Talk:Anti-Catholicism in the United States

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

NPOV - whole article, especially introduction[edit]

First of all, should anti-catholicism in the US gets its own page seeing as NPOV policy warns against splitting off a sub-topic in order to present a biased view without balance? Perhaps this should just be under Catholicism, in a criticism section? I'm not sure why Anti-catholicism in the US is such a special case it should be separate to all discussion of anti-catholicism. Is this undue weight?

Anyway, working on the assumption that one can have a neutral anti-catholicism article, as is being worked on for the antifeminism article, the introduction instantly implies that all anti-catholocism is always bigotry. Arguments aside whether it is or isn't (I'm not saying it isn't or is never), this is not NPOV. Is all criticism of various beliefs or ideologies necessarily bigotry? If you are antiterrorism, are you a bigot against terrorists? If you are anti-abortion, are you necessarily a bigot against abortion?

The editor who's written this introduction has tried to sneak in the bigotry POV by enclosing it as a quote from someone, but this sort of quote, an opinion rather than a definition from an unbiased source, belongs in the body of the article, not as the introduction, because it implies that this is the mainstream or factual explanation of what the topic is. Also, it then substitutes "anticatholicism" with "bigotry against the roman catholic church".

The entire article has a similar pejorative tone and fails to "write for the enemy" in presenting the justifications of anticatholicism. Some of the language used, such as discussion of the failure of Al Smith's bid for presidency, is not what one expects of a NPOV encyclopedia.

Some balance is needed surely. If others agree, we should move to re-arrange and re-write parts of this article to be in the spirit of NPOV policy. - and you will know know me by the trail of dead. (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

April 2010: The observation of historian John Higham about "anti-Catholicism" would have some weight if 1) he had ever spent time in the North American theocracy known as Quebec, where the public school system =was= the Catholic school system, most elected officials were clergy, and women could not vote in Provincial elections until 1949, - - or 2) had lived in the states of Massachusetts or Connecticut when these were dominated by Catholic legislators and a) Jewish physicians broke the law if they told Jews anything about how to plan their family, b) artificial means of birth control had to be smuggled into the state from elsewhere. The paranoid is characterized by misunderstanding or making things up. Yet anti-Catholic information often comes from apostate clergy whose reports of doctrine and personal experience are not made up, but actually lived. As a matter of opinion, the charges and definition proposed by Higham is treacle. Ed Chilton.

The comments above (mine) support those of the writer 27 May 2008 who questioned the POSSIBILITY of a "neutral point of view" and opined that the initial two paragraphs are pejorative in tone. I extended criticism to the use of the "Higham quote" at the bottom - as if to report the words of this worthy iconic figure inoculates the article from any other expression of contrary opinion. Oh? Try that on some weak-willed, easily intimidated person, but on me you waste your time. I am one of few persons who has collected and read the full literature on Catholicism written by Paul Blanshard. And that literature will never die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the above helps to improve this article or contributes to any other article. Do you propose another article, or what? Are you suggesting the church with 1 billion members over 2,000 years has sometimes been less than perfect? Hardly surprising, I would think. BTW, my ggrandmother went to "convent school" in Quebec in the early 1800s and emerged, as she entered, a dedicated Presbyterian, not unusual at the time. And Catholic schools were often regarded as the "best." I doubt they were government sponsored in the early 1800s though.
Most legislators in the 19th century, before and early 20th century did indeed try to insert laws that described their own faith. Sunday "Blue Laws" were fairly common, among other things. Were these resented? I think you are saying, "Yes, they were." Don't see how that does anything for this article, though. Student7 (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
should it be included. yes, it is a topic of serious work by many scholarly over the last 100 years in the US, Britain and Canada, etc. Should it be part of an article on Catholicism--no it deals with very different people, ideas and institutions. The issue is not whether the Church was devilish, it is how people who believed that behaved in terms of their motivations, ideas and politics. Were they bigots? well if the RS say that then we report it. Billington's book is outstanding and has never been challenged by any RS I know of.Rjensen (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The current article title is "anti-Catholicism." It is not "Good justification why anti-Catholicism exists." Everyone thinks their bigotry is justified. But I don't think there is an article justifying the Holocaust, nevertheless. Anyway, would have to be a separate article IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart(Stuart Leibowitz)[edit]

There needs to be at the very least a section dedicated solely to the daily show and or Comedy Central

Chinablue888 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement[edit]

This edit in 2007 introduced substantial text pasted from this March 2000 article to Anti-Catholicism, which was the base of this article. Barring verification of permission, this material will need to be removed or revised in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright policy. I believe that even the identified quote from this author is likely in violation of our non-free content guidelines, which permits "Brief illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea," but prohibits "[e]xtensive quotation of copyrighted text...." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion[edit]

A Blaine supporter coined this phrase in the later 19th century, stereotyping the Democratic Party and maybe miscasting Blaine as well. It backfired costing Blaine the Presidency. Not really sure how to handle this and it has other connotations (political) that are really too much for this article. Student7 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Mark Twain's 19th century Anti-Catholicism[edit]

Mark Twain wrote anti-Catholic (and anti-Anglican for that matter) material into his now little read, "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". It is now generally accepted that his statements were, indeed Anti-Catholic.

The paragraph that was deleted read: "In his best-selling book of fiction, A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court (1889), author Mark Twain clearly voices his opinion that the church was primarily responsible for the backwardness of the Middle Ages and that enlightenment only came with Protestantism."Yankee Anti-Catholicism". MT, His Time, Catholic Church. 2010-09-11. "

Actually, the collapse took place because of the disorganization of Rome, and the responding influx of uncivilized barbarians. The church tried to civilize them and, in the process was somewhat converted to the conquerors. But they preserved what they could of civilization and kept things going until society could be rebuilt.

The church started dozens of universities in the middle Middle Ages, most of which are still runnin, from which Aquinas, Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme, William of Heytesbury, Ockham, Bradwardine, Robert Grosseteste, Albertus Magnus, etc. emerged and started Science perhaps after 1277. Protestants prefer a later date because it matched the breaks from Rome. This is not reality. For "proof" they point to Galileo. But the latter was after the Renaissance. And Galileo, et al, upset everyone. Not just Catholics.

What is wrong with the footnote? Does the editor disagree with that? Student7 (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Twain comment dubious[edit]

The article, as it stands, focuses on Mark Twain's attitude toward Catholicism, implying that he agreed with Protestant anti-Catholics. I'm not a Twain expert, but IIRC he was hostile to all religions. That is, his POV differed deeply from the POV of Protestant anti-Catholics. Oaklandguy (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct, but it is simpler to detect Anti-Catholicism in "Connecticut Yankee" (to give a concrete example) which may have deliberately played into a willing American audience, not particularly appreciative of Irish-Catholic immigrants. His ideas may have evolved. He may not have wished his anti-religious attitude to become known, since royalties would constitute a major part of his fiscal legacy to his family. Since this article is not an analysis of Mark Twain's evolution into agnosticism/atheism, it seems reasonable to reproduce what he wrote and was widely read and believed when he wrote it. Student7 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
My issue is that they say Twain was anti-catholic, as if he had a special place in his heart for his hatred of all Catholics. Twain himself tended not to hate people for their personal religious associations, but instead detested all organized religion in general. Twain once even said that Christianity in general had shed enough blood for ships to sail in. Twain was basically just anti-religious, like Thomas Paine.[1] (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Papal interference in American politics[edit]

The charge that the Pope would interfere in American politics is the oldest one in the books, and one editor seems to suggest it is happening. ("bishops didn't invent this. It was the pope (the church). BTW, from the church's pov the politicians were abetting murder. Can hardly expect them to hand out medals!") For the Pope to order a bishop to deny communion to a senator because of the senator's vote on legislation certainly looks like interference. Kennedy of course rejected the notion that he would follow the Pope's orders at Houston in 1960. Rjensen (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is nativism (or something) to think that the pope is dreaming up ways to influence American politics. His reach is more global. As far as I know, all bishops are supposed to deny the sacraments to people abetting abortion (or murder or anything regarded as a continuing mortal {deliberate} sin by the church, and one for which the sinner is clearly not remorseful. Not just abortion-oriented). It is a global proscription. Not aimed per se at Americans.
I would hope that Woman-a-Day Kennedy would not be the national spokesperson for American Catholics, but there you have it, I guess.
Student7 (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This allegation, no matter how unfounded, is probably behind the fact that full diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the Holy See were not established until January 10, 1984. See Holy See-United States relations. NorthCoastReader (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nativist section[edit]

"The resulting "nativist" movement, which achieved prominence in the 1840s, was whipped into a frenzy of anti-Catholicism that led to mob violence, the burning of Catholic property, and the killing of Catholics." This is a direct quote from the source, but the fact that it is a direct quote is not acknowledged. The same goes for "The nativist movement found expression in a national political movement called the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s, which (unsuccessfully) ran former president Millard Fillmore as its presidential candidate in 1856." (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Smith's candidacy[edit]

A respected editor inserted material from "1928 election" article that particularly touched on Anti-Catholicism. This was rv by yet another respected editor with the complaint that it was already in the main article. It seems to me that these paragraphs touched so much on Anti-Catholicism that it seemed reasonable to bring them forward. The article itself touched on many things, I am sure, besides anti-Catholic attitudes. Just my opinion. Student7 (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to avoid duplicating material in both articles beyond a necessary minimum. In Wikipedia, this means putting a stub section in one article summarizing the other. I initially favored making the 1928 section here a stub of United States presidential election, 1928, and moved text from here to there, but post Rjensen's edits I think it makes sense to go the other way; that is, put a stub "Anti-Catholicism" section there, and move relevant details to here. Ylee (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pharmacists not required to fill all Rx-es based on personal belief?[edit]

The following was deleted:

"Some pharmacists have been dismissed for refusing to fill prescriptions for abortofacients and birth control. A poll indicates that the majority of Americans holds that a pharmacists conscientious objections should be ignored in these cases. Several states have passed laws requiring that pharmacists fill all prescriptions regardless of belief.(ref)[1](endref)(ref)[2](endref)(ref)[3](endref)"

This was deleted with the edit summary that it need a WP:RS. While this is now "common knowledge," I would agree that it still needs a RS. What is unreliable about the Washington Post and ABC news? Student7 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

what is needed is a RS link that shows it is anti-Catholicism. In fact the pharmacists are fired for refusing to do their job. Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism infallably teaches that abortion is a mortal sin. Thus RC pharmacist filling RX is similar to an RC priest divulging confessions. Yet, priests are legally protected, but pharmacists not, why? (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
pharmacists are licensed by the state government and have to follow state law. Rjensen (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A most egregious case censored from article?[edit]

The article should discuss the "Boerne City versus Cardinal Flores" scandal, a trial case, where the white anglos-saxon protestant elite, that makes SCOTUS, verbosely prevented the freedom of religious excercise desired by the mostly latino and irish catholic citizens of the USA. In Europe many newspapers wrote that shameful case was the modern equivalent of a "Mary Queen of Scots trial", and how the mostly rich US protestants are more equal in their worship rights, compared to mostly poor US catholics. (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't read City of Boerne v. Flores that way at all. If you have WP:RS that state what you have said above, I suppose they could be added. In Europe, old buildings are a dime a dozen. In the US they are rare. If we called a 1923 building "old" in Europe, they would just laugh! Student7 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Student7 is right. note that all three Catholics on the Court agreed with the opinion. As of 2012 there are zero Protestants on the Court. (it now has 6 Catholics and 3 Jews) Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias complaint[edit]

This article currently does not contain the word "hysteria" anywhere in its text, which shows the article is severely biased towards the white anglo-saxon protestant male elite point of view. Anti-catholicism in the USA was/is not calm or civilised, often it was outright hysteria, moral panic and borderline pogrom, including physical injury. The article should depict that on-going plight of Pope-faithful irish, hispanic and negro people honestly. (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


"Legs, who had mostly voted for Republican Dwight Eisenhower, now gave Kennedy from 75 to 80 percent of their vote" Legs? Huh??? 1Z (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

it's humorous vandalism & i repaired it. Rjensen (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


I'm objecting to the Jefferson section as an opposition to Catholicism qua Catholicism. The secondary sources support that view:

On page 148 Onuf notes how “Jefferson’s identification with Jesus, as a reformer who dared to challenge priestly power, led him to question the clergy’s Christian credentials." On page 150 Onuf continues talking about “transformation of the various sects” where “people would demand more control over their churches” as opposed to a “priests monopolized religion.” He is clearly talking about organized religion in general. His comment about Jefferson’s concern for Latin America was merely an example of Jefferson’s opposition to organized religion in general. It was not specifically Catholicism but organized religion in general that offended Jefferson (who was a unitarian at this point). [4]

Halliday repeats this theme. On page 229, he notes Jefferson “never abandoned his intense suspicion of organized churches." It is at this point that Halliday uses the quote the you inserted into our article. [5] Jason from nyc (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Cite to 1940s letter[edit]

I've removed the edit added by Felixpappilardi098 about the Catholic church's antisemitism for three reasons. First, the tone violates WP:NPOV. Second, the source does not support the stated claim. The letter cited is from 70 years ago, and presumably doesn't reflect any current position. Third, it is irrelevant to the topic of this article. Agtx (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Anti-Catholicism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^