Catholics in American History

[katewithak]

An earlier thread “horrors of the RCC” reminds me of an extreme need we have in the U.S. For years I was a public school teacher until I got a belly full and quit. My issues were over the state standards regulating teaching on abortion, etc. However, something not much mentioned is the terribly skewed history books the children use in American history. Sooner or later we must put together for the sake of our children a truly complete American history book. One that includes what Catholics did and did not do. It is always amazing to me how many adult Catholics, growing up in U.S. schools have absolutely no knowledge of the truth of it’s growth. Their heros are anti catholics, such as Samuel Morse and Ben Franklin. They hold up the wonders of freedom of religion that the Protestants brought with them which is absolutely a fib. Our own people do not know their own history here. Amazing.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

katewithak:

An earlier thread “horrors of the RCC” reminds me of an extreme need we have in the U.S. For years I was a public school teacher until I got a belly full and quit. My issues were over the state standards regulating teaching on abortion, etc. However, something not much mentioned is the terribly skewed history books the children use in American history. Sooner or later we must put together for the sake of our children a truly complete American history book. One that includes what Catholics did and did not do. It is always amazing to me how many adult Catholics, growing up in U.S. schools have absolutely no knowledge of the truth of it’s growth. Their heros are anti catholics, such as Samuel Morse and Ben Franklin. They hold up the wonders of freedom of religion that the Protestants brought with them which is absolutely a fib. Our own people do not know their own history here. Amazing.

Kate,

Where did 'Freedom of Religion", as we understand it in this country, come from then?

Peace,
Richard

 

[katewithak]

Richard_Hurtz:

Kate,

Where did 'Freedom of Religion", as we understand it in this country, come from then?

Peace,
Richard

It came from the Protestants who were trying very hard to protect themselves from persecution from other Protestants. A most worthy goal and intention the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. But it is well to remember that the Protestants intended it for Protestants, not for the Catholics. Just as they intended the freedoms to be for whites, not blacks. The Protestants intended to protect themselves. They did not foresee blacks and Catholics claiming those freedoms for themselves as well.

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

As I remember from my history ed, the most tolerant colony was the Catholic one–Maryland. It had a Religious Tolerance Act.

When it was taken over by Protestants, they overturned the law.

 

[St.BJLabre]

Most of what you learn is grade school and even most high school history courses about the freedom loving founders of America is simply a lie. This country has a long history of anti-Catholicism. When the framers wrote about freedom of religion, they tended to mean freedom of religion only for themselves. The nativist movement (keep all immigrants and Catholics from voting) in America was strong, fortunately it failed.

 

[deb1]

I homeschool and I often assign my oldest son books to read. Are there any good books on the subject? He is 16.

 

[quasimodo]

Richard_Hurtz:

Kate,

Where did 'Freedom of Religion", as we understand it in this country, come from then?

Peace,
Richard

As we understand it today, it came from the late 1940s and early 1950s (and grew from there). It was the unintended consequence of Roosevelt’s liberalization of the court through his appointments.

The founders were steeped in natural law. The declaration and constitution are natural law documents. Today, through the perverse influence of liberalism, they are interpreted as positive law documents where they mean only what nine robbed masters say they mean. “Freedom of religion” has grown into an unrecognizable mess as a concept - more like Freedom from religion. At the time the constitution was ratified, several states had official state religions - the establishment clause could not have meant what the liberals have morphed it into. The non-establishment clause has become a weapon to smother freedom of speech while all kinds of non-speech is elevated to that lofty protection (e.g. a student cannot pray in school as part of a team prior to a football game but nude dancing is protected “speech”.)

 

[buffalo]

Richard_Hurtz:

Kate,

Where did 'Freedom of Religion", as we understand it in this country, come from then?

Peace,
Richard

Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

katewithak:

It came from the Protestants who were trying very hard to protect themselves from persecution from other Protestants. A most worthy goal and intention the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. But it is well to remember that the Protestants intended it for Protestants, not for the Catholics. Just as they intended the freedoms to be for whites, not blacks. The Protestants intended to protect themselves. They did not foresee blacks and Catholics claiming those freedoms for themselves as well.

I see.

Were the abolitionists of the 19th century all Catholics?

At what point did the black SLAVES “claim those freedoms for themselves”?

How is it that a persecuted minority of Catholics and slaves affected so great a change among their Protestant overlords?

Isn’t it really the case that committed Christians of many denominations created a groundswell of outrage against slavery and clamored for its abolition?

Wasn’t it mostly the Quakers (a Protestant denomination at last check) that was at the forefront in this country of the abolition movement?

To be sure, Protestants represented the largest number of the slave holding class in the US. But, by the same token they represented the largest number of opponents to slavery as well.

The US was largely a Protestant nation. Therefore, in practically any endeavor, they were likely to have the greatest numbers.

Blessings,
Richard

 

[geezerbob]

Richard_Hurtz:

I see.

Were the abolitionists of the 19th century all Catholics?

At what point did the black SLAVES “claim those freedoms for themselves”?

How is it that a persecuted minority of Catholics and slaves affected so great a change among their Protestant overlords?

Isn’t it really the case that committed Christians of many denominations created a groundswell of outrage against slavery and clamored for its abolition?

Wasn’t it mostly the Quakers (a Protestant denomination at last check) that was at the forefront in this country of the abolition movement?

To be sure, Protestants represented the largest number of the slave holding class in the US. But, by the same token they represented the largest number of opponents to slavery as well.

The US was largely a Protestant nation. Therefore, in practically any endeavor, they were likely to have the greatest numbers.

Blessings,
Richard

Nowhere in Kate’s post did I read what you attribute to her. How the simple and true statement she made got twisted into this is beyond me. The latter part of this post is also true but the first part is somewhere out in left field.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

buffalo:

Freedom of religion or freedom from religion?

Unfortunately, the latter has become the goal of too many in our society.

This should come as no surprise though, Man wills himself to be his own god. Freedom from that which acknowledges the True God is only one more step in that process.

Peace to you,
Richard

 

[St.BJLabre]

I see.

Were the abolitionists of the 19th century all Catholics?

At what point did the black SLAVES “claim those freedoms for themselves”?

How is it that a persecuted minority of Catholics and slaves affected so great a change among their Protestant overlords?

Isn’t it really the case that committed Christians of many denominations created a groundswell of outrage against slavery and clamored for its abolition?

Wasn’t it mostly the Quakers (a Protestant denomination at last check) that was at the forefront in this country of the abolition movement?

To be sure, Protestants represented the largest number of the slave holding class in the US. But, by the same token they represented the largest number of opponents to slavery as well.

The US was largely a Protestant nation. Therefore, in practically any endeavor, they were likely to have the greatest numbers.

Blessings,
Richard

Richard,

I don’t think anyone is arguing that Protestants didn’t play a large part in the abolitionist movement. But the vast majority (if not virtually all) of slave owners we Protestant. The majority of Protestants in this country at the time were pro-slavery.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

geezerbob:

Nowhere in Kate’s post did I read what you attribute to her. How the simple and true statement she made got twisted into this is beyond me. The latter part of this post is also true but the first part is somewhere out in left field.

Sorry if you think so. I think that Kate has too low of an opinion of the founding fathers’ motives. And she somehow attributes the abolition of slavery to “blacks claiming rights for themselves” (her words, not mine).

I guess I missed that day’s lecture while I was receiving my Masters in US History.

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Peace,
Richard

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

St.BJLabre:

The majority of Protestants in this country at the time were pro-slavery.

Would you mind sharing the source of the data that you used to arrive at your conclusion, please.

What “time” are you speaking about? The 1820’s, the 1860’s?

How are you using the phrase “pro-slavery”, do you mean dedicated to slavery’s advancement to new states and territories? Or tolerant of it’s existence where it already existed, but opposed to its expansion?

Thanks,
Richard

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

St.BJLabre:

The nativist movement (keep all immigrants and Catholics from voting) in America was strong, fortunately it failed.

Fortunately, it did fail.

 

[katewithak]

Richard_Hurtz:

I see.

Were the abolitionists of the 19th century all Catholics?

At what point did the black SLAVES “claim those freedoms for themselves”?

How is it that a persecuted minority of Catholics and slaves affected so great a change among their Protestant overlords?

Isn’t it really the case that committed Christians of many denominations created a groundswell of outrage against slavery and clamored for its abolition?

Wasn’t it mostly the Quakers (a Protestant denomination at last check) that was at the forefront in this country of the abolition movement?

To be sure, Protestants represented the largest number of the slave holding class in the US. But, by the same token they represented the largest number of opponents to slavery as well.

The US was largely a Protestant nation. Therefore, in practically any endeavor, they were likely to have the greatest numbers.

Blessings,
Richard

Actually, Catholics were not numbered highly among abolitionists. 3 Reasons. The majority of Catholics were looked upon with suspicion by the abolitionists of the Eastern Seaboard. Remember at this time, the Know Nothing Party was still reaping it’s harvest of members, those who wanted no Catholics in political offices. Morse’s book was in high circulation and protestant abolitionists were waging their own war against Catholics to keep Catholics from establishing a monarchy in the U.S. with the Pope as king. Yes, the Protestant abolitionists desired to abolish slavery but they in no way favored freedom of religion for Catholics. Catholics who were financially capable and educationally capable of contributing to the abolitionist cause simply were not allowed to and the rest of the catholics- at that time mostly poor Irish, were struggling to survive against poverty, prejudice and church and school burnings.
Also at that time, the Church had no difinative teachings against slavery except for freedom of religion- the Church demanded that slave owners respect the rights of slaves to receive the Eucharist. Actually the religious status of slaves was a matter of conscience for slave owners as far as the Church went. So no, Catholics did not put in a strong effort in abolition. That went to the Quakers again, just as the protection of Catholics who desired to receive the Eucharist was protected by the Quakers. I might add that the Quakers were the only Protestant group that did not persecute Catholics or blacks. Unfortunately they were in Pennsylvania as theiy were not welcome in other Protestant areas such as New York and Boston. Unfortunate I say, because New York and Boston had the highest numbers of Catholics.

 

[Richard_Hurtz]

katewithak:

Also at that time, the Church had no difinative teachings against slavery except for freedom of religion

There was a definitve teaching regarding ‘freedom of religion’?

Could you tell me how that teaching was promulgated, please.

I was unaware that the Church had made such a teaching official.

Thanks,
Richard

 

[Alfie]

katewithak:

An earlier thread “horrors of the RCC” reminds me of an extreme need we have in the U.S. For years I was a public school teacher until I got a belly full and quit. My issues were over the state standards regulating teaching on abortion, etc. However, something not much mentioned is the terribly skewed history books the children use in American history. Sooner or later we must put together for the sake of our children a truly complete American history book. One that includes what Catholics did and did not do. It is always amazing to me how many adult Catholics, growing up in U.S. schools have absolutely no knowledge of the truth of it’s growth. Their heros are anti catholics, such as Samuel Morse and Ben Franklin. They hold up the wonders of freedom of religion that the Protestants brought with them which is absolutely a fib. Our own people do not know their own history here. Amazing.

If you talked to someone like Bill O’Reilly I don’t think he would agree with all of your statements, especially ones about Franklin and Morse. From what I have read about Franklin he was more influenced by the French Revolution than Protestantism.By the whay the French Revolution did away with the Catholic Church’s corupt control over the French government and the French people.

American history usually only highlights the most important factors that made America into a nation. The greatest nation that there has ever been in all of history. If you compare it with an empire like the Roman Empire the Roman Empire dulls in comparison.

I am not against some history being taught in our schools about blacks, women, Catholics or other groups in America. But that should not replace the most important history that an American should know and that is about America and its creation.

 

[katewithak]

Richard_Hurtz:

There was a definitve teaching regarding ‘freedom of religion’?

Could you tell me how that teaching was promulgated, please.

I was unaware that the Church had made such a teaching official.

Thanks,
Richard

What I meant was the freedom to practice Cahtolicism among slaves of Catholic slave owners.
Pope Gregory XVI condemned the African slave trade in 1839, but slavery itself was allowed so long as the moral and religious rights of the slave, such as the right to stay together as a family and the right to practice the Catholic faith, were respected. Whether they were respected was a matter for the conscience of the slaveholder. As far as the Catholic Bishops of the United States are concerned, they did not take any official position on abolition or the extension of slavery in the United States territories in the west.

 

[Alfie]

St.BJLabre:

Most of what you learn is grade school and even most high school history courses about the freedom loving founders of America is simply a lie. This country has a long history of anti-Catholicism. When the framers wrote about freedom of religion, they tended to mean freedom of religion only for themselves. The nativist movement (keep all immigrants and Catholics from voting) in America was strong, fortunately it failed.

I think it depends on what Catholic nationality you are speaking about. Most German Catholics who came here were well educated or had skills they had learned at trade schools in Germany. I don’t think that the Germans were discriminated against like the Irish Catholics were and that is because the Irish would be considered like the Mexicans are today. Most Irish were unskilled, uneducated and tended to commit more crime than the Germans.