal of bulletproof vests is to save lives, it only does so by addressing one step in the process of saving lives. Having police wear vests has absolutely no bearing on crime rates, or the probability of one being shot. Additionally, someone wearing a vest might naturally have an irresponsible sense of confidence and lowered inhibitions, as a result of their imagined invincibility. See how this parallels contraceptive situations?

Additionally, if one wants to critique the Church's position on contraception, one has to be willing to argue in terms of the Natural Law and Theology...not just asserting one's own view on contraception. Pianoman123 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a serious argument against police officers getting to wear bulletproof vests? Yonmei 10:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


No, definitely not-- the bulletproof vest analogy is certainly an imperfect one; but what I was getting at were the similarities in the consequences of contraception vis-a-vis this example. And, of course, the vest analogy only deals with contraception's cause-and-effect, and does not address it at the level of ideas (i.e. why, ethically, something is inadvisable, etc.)

Do you agree with the other statement I made? Pianoman123

Which other statement? Sorry, your comments are rather long. (I tend to do this myself, of course.) Can you clarify?Yonmei 08:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

While one may not agree with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, deliberate vandalism of St. Patrick's Cathedral is anti-Catholicism, pure and simple.

I wasn't aware of any vandalism, deliberate or otherwise. Can you please sign your comments? Use the four tildes.Yonmei 12:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yonmei, are you being serious? Throwing used condoms on a person could be justifiably and understandably construed as a convictable minor assault in many places throughout the U.S. Throwing a used condom on something similarly sacred at a mosque would be considered a hate-crime and vandalism. Doing the same at a Jewish temple would create a huge outcry and claims of anti-semitism. Disagreeing with someone's point of view may give the right to protest. That is not disputed. However, intentionally desecrating something considered incredibly holy and sacred by tens of millions of people IS considered vandalism by most. Making an exception for Catholics reveals a significant bias here. --Jdcaust 05:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism in Germany[edit]

Just to say that maybe somebody who knows something about it (a German?) could contribute something on the above topic - seeing as we have covered anti-Catholicism in the other two prominent Protestant countries viz: England and the USA. Colin4C 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There was something on the Kulturkampf in an earlier version, has that been erased?--T. Anthony 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A Better Intro for a Good Page?[edit]

This is the first time I have made a real change of any substance, beyond correcting typos, to a wiki page, so I apologize in advance for any mistake or faux pas I make. This is a pretty good encyclopedia article as it stands right now, especially for its discussion and links on historical Anti-Catholicism in the English-speaking world. But the state of the intro is quite jarring compared to the rest of the article, and in particular the second paragraph embeds some fallacious or at best un-cited causalities. In rewriting what I suggest, please consider:

a.) The religio-political history of Europe since late antiquity is marked by a number of periods in which the political ambitions (or more politely perhaps, the political theologies?) of the Church collided head-on with those of the secular rulers. IOW, such struggles were nothing new in the Early Modern period.

Yes, but the Reformation uniquely combined political dissent (anti-clericalism) with spiritual dissent (heresy) : resulting in the Reformation. This was a new configuration. The powers of the new Protestant governmental authorities gave birth to anti-Catholicism as we know it. Colin4C 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, broadly, with your sketch of the historical process here. Unfortunately, this is obscured and muddled in the intro that you have reverted to twice now. Also, intro that you prefer strongly and falsely suggests that these forces were themselves NEW or UNQUE in the early mod period; they were neither. Rather, what was new was the decisive split within the western Church.
Also, there is a SERIOUS problem with the way the term "anti-clericalism" is used in the intro you prefer, given that it links to a very good article that discusses a distinctly modern and thus post reformation sort of anti-clericalism. I personally think that hyper-links should be consistent and supportive, and not introduced muddiness or confusion of terms.Eschew obfuscation 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
However, here is a quote from the anti-clericalism article you refer to
'Anti-clericalism in one form or another has existed through most of Christian history, and is considered to be one of the major popular forces underlying the 16th Century reformation.
What other term would you use to describe the encroachment of the civil powers onto ecclestiastical territory in the 16th century? 'Secularism' would be dead wrong and 'Caesaropapism' might describe Henry VIII's role but would be wrong for Geneva... Colin4C 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

b.) How can we say, so casually, that the Church struggled to maintain its role, without bothering to define what we think that role was, or what the Church thought that role was, or what its contemporary critics thought that role was? This is a can of worms best opened in OTHER articles on the topics in question.

You have opened the can of worms yourself by asking for definitions. An intro should be simple: not an opportunity to philolophise on the meanings of words or enter into a series of endless caveats. Colin4C 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
No. I have closed the can of worms by taking the offending line OUT of the introduction. By the way, it REEKS, and I mean reeks, of POV to describe an institution as "struggling" to "maintain its role". Eschew obfuscation 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a problem. a The Church has a role in society, b society changes, c because of this the church struggles to maintain its role in said society. Tout simple mon frere! (I'm tempted to put in joke about the Diet of Worms here, but will restrain myself....).Colin4C 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

c.) Hostile attitudes towards the Pope, or toward the secular clergy, or toward the religious orders, or even toward segments of the laity can be found throughout late antiquity and the Middle Ages (e.g., the heated rhetoric that the secular clergy and the monks used against each other at times during various monastic reforms, etc.). But such hostile attitudes were seldom manifested as anything resembling the Anti-Catholicism this article discusses. They were often "mere" rhetorical manifestations of political squabbles and debates WITHIN the Church. To raise these as though they were something new in the early modern period is to suggest a fallacious causality.

The erstwhile monk Luther's theological break with the church combined with the backing he recieved from anti-clerical secular powers in Germany was something new. 'Heresy' was thus institutionalised in certain German states and in England and Scotland and anti-catholicism became a real live force in western Europe. Pre Lutherian 'anti-Catholicism' doesn't make much sense as a concept and is not used in any books I am familiar with. If you can supply such a reference I think we would all be grateful! Colin4C 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think there is a problem with your casual use of the term "anti-clerical secular powers" when many of the great princes were quite in bed wih the great bishops, etc.; this way oversimplifies and obscures the nature of the tension between local powers and the papacy, et al (also, it again runs against how the term is used in the sister anticlericalism argument). That quibble said, I think you have hit the nail on the head, that it was the state-sponsorship (i.e., also the sponsorship by some of the bishops) of these movements that made them successful, and prolly also shaped their anti-papal rhetoric somewhat, therefore adding a long-standing trope to the anti-catholicism under discussion. BUT that is obscure in the intro that you have reverted twice now! State this sort of stuff in a good new intro, and stop reverting the current one you favor, which is a jumble of fallacies!
It's only an intro to an article, therefore the simpler it is the better. If we want to enter caveats and complications, then these would be better in the body of the article. Colin4C 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
And yes, many of these anti-catholic tropes are prefigured used in the heresies, such as Catharism, that set themselves apart from the Church as opposed to seeking to better the Church; see Malcolm Lambert's _Medieval heresy_, Walter Wakefield (and Austin Evans) _Heresies of the High Middle Ages_, and JB Russell's _Prophecy and Order_. For that matter, many of the antic-clerical tropes (as YOU use the term, NOT as it is used in the sister article that is linked), can be found as early as the 11th century, in heresies such as Orleans and Cambrai. Eschew obfuscation 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but these are not linked to 'anti-Catholicism' as defined in the article. Colin4C 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

d.) It seems to me that what makes “classical” Anti-Catholicism stand out, as a matter of history in the Western tradition, is precisely the fact that it came from (and largely still comes from) groups and individuals who do NOT consider themselves a part of the Catholic Church (duh ... but at the time of the Reformation that was quite a big leap of logic, as a matter of historical and political theology, I suppose). Anti-Catholicism tends NOT to be a critique leveled at the Church from within the Church, but rather a sweeping condemnation of the Church from without, and one which usually brooks no desire or impulse to find much of any sort of modus vivendi with the Church, or even to reform the Church.

Anti-Catholicism started off as an internal critique of the Church by the devout Catholic monk Martin Luther. This developed by and by into ferocious attacks on the Papacy as 'The Anti-Christ' and the Church as 'The Whore of Babylon'. The ferocity of the attacks marks it as an internal critique as does the bitterness of sectarian dispute - which divided nations and families. This is, contra your statement 'the enemy within' rather than without. There were attempts (frequently succesfull) at conversion between Protestant and Catholic and vice-versa: they were to a certain degree speaking the same languageColin4C 13:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree. There were MANY notable and very vocal critics of the papacy and other facets of the Medieval Church well before Luther. What makes Luther unique was his split with the Church, and the political metamorphoses that allowed his beliefs to not only survive the inevitable persecution, but to succeed and become an aleternate and competing "brand" if you will of Christianity. The intro you prefer is fallacious in that it suggests that the Reformers invented critique of the Church, which makes anyone who has read anything in mediaval history cringe, and thus fails to emphasize the truly new thing they did, which was to split (and survive). Eschew obfuscation 14:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The article does not claim that this was the first time the Catholic Church was challenged by heresy or anti-clericalism, just that it was, as an historical fact, at this time - the Reformation - that these conjunctures occured with the results that we all know about. We are all free to philosophise about the deeper meaning of Reformation, however I don't think that an intro section of wikipedia article about 'anti-Catholicism' is the place to do it.Colin4C 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

e.) The anti-Clericalism article does a pretty good job of dealing with the sorts of issues as they arose in traditionally Catholic countries. Maybe this article should best stick with the issues as they arose in the traditionally Protestant nations (hence, more on German and Scandinavian anti-Catholicism in modern times would be very good to see)? f.) Modern “anti-Catholicism” that arises more from predominantly ethical, intellectual or political dissent, and not from received religious traditions of separation, seems to be a moving target, and a highly emotional one at that, to judge from the heated Talk comments on the ACT-UP condom tossing. I am personally NOT convinced that sort of political discourse is actually “anti-Catholicism”. Indeed, not a few of the vocal critics of Church politics and dogma on, e.g., sexual issues, are themselves members of the Catholic Church! But that is just my pov, I suppose. Eschew obfuscation 19:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A Critique of Eschew obfuscation's 'improvement' to the Introduction[edit]

Here is Eschew obfuscation's 'improvement' to the intro which I have removed in favour of the previous edit:

Many of the traditional themes of Anti-Catholicism can be traced directly to the political and religious rhetoric of the Protestant Reformation, and they may be prefigured as well in several of the late-Medieval heterodox religious movements that self-consciously presented themselves as an alternative to the Catholic Church. Underlying these themes is a sweeping condemnation of the Catholic Church as a whole, and in particular a rejection of the idea that the Church possesses a genuine temporal or spiritual authority over Christian believers. As such, Anti-Catholicism is quite distinct from "anti-clericalism", as well as from the historically rich tradition of critiques of the Church leveled from within the Church in the spirit of reform.

Just to say, contra the above, that secular anti-clericalism by the German Princes, the burghers of Geneva and Henry VIII etc went hand in glove with the 'heretical' musings of such as Luther and Calvin. The reformers theme about the spiritual incapacity of the Church hierarchy was music to the ears of the secular authorities who wanted (in an anti-clerical way) to strip the church of its assets. The reformers on their side saw this stripping of the Church's assets as returning Christianity to a simpler Biblical model of unwordly piety (which indeed led some of them, such as Munzer, to advocate communism...). The reformers' abuse of the Pope was as much anti-clerical as it was based on theology. Eschew obfuscation's contribution represents his own unreferenced controversial POV rather than providing a simple and neutral intro piece. Colin4C 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the "improved" intro I offered in no way dismisses any of the issues you raise. Nor do I have any controversial POV other than an interest in clear writing that is devoid of fallacies, and which favors good history over ideology. And I would have loved to see you IMPROVE what I offered with your insights, rather than merely reverting to the poorly worded and fallacious previous intro twice now. My goal was to more correctly set Anti-Catholicism in its historical context by removing the fallacies, and to better define it in contrast to what it is not: anti-clericalism, or internal critique of the church.
Also, you are OVER-SIMPLIFYING to the point of MISLEADING when you try to keep hammering home the anti-clericalism of the German princes and so on ... remember the HUGE role of the German BISHOPS and CLERGY in the Lutheran Reformation! Remember that in a great many cases the princes and bishops were members of the same families! What of the role of eigenkirchen in late-medieval German society?!! Conversely, remember Luther's own role in suppressing the over-statement of a Biblical model of piety vis a vis his condemnation of the Peasant's Revolt ('When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the Gentleman?'). This was much, much more complex than "just" anti-clericalism, to the point that I have to honestly question the netutrality of your own POV in this matter? Do you, perhaps, have an ideological or denominational axe to grind here?
I will try again to make a better intro, that incorporates your critiques. I am very interested in seeing good and clear history emerge and persist on the Wikipedia on some of these more controversial topics ... but this also means that I am very unsympathetic to anybody using this for a bully pulpit of any sort to monger an ideological pov. Eschew obfuscation 15:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the simpler the intro is, the better. The basic facts are that anti-Catholicism started up at the time of the Reformation and that the latter consisted of civil and theological challenges to the role of the Catholic Church. Although this may just be stating the 'bleedin obvious': why complicate matters? This is only a wikipedia article on 'anti-Catholicism' not a groundbreaking PHD thesis on the deeper meaning of the Reformation in world history....Colin4C 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is true of the West. I would think in Russia and some parts of Eastern Europe anti-Catholicism has older, and slightly different, roots. I don't know if a separate article is needed on that or not, but I don't think I'm wrong on this.--T. Anthony 03:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You are of course right that the Eastern Orthodox Church was in schism vis a vis Catholicism from about the 11th century onwards, but as to how this manifested itself as anti-Catholicism I must confess my ignorance...I think that it was more of a cold war than outright sectarianism but, not having access to the mind-set of an Eastern Orthodoxer I, once again, confess my ignorance...Maybe somebody brought up in that that faith, reading this, could give us a clue....? Colin4C 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well for a few centuries after the 1054 split there was sporadic hope of re-unification so not much outright hostility. However Russian Anti-Catholicism seems to have gained ground in wars they fought with Poland in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. I think hostility among Orthodoxers was a bit more like "civilizational" in that Catholics were seen as a rival Christian civilization and Catholics saw Orthodoxy likewise. (Catholics initially saw Protestantism as a weird gaggle of sects and heresies, not a truly rival Christian civilization) Still I know of EOC's who term Catholicism to be "a heresy" and therefore their hostility is more like anti-Protestantism among Catholics. It's possible this is such a different issue it'd have to be a different article, "Orthodox/Catholic tensions" or something, I'm not sure.--T. Anthony 11:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This Article is a Political Advertisement[edit]

I ran across this page during some random research on the authenticity of references made on the Catholic League's website (by way of a comment made by the leader on MSNBC).

Looks like a rogue group with weak citings but other then that this article is clearly written by someone with that group as a lot of the wording and references are taken from their website. I've talked to Catholics that have never even hard of this group nor agree with their tactics. That is the reason for the lack of references.

I'm not denying that anti-catholicism exists but that the "facts" of this article and the Catholic League are taken out of context, misconstrued and/or just plain made up. I do agree that Catholics are more persecuted today then other times in history but the perpetrators are the Fundamentalist right-wing religion pirates led by Jerry Falwell and his contemporaries (the same people from which this group barrows a lot of its arguments) and not necessarily the general public per se.

It's for THAT reason that it should be rewritten, maybe scraped and started over. It's an important subject especially in respect to American immigration history and I don't agree that it should be removed at all.

I'd like to see someone with more background then I have on this subject to rewrite it. I remember interesting political cartoons on this subject in my history books and the accounts of the suffering of Catholic immigrants. I would hate to see some high school student use this article for a paper and miss the real stories involved with this issue.

Dividebyzero 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It might help if we knew your specific problems with this article. To compare it to something by the Catholic League strikes me as unfair. Outside of Dan Brown nothing in the mainstream of contemporary culture is mentioned in this article, but the Catholic League tends to see anti-Catholicism in many mainstream TV shows. To call it a "political advertisement" strikes me as strange. I think some people are deeply offended this article exists at all, I don't accuse you of being such a person, but without knowing your objection I'm not sure what you want.--T. Anthony 16:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think I see now. You seem to think it gives undue coverage to Left-wing or liberal anti-Catholics. That might be so. Part of that might be that Christian Right anti-Catholicism is basically what it was a century ago. Still people like Jack Chick are mentioned. Tony Alamo or Fred Phelps could likely be added as well if they're not there now. Still their views aren't much different than earlier Christian Right anti-Catholics. Liberal or Left Anti-Catholic people have evolved more and are a bit more interesting. (Especially for Catholics. That wacko preachers don't like Catholics is sort of standard)--T. Anthony 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "Anti-Catholic humour" section[edit]

I found the "Anti-Catholic humour" section to be generally unencyclopedic.

There are many articles and sections and sub-sections about humour on the wikipedia, are they 'unencyclopediac'? Humour is an important subject, analysed by Freud etc etc.Colin4C 10:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, the tone was getting progressively more chatty over time.

That's your POV. I think you are objecting to the quote from the Monsignor rather than the text of the article itself. What was quoted was maybe 'chatty', not the text of the encyclopedia itself. Does wikipedia have a policy on the content of quotes as to their 'chattiness' or 'seriousness' quotient? Or maybe the ironic tone of the quote disturbed you? Is there a wikipedia policy against quoting extracts from historical or literary figures who use irony in their discourse? Colin4C 10:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, I just don't think that humour which pokes fun at Catholics is necessarily "anti-Catholic" in the sense that is meant by this article. Every religion is susceptible to being satirized and even mocked. This kind of humour isn't necessarily "anti-Catholic" unless it takes aim at some of the core tenets and practices of the faith in an irrational and bigoted way.

So following your logic we should have a completely new article called 'Satire on the Roman-Catholic Church'? and then advance our own POV's as what in our own opinion is acceptible humour and what is 'bigoted' and 'irrational'. And then wait for an admin to put a 'Merge' notice on it and start all over again...Is that what you want? Or do you want to kill any discussion on the subject of humour and satire altogether in the wikipedia? Colin4C 10:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the text that I removed:

===Anti-Catholic Humour===
The Roman Catholic Church has been satirized by humourists such as Dave Allen and in comedy shows such as Father Ted. Here is an example from a lecture delivered to a Catholic girl's school by the renowned Monsignor Ronald Knox, which, if nothing else, proves that Catholics can laugh at themselves:
'There's a story of some visitor who went to see the Catholic chaplain at Sing-Sing, which is the big state prison in the United States. And this chaplain was saying what unscrupulous stories Protestants were always inventing to discredit the Church. "For instance," he said, "you'll often be told that all the prisoners who are executed here are Catholics. Well, there are five prisoners now waiting for the electric chair, and one of them's a Jew.' (quoted from R. Knox (1949) The Creed in Slow Motion: 165)
Traditional fears about the Roman Catholic Church in general and the Spanish Inquisition in particular were burlesqued by Monty Python in their Spanish Inquistion sketch.

Your feedback is solicited and welcomed.Richard 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Is Father Ted really that anti-catholic? Its always seemed kind of affectionate piss taking to me.

Yes. Affectionately anti-Catholic. See also quote from Bishop Brennan:
Bishop Brennan can be seen as being hypocritical and decadent and in many ways just as bad as Ted in his vindictiveness. His lifestyle makes for a scathing criticism of the privilege in the Catholic church as there are numerous scenes where he calls Ted, while obviously in very luxurious surroundings, or even settling into a bath with a naked woman, while Ted and the others live in relative squalor. Colin4C 10:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Grand Inquisitor & Benedict[edit]

The only connection I've seen between Pope Benedict XVI and The Grand Inquisitor is that Joseph Ratzinger tutored a young Jewish man using the Grand Inquisitor among other works. I don't know if the current parenthetical comment is salvagable, however. The new Pope, a good egg, Benedict

Dutch "anti-catholic" literature was read by Dutch Catholics[edit]

I read a summary of a study of Dutch anti-catholicism which highlighted a result that was completely unexepected i.e. that the literature classified as anti-Catholic detailing sensationalist accounts of imprisonment of nuns etc. was mostly read as a form of entertainment by Catholics. Andries 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Links[edit]

The links section had degenerated into a link farm. If there are notable websites (pro or anti) then they should be rolled in and cited as sources, or we should give them as examples and cite a source which notes that they are significant examples. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Humor[edit]

Note: I must be getting Alzheimer's or something. I just scrolled up the page and realized that I had deleted the section in question a month ago with an explanation as to why. I wasn't very active on Wikipedia over the holidays and didn't realize that the section had been restored with a response to my explanation. Believe it or not, in the intervening month, I had completely forgotten about the fact that I had deleted this section a month ago. This discovery doesn't change my position on the text in question but it does shed some light on the tone of the current discussion. Forgive me for not having read the responses of User:Colin4C to my comments of a month ago. It was an oversight. Honest injun. --Richard 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never been comfortable with the section "Anti-Catholic Humor". This discomfort is not because I think there is anything wrong with poking fun at Catholicism or with documenting the existence of such humor. I think humor about Roman Catholicism is a notable subgenre.

I just think the current text is a really lame attempt to document it. The stupid joke about the electric chair is a horrendous example and serves no purpose that I can see. (Maybe I'm dense but I don't really see the humor in it.) The Monty Python "Spanish Inquisition" bit is well-known but not necessarily the best exemplar of the genre to use.

Finally, while I think there is value in describing both gentle and hostile humor about Roman Catholicism, I don't think this is the article to do it in. Or at least the current text doesn't fit well with the tone of the rest of the article.

I think the tone of this article should be about criticisms of the Catholic church which parallel anti-Semitism in their nature. That is, this article is not just about theological disputes or objections to Catholic doctrine. This article is about criticisms which are based on a deep-seated and sometimes irrational and bigoted animus against the Catholic church. The current text of the "Anti-Catholic Humor" section does not fit in this framework.

I fully recognize that I do not own this article but the framework of what belongs in Roman Catholic Church,Criticisms of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism has been discussed at length so I think there is some consensus around this framework.

If there are no objections, I will delete or move the current text. I am considering creating an article called Catholic Humor, Humor about Roman Catholicism or something along those lines. Your opinions are welcomed.

--Richard 18:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are objections. There is no wide concensus for your views. 'Irrational and bigoted animus' is a POV concept. What is irrational to you could be rational to someone else, what is bigoted to you could be sensible for someone else. The whole history of religious conflict shows that seemingly sincere and rational people, whether Catholic or Protestant, Sunni or Shia can equally think that the other is bigoted or irrational. For instance, as this article shows, the conception that the Pope was Antichrist and/or 'The Whore of Babylon' was an article of faith for the moderate Church of England - not a fringe belief by demented radicals. Smashing up great works of art as per the iconoclasts was mindless vandalism and sacrilege to the Catholics but to the Protestants was an act of faith. Burning members of the opposing faiths was also seen as a religious duty, not 'bigoted' or 'irrational'. The saintly Calvin had Servetus (I think?) executed for doctrinal error. Was Calvin 'bigoted' and 'irrational'? I repeat 'bigoted' and 'irrational' are POV concepts whereas objective anti-Catholic acts, as represented by Penal Laws etc, or literature or humour or whatever is actually definable and objective. People can make their own minds up about what is 'irrational' (belief in God maybe? - according to Dawkins) - that is not the role of us wikipedia editors.
I understand what you are arguing and I sympathize with it to some extent. However, if we follow your line of logic, then we should merge this article with Criticism of the Catholic Church. Feel free to propose that merger. I'm not locked in to the current scheme. I'm just explaining what it is based on a weak consensus formed during discussions last year.
However, that is not what I was proposing. First of all, I don't think that all humor about Catholics is targeted at Catholics directly and moreover much of it is not anti-Catholic in the sense of opposing the Catholic church, its hierarachy or its doctrines. Some of it can be read as good natured ribbing or self-mocking. That is, much humor about Catholics could be told to a parishioner, a priest or even a bishop without too much fear of offense.
For this and many other reasons, I think that it would be better to have an article titled Humor related to Catholicism or some such so as to free that topic from the tone of this article.
An important point here is that you have criticized the framework that I have described for Criticism of the Catholic Church and Anti-Catholicism but you have not responded to principal issue that I have raised which is that the Anti-Catholic Humor section is lame and unencyclopedic.
I think there could be a great article that characterized the basic themes of such humor (e.g. general topics include joking about priests, about sacraments such as penance, about Mass and the Eucharist, the Virgin Mary, etc.). Obviously, some of the jokes will be more offensive than others and the more offensive ones are more likely to be considered anti-Catholic.
It is not my intent that this topic should become a laundry list of jokes about Catholics. That would surely make it a candidate to be included in WP:BJAODN. However, we can characterize the general themes without becoming a list of jokes. The trick will be to find sources so that the article is not considered original research.
--Richard 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If you think you can write a good article on Anti-Catholic Humour - go ahead! Then we could provide a link from this site. As per this article I think the humour section leavens and burlesques the humourless examples of anti-Catholic bigotry.
I disagree that this article needs to be "leavened" or "burlesqued". That is unencyclopedic. For that matter, even if the article did need such "leavening" or "burlesquing", the "Anti-Catholic Humor" section fails to do that. --Richard 09:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the style with the substance. The section mentions the anti-Catholic humorists Father Ted and Dave Allen and the burlesque of Monty Python, without retailing any of their 'jokes'. It also provides a link to the aforesaid articles in the wikipedia where inter alia the Catholic church is satirised. There is only one example of a joke. I'm thinking that maybe you have your own personal POV as to what is and what is not encyclopediac and that mainly you just don't like my style of writing? Colin4C 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your "writing style" is fine. To the extent that your "style of writing" includes the concept that any Wikipedia article needs "leavening or burlesquing", yes, I don't like that "style" but I see that more as overall philosophy about encyclopedicity (if there is such a word) than "style" per se.
Here are my objections to the section as it now stands:
1) The section doesn't provide a good overview of either "Humor about Catholicism" or "Anti-Catholic humor"
If nothing else, the focus on two UK-based TV shows betrays a parochial (excuse the pun) perspective on the topic.
2) The Monty Python skit, while more widely known in the US, isn't much of a commentary on the Catholic Church.
That is just your POV and your different sense of humour. Colin4C 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's mostly just sophomoric inanity. Great, side-splitting sophomoric inanity but sophomoric inanity nonetheless. I considered Monty Python and the Holy Grail and Life of Brian but the former is more a send-off on the Middle Ages overall and the latter is a send-off of Christianity in general, not just Catholicism. This suggests that there is room for an article on Humor about Christianity.

3) The joke told by Ronald Knox is still opaque to me. I don't get the point and I don't see how the humor is anti-Catholic in any way. Maybe it's your favorite joke about Catholics but I still don't see how it fits here.
That is your POV. Maybe the British and the American sense of humour is different?
I would like to explain the joke to you but I fear that the politically correct thought-police here will get the wrong idea and pounce on me. Colin4C 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
4) The section leaves out other examples of Catholic-related humor such as the films Sister Act and the 1989 film "We're No Angels". These are not "anti-Catholic" but just "humor about the Catholic Church".
It is unencyclopedic to mention your two favorite TV shows, your favorite Monty Python skit and your favorite Catholic joke just because they happen to kind of fit the topic. If we want to treat "Humor about the Catholic Church" then it should be done elsewhere. If we want to treat "Anti-Catholic Humor" then we should focus on humor that is related to the themes in the rest of this article without any "leavnening" or "burlesquing".
--Richard 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
They are not my favorites. They all have separate wikipedia articles, not written by me. which mention inter alia, satires directed at the Catholic church. This article focuses disparate material scattered over the internet on such humour. If people have greater knowledge than me about anti-Catholic humour they should add that information to the article. The wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise: feel free to add to it. Colin4C 19:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with other people adding more information to this or any article if doing so is an improvement. Wikipedia IS a collaborative enterprise. The point that I've been trying to make is that it's hard to see how the humor listed fits in this article. Also the point of the humor section, if there is any, continues to seem out of step with the thrust and flow of the rest of the article.
You left a message on my Talk Page. I have responded to it there.
--Richard 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


To be anti something does not necessarily mean that you are a ranting humourless wild-eyed bigot, even if your opponents would like to characterise you that way (like the way that - presumably - sane dictators are characterised as 'mad' by the tabloid press and credited with foaming at the mouth, chewing the carpet etc etc). Anyway, humour can be as irrational and bigoted as anything else: it should not be confused with 'being nice to people'. In this respect maybe a better parrallel to this present article would be Anti-Americanism, which can be, by turns reasonable, bigoted or absurd ( I cherish a comment about the film Zabriskie Point, which asserted that 'It gives Anti-Americanism a bad name').
Otherwise I agree that we should leave the theological arguments of Criticism of the Catholic Church out of here: these are too long and involved and have an abstract logic of their own. Just to re-iterate that the penal laws, the anti-Catholic literature and the jokes are actual objective things, written down or broadcast for us to peruse (here on the wikipedia). Whether they are 'bigoted' or 'irrational' is something for the readers of wikipedia to decide, not you and me. Also I see a clear divide between the theological arguments detailed in the Criticism of the Catholic Church article and anti-Catholic legislation and persecution detailed here: one is theory and the other is practice. Maybe that is a better distinction than any putative bigotry and irrationality. Colin4C 10:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Richard that this section does not currently seem to belong to this article. The article begins: "Anti-Catholicism is an institutional, ideological or emotional bias against the Roman Catholic Church and its followers. The term also applies to the religious persecution of Roman Catholics." Is the article suggesting that Monsignor Ronald Knox exhibits an institutional, ideological or emotional bias against the Roman Catholic Church and its followers? Perhaps this section belongs in some article somewhere; and perhaps some of it could be loosely defined as being 'anti' the Catholic Church; but almost none of it seems to have any relationship to Anti-Catholicism as it is defined by this article. TSP 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So you don't think such humour evinces 'emotional bias'? As I said before to be 'anti' something doesn't necessarily mean you have to ranting and raging and foaming at the mouth and consumed with a deep and bitter hatred. Colin4C 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Do I think that the humour employed by Msgr Ronald Knox, domestic prelate to the Pope, evinces 'emotional bias' against the Roman Catholic Church? Well, no; that doesn't seem very likely from someone in his position. As for the others, perhaps the humour is a sign of bias against the church, but we don't seem to have any evidence of this. Is Blackadder a sign of Richard Curtis' "institutional, ideological or emotional bias" against Elizabeth II, George III, Sir Francis Drake, the British Army, etc.? Or does he merely think they would be appropriate subjects for comedy? To use something as a subject of comedy is not evidence of a bias against it; you need more than that to include it in this article. True, to be 'anti' something doesn't require you to be ranting and raging; but you can't just include things on no basis at all then claim that every proposed inclusion standard is too high. You need some evidence that the things you're including fit the article's topic, and at the moment I'm not seeing one. TSP 11:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember a Christian humor site rejected some jokes about priests because they were deemed to be mean-spirited without being funny. There might be anti-Catholic humor, but I think it should be limited to the same kind of thing that would be deemed "racist humor." "All priests are rapists", "All Catholics are drunks". "killing Catholics is funny", etc type jokes. (If you can find any)--T. Anthony 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So where would you class the acclaimed film director Luis Bunuel? His films are full of bitter satire and savage attacks against the Catholic church. At the same time he is seen as one of the world's greatest film directors and a great artist! Was he a mean spirited bigot on the same level as a rascist? Its not all as simple as you think. Colin4C 17:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know enough about his work to say. I'm thinking he doesn't really fit what I meant, but I'm not sure. Still, and as a rule, "great artist" and "mean spirited bigot" are not mutually exclusive. There's nothing about having artistic talent that makes a person kind or just. The Fascists and Nazis even had some good artists working with them.--T. Anthony 00:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic Humor - A New Perspective[edit]

Personally, I think Bunuel belongs in the section because it is clear that he had an anti-clerical animus against the Catholic church. I also think that Father Ted belongs in the section because, based on what I have read in the Father Ted article, it does seem that a key theme of the program was to portray Catholic priests as corrupt and incompetent (although it is arguable that the program was only trying to assert that "some" priests were corrupt and incompetent). For the sake of comparison, was the TV show "MASH" anti-military? It certainly portrayed much of the military as being incompetent and venial.

The Spanish Inquisition routine and the Father Guido Sarducci act are a bit more ambiguous. To argue that these routines are primarily focused on attacking the Catholic church is less obvious. It seems the connection with Catholicism was more a useful vehicle for funny antics. I confess that I haven't seen the Father Guido Sarducci routines in a long time, so it's possible that they were more anti-Catholic than I remember.

It may turn out that we should stop asking ourselves what anti-Catholic humor is and ask instead what is perceived as anti-Catholic humor. That is, we should ask "Is this the sort of thing that the church itself or the Catholic League would object to?

Clearly, the Msgr. Knox joke would not qualify. First, it's a joke that is not specific to the Catholic church and makes no attack against the church itself. Second, you could substitute any group in the joke and it would still work (although as it's told in the article, it is lamely told).

Even the Spanish Inquisition and the Father Guido Sarducci routines probably wouldn't qualify. Father Ted might get some mild objection about the negative portrayal of priests but the fact that these priests have been exiled suggest that they are "out of the norm" for the Catholic church.

If Bunuel were making films today, he might get some protest from the church and from the Catholic League. I'm not 100% sure.

Let's look at what the church and the Catholic League find objectionable and document that. It seems to me that this would be a better criterion than an endless debate amongst ourselves about what is and is not "anti-Catholic humor". Even if we agreed on the criteria, the result would likely be original research and so we are better off using solid examples of humor that has been objected to on the basis of it being anti-Catholic.

--Richard 17:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Try this link to see what the Catholic League considers to be anti-Catholic humor. --Richard 17:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I think the examples given are a bit odd. Something that I know offended Catholics in several nations was Bloody Mary (South Park) and this is even in the article on the episode.--T. Anthony 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that the examples are a bit odd. Nonetheless, I think the "Catholic League" criterion is better than trying to construct one of our own. If the Catholic League doesn't object to it, it probably doesn't qualify as a unequivocal example of anti-Catholic humor.
I inserted some text from the Bloody Mary (South Park) article. I did not include the details of the controversy in Canada, Australia and New Zealand but we should probably add a sentence alluding to that.
I also dropped the mention of Father Guido Sarducci and Msgr. Knox's little joke. I think Sarducci is probably about as "anti-Catholic" as the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition routine. Mostly it's a "sight gag" and a "schtick" but not really that much of a shot against the Catholic Church. It's more burlesque than offensive and thus not that germane to the point. (And neither is the Spanish Inquisition routine and so it should be next to go).
As for the Msgr. Knox joke, it's pretty clearly not anti-Catholic so I think it should go too.
--Richard 01:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism vs. Criticism of Judaism[edit]

Also, contra what you say, 'Anti-Semitism' is not a parallel concept to 'Anti-Catholicism' as the former relates mostly to ethnic hatred not religious differences. Anti-Judaism would be a better parallel concept, as witnessed by the anti-Judaic passages in the Gospels etc (esp St John). IMHO 'Anti-Semitism' and the Holocaust cannot be paralleled with anything. Auchwitz is sui generis. Colin4C 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. However, there is no article Anti-Judaism and the phrase is not in wide parlance. I was more trying to get across an idea than to insist that there was a close parallel between the two sets of phrases. --Richard 03:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Bah! I stand corrected. There IS an Anti-Judaism article. I shoulda checked first. --Richard 03:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
There are two separate articles Anti-Judaism and Criticism of Judaism. Each article describes the scope of the topic and presumably justifies the rationale for there being two separate topics (Criticism of Judaism is about "scholarly criticism of Judaism" whereas Anti-Judaism is something else).
Presumably a similar parallel can be made for Anti-Catholicism and Criticism of the Catholic Church. Whether the current articles by those titles actually meet these goals is another question. I think both articles need a lot of work.
--Richard 04:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

New Sub Heading[edit]

Why have you changed the humour heading to 'British entertainment'? Are there no anti-Catholic humourists in the USA? You are restricting the scope of this article. As I said before, the wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise. We each contribute what we can and what we know about. That is the joy of wikipedia. It is not a dictatorship. Colin4C 10:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lessee.. I'm starting to get your drift. My point of view is POV and your point of view is... what? My decisions are dictatorship and your decisions are ... what? Oh yeah, I get it. You are right and I am wrong. That is the joy of Wikipedia. Uh huh.
My rationale in changing the subheading was that the title should describe the content of the section. At the moment, the text describes humor in the U.K. and does so only by providing examples rather than describing it. The text that I recently introduced described anti-Catholicism in the U.S. entertainment industry so I figured I'd organize the newly created section into a U.S. part and a U.K. part.
I fully agree with you that Wikipedia is a collaborative, incremental process. However, it is awkward to claim to be describing all of anti-Catholic humor with a section that focuses on anti-Catholic humor in the U.K. If you wish to describe anti-Catholic humor across the globe, why not have at it and insert examples from other countries?
However, since this seems to be an important issue for you, I have left your reversion in place.
--Richard 15:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am a UK resident, ergo I know more about UK humour and satire. If I was an American I would know more about American humour and satire. If I was Australian I would know......etc etc. Therefore the thing to do is for all us Americans, British, Australians etc etc on the wikipedia to pool our respective knowledges about whatever international subject we are talking about. By the way, this article is very deficient on German anti-Catholicism: maybe someone in Germany reading this could give us info on that topic. Colin4C 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

China?[edit]

I'm surprised no one has addressed anti-Catholicism in China. Anyone wish to have a go at it? Majoreditor 02:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a mess[edit]

For some time, I have been been uncomfortable with the organization of this article. There is not a good consistent scheme to the content and titles of the sections.

We start out with "Protestant anti-Catholicism" and follow on with "Anti-clericalism in Roman Catholic countries" and then "Former Soviet Union" and "Israel". Presumably the point is that some Protestants are anti-Catholics and so too are some residents of Roman Catholic countries, some residents of Orthodox countries and some residents of the Jewish State of Israel.

I get that there is an underlying point but the point is poorly made across these sections. Maybe changing the intro would help a little but, fundamentally, I think this approach is flawed.

Next, we move on to the "Anti-Catholicism in literature and popular media" which is arguably related to "Anti-Catholic Satire and Humor" which comes later.

However, the "Anti-Catholic Satire and Humor" section comes under the heading of "Contemporary Anti-Catholicism". With the exception of the subsection on "Anti-Catholic Satire and Humor", the "Contemporary Anti-Catholicism" sectopm focuses primarily on anti-Catholicism in the United States.

But wait, the sections on the "Former Soviet Union" and "Israel" are also arguably part of "Contemporary Anti-Catholicism".

So, a big part of the problem is the shift from a categorization by dominant religion and geographical region to a time-based categorization ("Anti-Catholicism in the past" vs. "Contemporary anti-Catholicism").

I don't have a clear idea on how to fix this mess but I figured I would raise the issue and see what people think.

--Richard 17:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a similar problem with Black Legend - lots of hopping about the place and no consistency. It may be because both these topics have long histories, with lots of manifestations mixed up with politics in numerous countries - a case of cramming too many heads under one umbrella. On top of that, perhaps they haven't attracted much specific study in the English language, so there are no handy sources. I don't know. Help!--Shtove 17:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO this present article is almost perfection compared with the beyond redemption mess which is the Anti-Protestantism article, which has to be seen to be disbelieved. It's all relative...Colin4C 18:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ouch! The Anti-Protestantism article is very poor. The editors must have split into disagreeable factions.--Shtove 02:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Richard, I agree with your assessment that the article will benefit from reorganization. It has lost its focus. Some items, particularly Anti-Catholic humor, should be separated into a separate article. Do you want to be bold and step up to the challenge? Majoreditor 22:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have now "stepped up" and moved the "Anti-Catholic Satire and Humor" section which I had been wanting to do for a couple of months but had refrained from doing so due to objections from User:Colin4C (see discussion in the "Anti-Catholic Humor" section above). I figure that, based on comments from you and TSP, I can now claim at least a weak consensus in favor of the move.
What I could use some help with is what to do with the rest of the article which is still a mess.
--Richard 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice initiative! Here's some other ideas -- which do you consider most promising?
Organize into historical vs modern
Organize into anti-Catholicism by other religions, by countries, and by institutions/cultures
A hybrid of the abovce two -- perhaps historical, by other religions, countries, and instiutions -- and then modern.
Can anyone else suggest other approaches? Majoreditor 00:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to say that IMHO this article started off life as an out-of-focus rag-bag mess, much like the terrible Anti-Protestantism article is now. Some of us here have been trying for months to make it more rational and more focused, by injecting a historical, cultural and geographical focus on some very recalcitrant raw material and linking it in with anti-Catholic themed articles in the rest of the wikipedia. Colin4C 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I took a whack at re-organizing the sections into two major sections: "origins of anti-Catholicism" and "contemporary anti-Catholicism". The article content itself still needs more work but I think this framework will make it easier to expand the article in a more coherent way. --Richard 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic satire and humor[edit]

I assume that an 'Anti-Catholic Satire and Humour' article is going to be created soon on the wikipedia? Just hope that nobody puts a 'Merge' notice on it...Colin4C 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's here. I created it yesterday. --Richard 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Should Anti-Catholic satire and humor have its own (small) section in this article with a link to its own main article? Majoreditor 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure but I've been a busy boy (look at History of Christianity and History of the Papacy) and I'm just played out. I'll leave it for someone else to write a summary for this article. --Richard 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have done so. Colin4C 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte deal?[edit]

I don't know if that should be mentioned or not, but I thought I'd put it up for discussion.--T. Anthony 08:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Short answer - Yes, I think it should be included in the article.
Long answer - I think that if we just put in a sentence or paragraph about Amanda Marcotte, it would seem like just another patch put onto this patchwork quilt of anti-Catholic tidbits. To help integrate the Marcotte-gate incident into this article, I think we would need to explain to the reader that the feminist movement as a whole has an animus against the Catholic church because of its stance on human sexuality and reproductive rights. In that context, the anti-Catholicism of Marcotte is not a "one-off" bigotry of a single individual but rather representative of a POV held by an entire socio-political movement. If the Marcotte-gate incident is provided as an example of the continuing controversy over human sexuality and reproductive rights, it will make a lot more sense to the reader why we bothered to talk about it at all. --Richard 08:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the sexuality segment could be altered to "sexual and gender issues" or something. That might make sense regardless as WHAM! is mentioned it and it's largely a feminist group.--T. Anthony 09:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor POV edit[edit]

In the section on anti-catholic sentiment in the U.S. removed the phrase "For better or worse" before the statement that the US is a cultural legacy of Great Britain. Such a statement is clearly POV, and generally has negative connotations. JimZDP 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Americanocentrism in this article[edit]

I notice that the sub-headings of this article keep getting altered in order to magnify the importance of the USA and marginalise other countries. Just to remind Americans here that although they might imagine that anything that happens outside of the USA is of minor importance that there are other countries in the world and that the wikipedia is international in its scope. Catholicism is a world religion. Colin4C 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This American agrees that there is opportunity to expand sections on other countries. Please feel free to contribute. Majoreditor 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
And WP is a world wide endeavour - it's just that most of the good stuff comes out of the USA. Whatcha gonna do? Have your say and represent your interests - by contributing (with citations).--Shtove 22:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the subheadings are not being altered in order to magnify the importance of the USA. I would say that the bulk of the article text is about the USA and therefore the subheadings naturally tend to describe what the article is currently about (for better or worse, most of it is about anti-Catholicism in the USA).

As for the "marginalisation" of other countries, this is again a result of the fact that there isn't much text about any other countries. Someone mentioned anti-Catholic sentiment in Germany but no one has contributed any text.

Yes, Catholicism is a world religion and anti-Catholicism is a global phenomenon. So where's the beef? --Richard 01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify what I mean a bit. I.e. that anti-Catholic concerns, though they may indeed start in America do impact on the rest of the world, and especially on the Anglo-Saxon world plus Ireland. For instance the supposed 'pedophile priests' farrago is a common concern in the USA, Ireland and the UK. A book published in America will be reprinted in the UK and Ireland and Australia and news issues impact on both sides of the Atlantic and vice-versa. And maybe we should have a Vatican perspective, seeing as that's where the Pope lives....? Colin4C 09:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so your argument seems to be that just because events happen in the U.S. or books/films/TV programs are published/released in the U.S., this does not mean they are solely symptoms of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. but are symptoms of the global phenomenon of anti-Catholicism. That anti-Catholicism in the U.S. is not markedly different from anti-Catholicism in the rest of the world, just better reported and more easily accessible via the Internet?

I'm not sure how much I agree with this line of argument but I wanted to make sure I got your point accurately before I go too far down this road. I will think about this some and see if there's a way that we can accomodate such a concern. The obvious solution is to drop "in the U.S." from all the subheadings but I want to think about what the implications of that would be.

--Richard 14:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean (or part of what I mean) is that it is all connected: both globally, and also with a trans-Atlantic connection with a lot of traffic of ideas, books, media reports and people between both sides of Atlantic Anglo-Saxondum, with the added complication of the (Catholic and Protestant) Irish diaspora in both the USA and the UK. Within these latter countries there is a shared intellectual heritage, qualified by the global domination of the media by the USA plus the influence of Vatican politics. So....er......it's all rather complicated....Colin4C 15:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fine but within the context of this article, we need to understand what changes will address your concerns. Is it a sufficient first step to reorganize this so that the section headings do not say "in the U.S."? I think we all recognize that more non-U.S. material is needed but, until that happens, we need to decide whether or not to recast the material in this article to suggest that the U.S. material is representative of the global phenomenon. (Note: I will say that, even as I write this, I start to be concerned that this line of argument is original research)
Yes, I think the 'USA' section heading in the latter part of the article is a major part of the problem, as the general issues involved and the influence of whatever does happen in the USA is not necessarily confined within the borders of that country in this globalised world we inhabit. For instance the American Dan Brown's ravings in 'The Da Vinci Code' are a global phenomenon impacting inter alia on the Vatican and the Catholic church hierarchy in the UK (who prevented filming of the novel in Westminster Abbey etc). Colin4C 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the actual article text with an eye towards the issues that you raised. I think part of the problem is that the "Contemporary anti-Catholicism" section was badly structured with the U.S. taking up the lion's share of the section. I have created a new section titled "Anti-Catholicism by country" which allows for country-specific narrative while freeing up "Contemporary anti-Catholicism" to talk about transnational characteristics and trends.

Of course, the next step is to beef up the "Contemporary anti-Catholicism" section. Some of the feminist and LGBT stuff could be discussed in the "Contemporary anti-Catholicism" section but it would need to be discussed in a more general way rather than focusing on the specific actions of U.S. organizations.

Similarly, a discussion of anti-Catholicism across the global entertainment industry could be added to the "Contemporary anti-Catholicism" section. Once again, we shouldn't simply move the current "Anti-Catholicism in the entertainment industry" section into "Contemporary anti-Catholicism" because the current text is too U.S.-centric. Some new text needs to be written to discuss the topic from a more general and global perspective.

The "Da Vinci Code" is now treated in "Contemporary anti-Catholicism" and thus can be discussed as a global phenomenon rather than a piece of U.S. literature.

Hope this starts to address the concerns that you raised. I know a lot more work is needed to resolve the various issues but I hope that I have helped lay out a framework on which this work can be structured.

--Richard 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work, Richard. Much remains, but your efforts have helped. Majoreditor 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
OK - I've just realised that some of this is actually my fault...by inadvertantly moving a newly created 'modern polemics' section down under the USA heading...oops...Anyway I've now moved that particular section into the general section above. The polemicists are a mixture of Americans, Canadians, Scots and wherever Avro Manhattan comes from, who are addressing trans-national issues (i.e. the Catholic Church itself) so I think it right to put it under the general heading. Colin4C 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Removed Cleanup Tag[edit]

I have removed the Cleanup tag from the article. The article is in better form, thanks to your collective efforts. There are still several sections which need facts -- hence, the More Sources tag remains. And, of course, there are opportunities to expand the article's coverage of anti-Catholicism outside North America. Majoreditor 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of anti-Catholicism[edit]

User:Baccyak4H removed the following text as being POV:

Anti-Catholicism is imagined discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed at Catholics or the Catholic Church, which can range in expression from individual hatred to institutionalized, violent persecution. The term also applies to the religious persecution of Roman Catholics.
It is a product of the victim culture that pervades much of twentieth century culture. Alleged anti-catholicism is also used by Roman Catholics as a counter to the sort of criticism that the Roman Catholic Church (an imperfect organization - like all human institutions) brings on itself by its intolerance of non-Roman Catholic Christians, homosexuals, the Enlightenment, and the corruption and abuse of power (see paedophilia that inevitably stain the reputation of such a large organization as the Roman Catholic Church.
[strikethroughs added by deletor for clarity; see below. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)]

It is POV and needed to be removed in the form it was inserted. However, it is a valid POV (in the sense that there are many people who would agree with the sentiment) and could be inserted as a section later in the article IF it were sourced. Thus, an NPOV text would read "There are some who argue that anti-Catholicism is imagined discrimination... and that it is a product of the victim culture etc etc".

I believe you could find this perspective presented in a reliable source somewhere but I'm not going to go find it. I'll leave that for someone else to do.

Well, actually, this is a good start.

--Richard 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of editing Richard's blockquote of my deletion with strikethroughs to show the extent of my deletions, in particular that only one word was deleted from the first paragraph. This in no way is meant to be a suggestion of bad faith; rather the clarification helps understand his discussion of the edits. Feel free to reformat to capture this better.
As to his suggestion proper, such a presentation is reasonable, but I would suggest that such discussion here be brief, with links to political correctness, bigotry, and similar, where such discussion could be fleshed out more. Also, care should be taken to distinguish the POVs that "there is no such animal as anti-Catholicism" from "anti-Catholicism is a real thing, but most claims of its existence in a particular situation are false." Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to say that IMHO anti-Catholicism cannot be justified by specific abuses which members of the Catholic church may or may not be guilty of. Odd that the editor glibly mentions pedophilia in connection with the Catholic Church, but, I imagine, would not dream of tarnishing Judaism with the same stigma, no matter how many 'padeophile rabbis' there were or were not (or how many anti-homosexual tirades were delivered by rabbis or how many terrible blows against 'the Enlightenment' were commited by the ultra-orthodox or how many power trips were indulged in by the same). Accusations of sexual abuse directed at the Catholic clergy have been the stock in trade of anti-Catholics of such varied hues as Henry VIII, Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan. Such stories are sub-literary (and often pornographic) tropes which have a life of there own and are endlessly recycled: they do not depend for their effect on whatever truth they may or may not contain. Maybe a good test of anti-Catholic bigotry is to substitute the word 'Jew' for 'Catholic' and then check whether or not the sentence sounds like a press release from Herr Hitler or an edition of Streicher's 'Der Sturmer' (whose main selling point was lurid tales of sexual abuse supposedly committed by Jews). Colin4C 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Colin is correct -- the edit by the anon is bigotry. Let's call it what it really is: vandalism. This kind of bigoted editing should be aggressively removed and the vandal reported. Legitimate criticism of ant-Catholicism is welcome. Legitimate edits are sourced, expressed in NPOV language and placed appropriately in the article. Majoreditor 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
While I share with you all the strength of sentiment that this edit was inappropriate (my edit summary included the word "severely"), let's keep cool heads and assume good faith—there is a tangible difference between hopelessly blatant but sincere POV pushing and vandalism (which is not a sincere attempt to improve the article). It is not an accident that I included bigotry as a link in my above discussion, in addition to political correctness. But your points are all well taken (IMO) in that they suggest this discussion is better suited for those other pages, as I suggested. And let me point out that, for better or for worse, there has been a lot of media coverage of the Catholic priest sex abuse issue (most of which, make of this what you will, was not pedophilia). This coverage almost certainly inspired a lot of anti-Catholicism (and its own magnitude and tone almost certainly informed by anti-Catholicism...), but that does not in my mind in itself make any discussion of such irrelevant. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the POV that was deleted should be included in this article precisely BECAUSE of its bigotry (but not in the intro and certainly not in a way that suggests that the POV is unconditionally true). This article is about anti-Catholic bigotry and the fact that some people argue that anti-Catholicism is more imagined than real is part of that bigotry.

Look at it this way, one thing anti-Semites argue is that Jews are not persecuted... in effect, arguing that there is no anti-Semitism except in the overly sensitive imaginations of Jews. If we can source the POV that was presented, it would be good for us to include it. --Richard 02:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Feminist opposition[edit]

The disputed portion on feminist opposition doesn't cite facts nor mention how they oppose the Catholic Church. This section will need to be fleshed out if it's to remain. Can someone cite specific actions or statements by feminists which are anti-Catholic? (I don't think there's a shortage of examples). Thanks, Majoreditor 03:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. Majoreditor 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome but that was just a down payment on the house, so to speak. I didn't have a lot of time this morning and I don't have a lot of time now but I think the point you make is "on the money" and it needs even more fleshing out. I hope to get back to this in the next few days with more concrete examples and citations. --Richard 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism characterized as associated with left-wing of the political spectrum[edit]

User:Dems110 deleted the following text twice "It has tended to be associated with the Left-wing of the political spectrum, and with middle and working class intellectuals."

Dems110's second deletion was accompanied by the edit summary "prejudice is not on any side of the political spectrum".

This is true as a general truism but it ignores the history of anti-clericalism in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Now anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism are not exactly the same thing but much anti-Catholicism has its roots in anti-clericalism so we should at least consider the possibility that the deleted text has some validity in some countries in certain eras.

The truth is that Catholicism has often sided with secular power in the past, often throwing its spiritual authority and secular influence on the side of monarchy, nobility and aristocracy. For these reasons, the Catholic church has often been seen as being on the side of reactionary oppressors of the masses (this rhetoric was espoused by socialists and Communists;I am not necessarily agreeing with it;I'm just describing it).

In many Catholic countries of Europe, the Pope was a supporter of (or contender with) the ruling classes. The bishops were bourgeois along the same lines as minor nobility and mid-level bureaucrats and the local clergy were often petit bourgeois.

It is for this reason that Marx argued that "religion is the opiate of the masses". He argued that religion, specifically Christianity, simply palliated the suffering of the masses so that they could continue being oppressed by the aristocrats and capitalists.

This was also true in colonial empires such as the Spanish colonies in Latin America and, I believe, the colonial empires in Africa and Southeast Asia. Even in 20th century Latin America, the Catholic church was seen as being part of the oligarchic power structure. It is against this perception (and reality) that liberation theology was born.

Now, I concede that this section is poorly written and the sentence in question is certainly no exception. However, to delete it dismissively with the suggestion that it is unsourced and POV risks glossing over an important facet of modern-day anti-Catholicism.

--Richard 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, it was unsourced. But I agree with what I think you are getting at—a much better solution would have been to source it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism and anti-clericalism[edit]

I think this whole section needs to be reviewed and reworked. The points that I made in the section above should be worked into the text but we need to keep in mind that there is an article on anti-clericalism and so we have to decide how much to say here and how much should be left for discussion in that article.

I am leaving on vacation in a few hours and won't be back until Monday but I will read any responses then and get to work on this section if no one else has taken it up in the meantime. Have a good weekend, all!

--Richard 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)