Catholics in American History

[jim1130]

BillP:

If the persecution and exploitation of Catholics was so bad here in the US, then why did millions and millions of Irish, Germans, Italians and Poles come here?

Give me a break.

Kate, you’re simply misreperesenting history. The entire purpose of the 1st Amendment was to make sure there was no religious test of any kind for American’s to participate in politics. That there would be no “penal Laws” like the ones quoted in an ealier post on this thread. To say that the founding fathers didn’t want Catholics to have religious freedom is simply not true. They might have been anti-Catholic, but they believed Catholics were entitled to practice their religion.
.

Please do not be so dismissive of Kate.

Let us remember what historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said (paraphrase): “Anti-Catholic sentiment is the most deeply rooted bias in America.”

Let us also remember that Catholic schools were outlawed in the colonies in the 18th century. Men like Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence (and the last signer to die), had to study in a Catholic school in France.

Although the US Constitution protected religions, states did not universally support this creed. In 1833, the union between Church and State in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was dissolved (up until then, Catholics had to pay for the support of the state’s Protestant Church), New Jersey retained its anti-Catholic Constitution until 1844, and New Hampshire eliminated its “no Catholic may hold public office” matter in 1877. The Tory element in the colonies, mostly associated with the Church of England, evolved in the Federalist Party and worked to assure Protestantism prominence.

John Jay, a Tory who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, created in the State of New York’s Constitution a provision which denied the privilege of citizenship to every foreign-born Catholic unless he would first renounce all allegiance to the pope in matters ecclesiastical. This provision remained in force until 1821.

From this Federalist perspective rose, in the early 19th century, nativists, specifically Protestant Americans (who had endorsed the Aliens Act in the late 18th century to eliminate the rights of immigrants, focused their attention toward Catholics). Rising from this Protestant American nativism was the American Party, better know as the Know-Nothing Party with Samuel Morse as its leader.

The nativists (i.e. Know Nothings) complained that the Catholic immigrants were “superstitious, ignorant, and dominated by their priests.” Anti-Catholicism sentiment and the evils of the Popery were promoted mostly from the pulpit. Catholicism was ridiculed and misrepresented. There were riots in Philadelphia (1844) where Catholic churches were burned and Irish Catholic homes burned and hostile demonstrations, attacks, and violence in Providence, RI (1851),and Boston, Wheeling, WV, St. Louis, and Cincinnati (1853).

The Know-Nothings (formed from the “American Republicans”, the “Order of United Americans”, “Sons of America”, and “United American Mechanics of the United States” and adopted the title of “National Council of the United States of North America” and among the initiate it was called the “Supreme Order of the Star-spangled Banner”) declare in Article II: “the purpose of the organization to be “to protect every American citizen in the legal and proper exercise of all his civil and religious rights and privileges; to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence against our republican institutions in all lawful ways; to place in all offices of honor, trust or profit in the gift of the people or by appointment none but Native American Protestant citizens.” Article III declared “that a member must be a native-born citizen, a Protestant either born of Protestant parents or reared under Protestant influence, and not united in marriage with a Roman Catholic. . .no member who has a Roman Catholic wife shall be eligible to office in this order”, etc.

Thankfully, the Know-Nothings split over the slavery issue, but the Klu Klux Klan added anti-Catholicism to their hate list and it carried through into the 20th century (And the southern colonists were known to have enjoyed a parlor game called “Break the Pope’s Neck”).

Why was John Kennedy’s religious affiliation big deal in 1960?

Why is it a big deal that there are 4 Catholics on the US Supreme Court with a 5th Catholic nominee before the Senate? What other nominee has their religious affiliation scrutinized heavily?

To deny the anti-Catholic sentiment that has run rampant in the country, beginning with the Puritans who left England to escape the Romanish trappings, is to ignore that it continues to this day.

I am not saying this to elicit sympathy or play the martyr, but just present the facts.

 

[katewithak]

To Quote ElizabethAnn:
“You say that you know the truth about history and that no one else understands how deep the anti-Catholicism in our country has gone. The thoughts of anyone who disagrees with your assertions are dismissed, and it seems that the person is ignorant in your estimation.”

Where did I say that? Which post was that? And I do not believe I ever said anything to the depth of anti catholicism. I really don’t think anyone knows that, anyone. I do not see where I have dismissed anyone’s assertions. What I have done is provide facts that were not provided to me or my husband while attending K- 18 grades, and are not provided and even denied to my children that are currently in public school. What I have done is simply provide facts and placed a less than heroic spin on the founding fathers motives. I’m not saying they created the Mayflower Compact to get rid of Catholics. What I am saying is that they wrote it for themselves as persecuted Protestants. I do not think they foresaw an America full of Catholics as well as Protestants. They were writing to deal with their own issues, period. What makes you think that transplanted Protestants from England, who absolutely despised Catholics in England, would suddenly embrace a Catholic America here?
My primary assertion is that the public school give a terribly biased view of American History, very much in favor Protestantism. The textbooks pretty much gloss over the denial of rights to Catholicism and address it only when it comes to the election of John F. Kennedy, as if he was the first Catholic to steop foot on American soil. My children are Catholic and more to the point Irish/English catholic and I would like them to have a better understanding of their history than leprechans, drunks, superstitious Papists and so on.
Sorry, but that is my intention.

 

[katewithak]

“Mad” King George’s Quebec Act of 1774, Colonial-American Freemasonry’s ‘Intolerable Act’ LINK

The Williamite Penal Laws in place against Catholics in the 14 Colony’s at the time of the American Revolution, which the Quebec Act of 1774 enacted by George III would have abrogated

* Catholics could not vote
* Catholics were excluded from all professions and public offices
* Catholics were not allowed a university education
* Catholics could not teach children
* Catholics could not be the guardian of a child
* Catholic men could not marry Protestant women. Catholic women could marry Protestant men because children were brought up in the faith of their father: any children from this sort of mixed marriage would be brought up as Protestants
* Catholics could not buy land
* Catholics could not own a horse worth more than £5
* Catholics could not be given, be sold, or be bequeathed land by Protestants
* All land owned by a Catholic had to be equally divided among his sons on his death, unless one son was a Protestant, in which case he got it all. The law of primogeniture was suspended for Catholics
* All priests had to be registered. All Bishops were exiled.
* Catholic Churches could have neither bells nor steeples
* Pilgrimages were forbidden

Priests did not officially exist since Anglicanism was the established Church. Priests relied on their congregations for gifts of food and money for their survival, while Anglican clergy had vast estates and few parishioners. Roman Catholics had to pay tithes (one tenth of their income) to the Anglican Church, and often paid rents as well.

This is fascinating. Is this telling me that England guaranteed the rights of Roman Catholics in Quebec, which I guess is the 14th colony from England’s point of view and that it was the American colonists themselves who rejected this as one of the Intolerable Acts? It seems that is what I am reading. I guess for a more accurate understanding of Catholic American history, one has to find textbooks from other countries rather than the states, perhaps. I think I will look at what the British and Canadian textbooks have to say. This was a very interesting piece ChurchMilitant. Thank you.

 

[BillP]

jim1130:

Please do not be so dismissive of Kate.

Let us remember what historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. said (paraphrase): “Anti-Catholic sentiment is the most deeply rooted bias in America.”

What he said was prejudice agains the Catholic Church was “the deepest bias in the history of the American people.” I submit that it is a far cry between discriminating against ordinary Catholics and being suspicious of a Church. A church that pre-Vatican II told all and sundry that they weren’t validly married and were going to hell.

Additionally, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlesinger does not enjoy the charism of infallibility, he is just as subject to hyperbole as the rest of us. If Mr. Schlesinger believe what he said he has no experience with the plight of Blacks in the U.S.

jim1130:

Let us also remember that Catholic schools were outlawed in the colonies in the 18th century.

Oh really? You mean schools like Georgetown (1789), or St Mary’s Seminary and University (1791).

There were so few Catholic schools because there were so few Catholics in the US until the waves of Irish imiigration resulting from the Potato Famine.

jim1130:

Although the US Constitution protected religions, states did not universally support this creed.

Until forced to by SCOTUS decision and the increased polictial power of first Irish, later Italian and Polish immigrants. Something that happened generally during the first half of the 19th century (or more than 150 years ago!!) fer crying out loud

As for the Know-Nothings, the Nativists and the Klan, so what? There have always beeen extremist groups, even extremist Catholic groups (St. Bartholomews Day massacre anyone?) and I re-iterate, got anything from this century?

jim1130:

Why was John Kennedy’s religious affiliation big deal in 1960?

Why is it a big deal that there are 4 Catholics on the US Supreme Court with a 5th Catholic nominee before the Senate? What other nominee has their religious affiliation scrutinized heavily?

Both of these are big deals because the Church has stupidly made them a big deal. Americans by and large don’t want to be Catholic. And when there is a secular question on a topic that the Church has spoken on, Americans have a right to expect that the Catholic religion won’t be forced down their throats by public servants who happen to be Catholic.

Take abortion for instance. The SCOTUS says it’s a woman’s right to choose. 70% of Americans support that right in at least some circumstances. The Church says abortion is ALWAYS A GRAVE SIN and should in fact be against the law. In fact they say “you can’t be a good Catholic if you don’t oppose abortion”. The church even goes so far as to say that Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion should be denied communion.

If you were an average non-Catholic American how would you feel about John Robert’s ability to make a decision based on the rule of American Constitutional Law rather than doing the Church’s biding to avoid Hellfire?

jim1130:

To deny the anti-Catholic sentiment that has run rampant in the country, beginning with the Puritans who left England to escape the Romanish trappings, is to ignore that it continues to this day.

That anti-Catholic sentiment was in large part due to the arrogance and intereference in temporal affairs going back to the Reformation, the 30-Years War and Elizabethan England. It was exacerbated by the Church clinging to the Divine Right of Kings despite the progression of Civilization to Democracy. A source by the way for the antipathy of the Founding Fathers toward Catholicism.

Since the reformation Catholics have been viewed by secular governments as having divided loyalties and the Church itself has done everything it can to make sure the people did in fact have divided loyalties. The Church is reaping what it has so improvidently sowed.

But I haven’t found any discrimination against me because I am Catholic. Maybe it’s becauise I live in teh South and they’re too busy discriminatiing against Blacks??

 

[jim1130]

BillP:

What he said was prejudice agains the Catholic Church was “the deepest bias in the history of the American people.” I submit that it is a far cry between discriminating against ordinary Catholics and being suspicious of a Church. A church that pre-Vatican II told all and sundry that they weren’t validly married and were going to hell.

Additionally, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Schlesinger does not enjoy the charism of infallibility, he is just as subject to hyperbole as the rest of us. If Mr. Schlesinger believe what he said he has no experience with the plight of Blacks in the U.S.

Oh really? You mean schools like Georgetown (1789), or St Mary’s Seminary and University (1791).

There were so few Catholic schools because there were so few Catholics in the US until the waves of Irish imiigration resulting from the Potato Famine.

Until forced to by SCOTUS decision and the increased polictial power of first Irish, later Italian and Polish immigrants. Something that happened generally during the first half of the 19th century (or more than 150 years ago!!) fer crying out loud

As for the Know-Nothings, the Nativists and the Klan, so what? There have always beeen extremist groups, even extremist Catholic groups (St. Bartholomews Day massacre anyone?) and I re-iterate, got anything from this century?

Both of these are big deals because the Church has stupidly made them a big deal. Americans by and large don’t want to be Catholic. And when there is a secular question on a topic that the Church has spoken on, Americans have a right to expect that the Catholic religion won’t be forced down their throats by public servants who happen to be Catholic.

Take abortion for instance. The SCOTUS says it’s a woman’s right to choose. 70% of Americans support that right in at least some circumstances. The Church says abortion is ALWAYS A GRAVE SIN and should in fact be against the law. In fact they say “you can’t be a good Catholic if you don’t oppose abortion”. The church even goes so far as to say that Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion should be denied communion.

If you were an average non-Catholic American how would you feel about John Robert’s ability to make a decision based on the rule of American Constitutional Law rather than doing the Church’s biding to avoid Hellfire?

That anti-Catholic sentiment was in large part due to the arrogance and intereference in temporal affairs going back to the Reformation, the 30-Years War and Elizabethan England. It was exacerbated by the Church clinging to the Divine Right of Kings despite the progression of Civilization to Democracy. A source by the way for the antipathy of the Founding Fathers toward Catholicism.

Since the reformation Catholics have been viewed by secular governments as having divided loyalties and the Church itself has done everything it can to make sure the people did in fact have divided loyalties. The Church is reaping what it has so improvidently sowed.

But I haven’t found any discrimination against me because I am Catholic. Maybe it’s becauise I live in teh South and they’re too busy discriminatiing against Blacks??

AllI can think of is a line from the movie “Seabsquit”: “Why are oyu so angry?”

 

[Church_Militant]

But I haven’t found any discrimination against me because I am Catholic. Maybe it’s becauise I live in teh South and they’re too busy discriminatiing against Blacks??

Well I live in the deep South and I blessed well have!

 

[BillP]

Church Militant:

Well I live in the deep South and I blessed well have!

How?

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

one of my favorite books that challenges some traditional depictions of the Church in history is Forgotten Catholic Heroes by Michael Genin. It is written in story form, so it is very interesting to read.

It only has one American story in it-the last chapter celebrates Catholic priests in the Civil War. The other chapters cover European events but from a Catholic perspective.

It would be a great read for anyone. It is very readable and my 12 year old enjoyed, too.

 

[BillP]

jim1130:

AllI can think of is a line from the movie “Seabsquit”: “Why are oyu so angry?”

That’s your answer? I take the time and trouble to answer you point by point and your reply is to fire a off a cheap one-liner dismissing me as “angry”? Come on, you can do better than that.

I’m a little frustrated because we are members of a Church that does everything it can to foster divided loyalties among its adherents and then complains that Catholics have, in the past been viewed with suspicion becasue of those divided loyalties. the suspicion is a natural consequence of the Church’s actions over the past 500 years.

 

[katewithak]

BillP:

That’s your answer? I take the time and trouble to answer you point by point and your reply is to fire a off a cheap one-liner dismissing me as “angry”? Come on, you can do better than that.

I’m a little frustrated because we are members of a Church that does everything it can to foster divided loyalties among its adherents and then complains that Catholics have, in the past been viewed with suspicion becasue of those divided loyalties. the suspicion is a natural consequence of the Church’s actions over the past 500 years.

Good heavens Bill, I am not complaining in the slightest except about inaccuracies in American school teaching. If the country had concerns about divided loyalites, and the San Patricios are a good example of why that could be an issue, then the textbooks should say so. If the Founding Fathers despised Catholics, than the textbooks should say so. If the Protestants were concerned that the Church would put a Pope in as President, then the textbooks should say so. I’m not complaining at all about poor treatment. I am complaining about poor teaching due to poor textbooks due to bias in favor of which- anti catholicism or pro protestantism. I’m not sure which. But complaining about poor treatment? No. Bless the martyrs I say. I love martyrs. I attend all their feastdays. I want my children to be taught these things. I want my children to hear about the “traitorous” “cowardly” “disloyal” San Patricios. What splendid role models for my children. They already have the most highly decorated air force colonel for a great uncle and a totally military family for role models. I think I would like them also to be taught about San Patricios.

 

[adnauseum]

Being unable to defend the previous abuses of the protestant majority, one of the anti-Catholics here demanded examples from “this century.”

Let’s start with this one, and it will make your blood boil: a government-sponsored protestant adoption agency refuses to place children with Catholic parents.

mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12142357.htm

 

[katewithak]

adnauseum:

Being unable to defend the previous abuses of the protestant majority, one of the anti-Catholics here demanded examples from “this century.”

Let’s start with this one, and it will make your blood boil: a government-sponsored protestant adoption agency refuses to place children with Catholic parents.

mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12142357.htm

That is totally fair except they probably should not be receiving federal monies. They are a private faith based group and so they have a right to deny Catholics from the legal point of view. But I’m not sure they can continue to receive federal monies while doing so, can they?

 

[BillP]

katewithak:

Good heavens Bill, I am not complaining in the slightest except about inaccuracies in American school teaching. If the country had concerns about divided loyalites, and the San Patricios are a good example of why that could be an issue, then the textbooks should say so. If the Founding Fathers despised Catholics, than the textbooks should say so. If the Protestants were concerned that the Church would put a Pope in as President, then the textbooks should say so.

Well, I’m only 42 years old and I was educated in Public Schools but I was taught these things. I guess your experience was different.

 

[adnauseum]

katewithak:

That is totally fair except they probably should not be receiving federal monies. They are a private faith based group and so they have a right to deny Catholics from the legal point of view. But I’m not sure they can continue to receive federal monies while doing so, can they?

They receive federal money because of President Bush’s “faith-based” initiatives.

I agree with you, if it were a private adoption agency excluding Catholics from adoption, that would be mere private bigotry. But when evangelicals take government money to fund their bigotry, that’s something else.

 

[BillP]

katewithak:

That is totally fair except they probably should not be receiving federal monies. They are a private faith based group and so they have a right to deny Catholics from the legal point of view. But I’m not sure they can continue to receive federal monies while doing so, can they?

Yes, “faith-based” organizations can discriminate in employment

*** Will the way in which our faith-based organization hires employees change if we receive Federal funding? ***

In most circumstances, no. There is no general Federal law that prohibits  faith-based organizations that receive Federal funds from hiring on a religious  basis.

But not in who they provide services to:

*** If our organization receives Federal funds, can it choose not to provide services to some people? ***

No.  If you take Federal money you may not discriminate against a person seeking  help who is eligible for the service. For example, if you are a religious  organization and receive public money to run an emergency food distribution program,  you may not serve only persons of your faith and turn away others.  In addition,  and as discussed above, you may not require those you serve to profess a certain  faith or participate in  religious activities, in order to receive the service you  provide for the Federal government.

whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance/partnering.html#9

However, the adoption agency in question received its funding from the sale of special license plate in the State of Mississippi. And it was only $7000 or so.

Ask youself, would you want a Catholic adoption agency pplacing kids in Jewish, Muslim or even Baptist homes?

 

[katewithak]

BillP:

Well, I’m only 42 years old and I was educated in Public Schools but I was taught these things. I guess your experience was different.

Well, I’m 50. My daughter is 12. My son is 15. And we were not taught these things. I was taught however that the Founding Fathers were almost gods who foresaw complete freedom of religion and rejected all prejudice and racism and experienced great sorrow that they could not end slavery right there at the signing of the Declaration.Imagine my shock when years later in a teaching academy I discovered what they really thought of me.
Of course, I also grew up believing that all Indians existed for was to kill peaceful white settlers who meant no harm. I also grew up hearing that the only thing black men wanted were white women. But then, I really was from the South. An Arkie.News flash. In the South, growing up, everybody, but everybody was discriminated against. Just some of the them had better weapons. Blacks despised whites, Protestants despised Catholics, whites despised blacks, and everyone despised the Yankees. And we all agreed that blacks made the best basketball players. (Of course, we all watched a lot of roller derby as well.)

 

[jim1130]

BillP:

That’s your answer? I take the time and trouble to answer you point by point and your reply is to fire a off a cheap one-liner dismissing me as “angry”? Come on, you can do better than that.

I’m a little frustrated because we are members of a Church that does everything it can to foster divided loyalties among its adherents and then complains that Catholics have, in the past been viewed with suspicion becasue of those divided loyalties. the suspicion is a natural consequence of the Church’s actions over the past 500 years.

If you read my last line, I was not playing victim or martyr, just presenting out the facts. I was not “Oh, woe is me.”

When I read your response to my writing, I felt this anger and hostility originating from you that made me decide just to back away. Did I have ancestors (I’m Irish/English) discriminated against? Probably, but nothing was handed down through oral tradition to me so I can speculate, but choose not too.

I think that the Know-Nothings, nativist movement, and KKK are pretty strong examples of anti-Catholic sentiment that cannot be dismissed. I am curious to know those specific political parties that originated to promote Catholicism at the expense of Protestantism; those Catholic political parties that outlawed Protestants from holding public office.

Speaking of politics: I do not think that it is anyone’s business that JFK was Catholic. Wonder where the paranoia was learned? If John Roberts is Catholic and that makes him a wiser Supreme Court justice then so be it.

The anti-popery of the 19th century is prevalent in this day and age.

As for Georgetown (my “oops” on this one; I should have clarified that no Catholic schools existed during British rule), it was created after the colonies became the United States. John Carroll, the founder, was American-born, but schooled in Europe (no Catholic schools here). He was the first Catholic Bishop in America and founded Georgetown in 1789. Wonder what took so long to get a Catholic college here?

And St. Mary’s was the first Catholic Seminary (in 1791). Again, after creation of the US, not before (again, should have clarified).

(Charles Carroll, the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence, had to attend Catholic schools in Europe.)

If you are in the south then you may know what is the southern colonist parlor game called “Break the Pope’s Neck”? I’ve heard of it, but am not sure how it is played or really anything more about it except that it is not flattering imagery.

Again, I am just sharing what I learned. I am not into the victim game.

 

[BillP]

adnauseum:

Being unable to defend the previous abuses of the protestant majority, one of the anti-Catholics here demanded examples from “this century.”

Uh, sorry I missed this the first time around. I am a Catholic.

adnauseum:

Let’s start with this one, and it will make your blood boil: a government-sponsored protestant adoption agency refuses to place children with Catholic parents.

mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12142357.htm

I honestly don’t see anything wrong withg this. WOuld you expect a Catholic adoption agency to place kids in Muslim, Jewish or Atheist homes? They probably should forgo the measly $7500 they get from the great state of Mississippi though.

 

[katewithak]

BillP:

Uh, sorry I missed this the first time around. I am a Catholic.

I honestly don’t see anything wrong withg this. WOuld you expect a Catholic adoption agency to place kids in Muslim, Jewish or Atheist homes? They probably should forgo the measly $7500 they get from the great state of Mississippi though.

actually, I think kids who need homes should go to the best home available. I think it was mother teresa who said Muslims should be the best Muslims they could be, Hindus should be the best hindus they should be…

As far as never experiencing discrimination in the South- come on Bill, are you pulling the wool over the eyes of this Arkie?
Look, first hand. My Mother grew up in Hot Springs and Little Rock. My grandpa was born in Redfield. My mom was expelled from Central High School 8 years before the fact because she wrote an English essay that was pro desegregation. She was a straight A junior at the time. Later she won through audition without finishing high school a full scholarship to the New England Conservatory of Music. But in the meantime she was completely humiliated. The principle, as my mother and grandparents left the room, claimed to the secretary- “it’s not her fault really. she’s under the spell of the Whore. How can she not speak for the devil?”
True story, Bill. the South is not all mint juleps and magnolias, and forward thinking founding fathers.

 

[BillP]

jim1130:

Speaking of politics: I do not think that it is anyone’s business that JFK was Catholic. Wonder where the paranoia was learned? If John Roberts is Catholic and that makes him a wiser Supreme Court justice then so be it.

Here is my problem with it as a Catholic. The President of the US is charged with

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

According to the Vatican all Catholics have an obligation to act in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church at all times. Sometimes a President is going to have to decide which of these priorities is more important to him. I think the voters have a right to know his views on that issue. I also think the non-Catholic voters of the US (76%) have a right to demand a President who will give the Law of the US his first loyalty over the requirements of the Catholic religion. I believe the Catholics get this question because we are the only religion that makes such an issue with Obedience and Infallibility.

One can easily imagine a circumstance where the Pope or a Bishop would feel called to give orders to a sitting President or threaten him with religious sanction. In fact, several Bishops saw fit to issue demands and threats to several U.S. Senators as recently as last fall. I can imagine no other Church or Denomination attempting to do that.

jim1130:

The anti-popery of the 19th century is prevalent in this day and age.

We are simply going to have to disagree on this. We must live in different worlds. You see something as prevalent that I have never experienced.