Catholicism and Fundamentalism, 30 years later

[Peter_J]

Hi all.

Recently I’ve been revisiting Karl Keating’s 1988 book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians.” And I’ve been asking myself, Is this book still relevant to us today?

For example, 30 years (well 29 technically) ago Keating wrote

“Examples of fundamentalism’s darkest side could be repeated without end. There is no need to examine dusty books or yellowed leaflets to find them. They exist in numbers that were unimaginable only a few years ago. For the most part, Catholics have little notion of the depth of anti-Catholic sentiment.”

but I don’t want to automatically assume that that’s all true today.

 

[edward_george]

I think the face of anti-Catholicism has changed a great deal since then for a variety of cultural and religious demographic reasons. For one, there’s been a shift in Christianity in general away from what might be called fundamentalism to more of the “megachurch” ethos, which doesn’t seem as openly interested in attacking anyone else’s beliefs. For another, a good number of people are “nones” or are openly hostile to religion in general. So the most vocal groups opposed to Catholicism come from an atheistic or anti-religious perspective.

That said, Catholicism and Fundamentalism holds up on at least one level in that it can kind of serve as a primer on certain basic Catholic beliefs. It was the first book I read as I experienced a sort of intellectual conversion in my teenage years, and we all see how that turned out…

-Fr ACEGC

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi all.

Recently I’ve been revisiting Karl Keating’s 1988 book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians.” And I’ve been asking myself, Is this book still relevant to us today?

For example, 30 years (well 29 technically) ago Keating wrote

“Exa
mples of fundamentalism’s darkest side could be repeated without end. There is no need to examine dusty books or yellowed leaflets to find them. They exist in numbers that were unimaginable only a few years ago. For the most part, Catholics have little notion of the depth of anti-Catholic sentiment.”

but I don’t want to automatically assume that that’s all true today.

I have not read that book but I’m not really sure what you mean exactly?

 

[Kielbasi]

Hi all.

Recently I’ve been revisiting Karl Keating’s 1988 book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians.” And I’ve been asking myself, Is this book still relevant to us today?

.

1988 was a long time ago, Peter.

in 1988, the airwaves and cable tv were filled with different fundamentalist/evangelical preachers. cable tv had lots of stations to fill, but next to no original programming, churches with broadcasting ministries- mostly fundamentalist- filled much of the void.

gave them a much bigger public presence and made them seem more important/influential than they were even then.

there have always been a fair enough number of folks antagonistic to the catholic church and always will be. i wouldn’t worry about it

 

[randomuser]

Hi all.

Recently I’ve been revisiting Karl Keating’s 1988 book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians.” And I’ve been asking myself, Is this book still relevant to us today?

For example, 30 years (well 29 technically) ago Keating wrote

“Examples of fundamentalism’s darkest side could be repeated without end. There is no need to examine dusty books or yellowed leaflets to find them. They exist in numbers that were unimaginable only a few years ago. For the most part, Catholics have little notion of the depth of anti-Catholic sentiment.”

but I don’t want to automatically assume that that’s all true today.

I don’t recall there being anything in the book about Constantine (save for a passing reference or two in the index). I just don’t understand why the only anti-Catholic sentiment that gets talked about is worshipping Mary and the vain repetition thing and the ‘whore of Babylon’ thing, and meanwhile, in the 30 years since, Constantine has become a taboo topic with nowhere near the same level of attention and exposure – I still come across Protestants and Evangelicals who believe Constantine started the Catholic church and yet, there’s a scarcity of apologetic resources on the matter. (And worse, I get attacked and criticized any time I ask about the scarcity of material on the subject.)

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I think apathy and indifference and the “lite hostility” of society in general to religion have become bigger problems than the kind of virulent Fundamentalist anti-Catholicism of decades ago. Plus, with the Internet, those who traffic in “professional anti-Catholicism” have taken to that medium more than the broadcast airwaves of times past, so to some degree - and there are exceptions - such has become somewhat less publicly visible.

And, to be quite frank, the continuing echos of - and sad new manifestations of - the abuse crisis are serving the ends of anti-Catholics without their having to lift a finger.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Some of those involved then have become indifferent.

Others who weren’t, have taken their places.

It’s just as bad, on the whole.

At an individual level, having learned in my old age to be brazen, I just breeze in and sit in a pew where I like (not mixing up sacraments), and I mostly find people don’t pluck up the courage to have a go at me.

Some who are trying to be laudably tolerant, may nonetheless be naïve (as indeed we Catholics sometimes can be).

 

[steve_b]

1988 was a long time ago, Peter.

in 1988, the airwaves and cable tv were filled with different fundamentalist/evangelical preachers. cable tv had lots of stations to fill, but next to no original programming, churches with broadcasting ministries- mostly fundamentalist- filled much of the void.

gave them a much bigger public presence and made them seem more important/influential than they were even then.

there have always been a fair enough number of folks antagonistic to the catholic church and always will be. i wouldn’t worry about it

It’s that last point I would like to address.

When Jesus established His Church on Peter and the apostles united to Peter, He prayed

(emphasis mine)

Jn 17:
16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth. 20** “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. ** 25 O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. 26 I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”***
**
*Jesus established the Catholic Church. #[24 (https://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14804336&postcount=24)
Oh their were arguments even among the apostles of who is greatest among THEM. But as Jesus said, Peter is the leader, and that push back, to the authority Jesus establishes , comes from Satan. And Satan never gives up

Luke 22: Upper Room

24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you(singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

Hegeomai (Jesus is referring to Simon)

1) to leada) to go beforeb) to be a leader

1) to rule, command2) to have authority over3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman​

2) to consider, deem, account, think

Sterizo (Simon is to)
1) to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
2) to strengthen, make firm
3) to render constant, confirm, one’s mind

Notice the language? Peter is to lead, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels… make stable his brothers, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman

Gee,

Sounds like the pope and the Catholic Church.

So given Jesus prayers, (Jn 17:16-26 and Lk 22:32)

• then who has the authority to divide what Jesus established?
• The Holy Spirit? Nope! The Holy Spirit speaks what comes from Jesus. ** In Context ** ]
• So no one can say the HS inspired them to not be Catholic, or start their own church

Who divides what Jesus established? Satan

The HS doesn’t inspire anyone to start a church in opposition to the Catholic Church. The HS doesn’t inspire Heresy. The HS doesn’t inspire division of any kind from Jesus’ Church.

Are there consequences to such divisions for souls who DO cause or follow such divisions? Absolutely!

Scripture lays it out specifically

 

[Wannano]

Hi all.

Recently I’ve been revisiting Karl Keating’s 1988 book Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians.” And I’ve been asking myself, Is this book still relevant to us today?

For example, 30 years (well 29 technically) ago Keating wrote

“Examples of fundamentalism’s darkest side could be repeated without end. There is no need to examine dusty books or yellowed leaflets to find them. They exist in numbers that were unimaginable only a few years ago. For the most part, Catholics have little notion of the depth of anti-Catholic sentiment.”

but I don’t want to automatically assume that that’s all true today.

Hi Peter, you have numerous times indicated your “frustration” at non-catholics who read a post here on CAF written by a Catholic poster and seemingly accept the information given as actual Catholic teaching just because “it’s on an internet forum.”

How is a single book any different? to ask if it is still relevant today indicates that it once was. Is that determined by the fact that the information in it was complied into a book so therefore it must be accurate and relevant?

 

[Peter_J]

1988 was a long time ago, Peter.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter, you have numerous times indicated your “frustration” at non-catholics who read a post here on CAF written by a Catholic poster and seemingly accept the information given as actual Catholic teaching just because “it’s on an internet forum.”

How is a single book any different? to ask if it is still relevant today indicates that it once was. Is that determined by the fact that the information in it was complied into a book so therefore it must be accurate and relevant?

That’s an interesting question to think about. I can see your point … although I feel like you’re exaggerating the parallel between a book that has sold many copies, on the one hand, and this-or-that statement that has been posted (usually anonymously) by someone on the Internet.

P.S. I’m not, by any means, suggesting that there aren’t any books that contain errors.

 

[Peter_J]

I have not read that book but I’m not really sure what you mean exactly?

Well in particular, I’m wondering whether Fundamentalism is as bad as Keating said it is/was? And if it is, are Catholics are as unaware of that as Keating said?

 

[GLam8833]

When I was a Baptized protestant, I tend to
lump Catholicism w/ Anglicanism and view
them as Fundamentalists with emphasis on
Liturgy and the Sacraments, of which I had
NO IDEA what they contribute to our Faith-
life. I remember one lady who lived down-
stairs from me in my rooming-house who
got “confirmed” in the Anglican Church and
even attended the service, to me it was
just a formality.

 

[commenter]

I think the face of anti-Catholicism has changed a great deal since then for a variety of cultural and religious demographic reasons. For one, there’s been a shift in Christianity in general away from what might be called fundamentalism to more of the “megachurch” ethos, which doesn’t seem as openly interested in attacking anyone else’s beliefs. For another, a good number of people are “nones” or are openly hostile to religion in general. So the most vocal groups opposed to Catholicism come from an atheistic or anti-religious perspective.

That said, Catholicism and Fundamentalism holds up on at least one level in that it can kind of serve as a primer on certain basic Catholic beliefs.

True.
Since 1988, secular humanism has moved out of a few philosophy departments into control of many colleges and “mainstream” media. This base of anti-Catholicism is far more powerful than Fundamentalism.

Fundamentalism used to refer to those who believe the Earth was created in 7 days, literal worldwide flood, etc. Now anyone who opposes abortion or same sex marriage will be labelled “fundamentalist”.

The kind of anti Catholic fundamentalism Keating describes still exists. But now it is less likely to be reaching many people. Mainline Protestant denominations are starting to hint more and more that Catholics should urge their bishops to change their stand on ordination of women, abortion, and SSM. If Keating were writing a book today, this is what he would address.

 

[DarkLight]

Well in particular, I’m wondering whether Fundamentalism is as bad as Keating said it is/was? And if it is, are Catholics are as unaware of that as Keating said?

I don’t know about the second part, but there are absolutely a few of us on this board (myself included) who grew up in these fundamentalist churches and listened to the rhetoric.

 

[Della]

I remember the times in which Mr. Keating wrote his book quite well since I was a young woman attending an Assemblies of God Bible college when he wrote it (although I didn’t read his book until a few years later). At that time Fundamentalism was very strong and very active. The kind of anti-Catholicism they preached was the main objection to Catholicism. Mr. Keating wrote his book in answer to pamphlets left at his parish church–as action he thought not only rude, but somewhat lacking in courage because anyone can drop off a pamphlet without actually confronting those whose beliefs they are condemning through that medium.

I know about that kind of “evangelizing” because when I was in the AoG, I did that kind of thing myself. We really thought we were telling benighted Catholics the “truth” about their religion. In reality, it was a cheap way to pat ourselves on the back for doing our bit so God wouldn’t judge us for not trying to “save” Catholics from their “cult.” Through the charismatic movement, though, many in Pentecostal circles softened their feelings towards Catholics and their beliefs, although they still wouldn’t embrace those teachings.

Through the years, Fundamentalist influence has waned, as others have cited. So, although the reasons for writing his book aren’t as strong as they once were, Mr. Keating’s book still has good information regarding Catholic teaching. CAF still gets people asking the kinds of questions he addressed in his book, so it’s not completely out-of-date.

As to information about Constantine, it wasn’t an issue until quite recently. It’s one of those last ditch efforts to refute the legitimacy of the Catholic Church’s history. And the reason there’s not much material on the claims that Constantine started the Church is because it’s simply not true. And like all such non-truths, they pop up out of nowhere, with no basis for them, but still Catholics are supposed to be ready for any and all objections no matter how far-fetched. There are millions of objections–more than one per every person in the world, from those determined to negate the Church’s history and her teachings. It takes time to gather historical proof to answer objections of this kind, but in reality, it’s an exercise in futility answering hardcore doubters because they don’t care about the truth, they only care about making others doubt, because for them the ends justify the means. Still, if the issue really needs to be addressed, there is ample historical proof–digging it out is the hard part–and really the onus should be on those who make the claim to prove their objection. My answer to them is: “Prove it, then we’ll talk.”

 

[Peter_J]

One thing I remember liking about Keating’s book, and I still like it now that I’ve revisited the book, is how he analyzes the role that different types of Fundamentalists play. For example, at one point he says about extremists like Jack Chick:

Chick’s literature would be unimportant, quite unworthy of the sustained treatment it has received in the Catholic press, if his were the only anti-Catholic organization in the nation. There are few flat-Earthers, and no one pays them much heed. They would be worth examining, perhaps, if there were societies of oval-Earthers who received legitimacy because they could separate themselves in the public mind from those who think the world is shaped like a fat dish. Chick’s very existence makes all the other anti-Catholic groups look moderate, and they are therefore more influential than they otherwise would be. Fundamentalists who are squeamish about supporting all of Chick’s theories owe him a vote of thanks; he makes them look good.

It is similar to the big lie technique. Most people, even most with an ingrained prejudice against the Church, realize the comic books are grotesqueries. They seem to say, “We acknowledge Jack Chick is overzealous; we admit that. But his zealotry only demonstrates that what Mission to Catholics, the Conversion Center, and Jimmy Swaggart say must be accurate. These other evangelists have eliminated Chick’s infelicities, and what we are left with is the unvarnished truth.” It is this kind of thinking that makes Chick’s work important.

I wonder if this might be all the more important now that the extremists have become less visible than the “moderate Fundamentalists”.

 

[Della]

One thing I remember liking about Keating’s book, and I still like it now that I’ve revisited the book, is how he analyzes the role that different types of Fundamentalists play. For example, at one point he says about extremists like Jack Chick:

Chick’s literature would be unimportant, quite unworthy of the sustained treatment it has received in the Catholic press, if his were the only anti-Catholic organization in the nation. There are few flat-Earthers, and no one pays them much heed. They would be worth examining, perhaps, if there were societies of oval-Earthers who received legitimacy because they could separate themselves in the public mind from those who think the world is shaped like a fat dish. Chick’s very existence makes all the other anti-Catholic groups look moderate, and they are therefore more influential than they otherwise would be. Fundamentalists who are squeamish about supporting all of Chick’s theories owe him a vote of thanks; he makes them look good.

It is similar to the big lie technique. Most people, even most with an ingrained prejudice against the Church, realize the comic books are grotesqueries. They seem to say, “We acknowledge Jack Chick is overzealous; we admit that. But his zealotry only demonstrates that what Mission to Catholics, the Conversion Center, and Jimmy Swaggart say must be accurate. These other evangelists have eliminated Chick’s infelicities, and what we are left with is the unvarnished truth.” It is this kind of thinking that makes Chick’s work important.

I wonder if this might be all the more important now that the extremists have become less visible than the “moderate Fundamentalists”.

Chick is fading into an historical anomaly and will one day be forgotten except by fans of that kind of comic style.

The thing I see is that the Fundamentalist did their job too well. People now not only doubt the claims of the Church–they doubt the claims of all religion because of the false claims and the silliness lobbed at other, fellow Christians. Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” There’s been very little love shown, hence people have some legitimacy in claiming that religion doesn’t solve man’s tendency towards hate and even violence. They called for the wind and have reaped the wild wind, which is sweeping away all faith from men’s hearts. That’s what’s happened.

 

[MichaelP3]

I don’t know about the second part, but there are absolutely a few of us on this board (myself included) who grew up in these fundamentalist churches and listened to the rhetoric.

And also a few (like my wife who really does not like me being on here) who grew up very Conservative Catholic and also have her opinions. I constantly need to remind her that doesn’t mean she has all the answers (from the other side) just because she has “been there”!

Not that you said that, but just stating “you have seen the other side” doesn’t do much in the "discussion circle " we see so often. Many here think that!

Regards

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The thing I see is that the Fundamentalist did their job too well. People now not only doubt the claims of the Church–they doubt the claims of all religion because of the false claims and the silliness lobbed at other, fellow Christians.

I think that especially the many charges of “paganism” against Catholics that were at first bandied about by the Fundamentalists, are now being used by atheists and agnostics to discredit ALL of Christianity as just another delusion indulged in by the ignorant and brainwashed, and referred to as “religion”.

There’s a common idea among atheists that Jesus either didn’t exist at all, or that the “historical Jesus” was nothing like the “mythical one”. Many will state confidently “Of course the mythical Jesus was created to appeal to pagans and so he has aspects of Mithras, Horus, and a whole lot of other pagan gods of the time.”

That being said the number of actual “there IS no divine being at all, there is nothing beyond the material universe that can be proven and hence worthy of belief” atheists are small in number, at least in the US.

Many “nones” don’t go as far as to forsake belief in God (or gods) entirely, but they often describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious”. Many will still go to Church at times to appease family members.