Plight of Catholocism under the British System

[reggieM]

I wonder if the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster would be happy to take on the enormous cost of maintaining England’s historic churches?

Revenues were stolen along with the buildings. People were forced to attend under pain of death so the congregations were stolen also and a new religion was propagandized by the government.
So, I guess the CofE is doing the Cardinal a favor by keeping the churches?

 

[Picky_Picky]

Arguments about whose ancestors paid for them would be interesting.

Yes. Very often it was the lord of the manor who had the church built and donated glebe land for the support of the clergy. The legal position of some of the successors to these arrangements can be complicated and expensive.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability

 

[Picky_Picky]

As I said, this is anachronistic. Your word “coloring” is good. They were “painted” as something they weren’t. The English Catholics were not traitors. They were being persecuted by the government for their religious belief. And it was the English government who forced a new religion on them. From the Catholics perspective, this was schismatic. Yes, Catholic properties and churches were stolen also.

Now we’re 450 years later, in the 21st century. My point is that we still have people in England (and elsewhere, obviously) who think that what happened to the Catholics was either not significant, or that the Catholics were to blame for the government takeover of the church. This is absurd.

As I also said, this situation is not going to change unless/until the CofE separates from the state, which of course, may never happen.

My point regarding Guy Fawkes (in Sussex they still burn effigies of the Pope) is that this is merely a more overt and public display of anti-Catholicism that still exists in England. Yes, thankfully, it has 450 years of some amount of healing. Healing of this kind of evil goes through stages from hatred, to denial, to ignoring it, to accepting it, to apologizing for it, to making reparations. We’re somewhere around the “ignoring it” stage. It will probably be a hundred years before there is some contrition for what happened.

Yes, it’s a good comparison to how America dealt with slaves. There’s a collective guilt. Later generations will say they had nothing to do with it. But for the people who were persecuted, they can see an attitude still resident in society that doesn’t go away easily. Call it racism or prejudice or whatever. If this was all just some historic thing, entirely gone now - that would be one thing. But if the attitudes and subtle prejudices live on, then that’s what the OP is addressing.

Sure, it’s difficult for the oppressors (and the ancestors of them) to accept or realize any of this.

But I’ll close with the irony of a society that is hyper-sensitive to the way we treat pets, or other minorities (gays, trans, Muslims, Jews) - can’t even see that Catholics were trying to protect their religion, and that includes Guy Fawkes. Hatred for the English government was a result of the persecution and oppression Catholic people faced for adhering to their faith. The Catholic martyrs were not traitors - and they many denied being that in their last words before being killed. They were killed for their faith, not as political rebels.

People today, right here on this thread, can’t see that or admit it.

It’s guilt and nationalism - and blindness because of the centuries-old historical cover-up of how King Henry and his successors unjustly persecuted people who had done nothing wrong. They merely wanted to adhere to the Catholic religion of their English forefathers. English historians spent the last 4 centuries covering this up and distorting it. Look at the response to data showing Shakespeare’s Catholic background. It’s blatantly obvious. Anti-Catholicism was built into the structure of modern (post Henry VIII) England.

Ok, fine - that was centuries ago. But that’s all the more reason that a 21st century person should just face the facts and admit what happened – and show as much sensitivity and concern for the persecuted Catholics as they do for other popular minorites these days.

But there clearly is contrition for what happened, just as there is contrition over the fate of the Protestant martyrs. There is no cover-up, it’s just that there is more than one side to this history. Yes, the Gunpowder Plotters, for instance, were trying to protect their religion, but to suggest they were not also traitors just flies in the face of the facts: they were religious terrorists (but you can call them freedom fighters if you will) trying to destroy the government of their country. Yes some of the Catholic martyrs under Elizabeth were just trying to protect their religion, but those conspiring to murder her were also traitors. Were they not?

You have said nothing (I think) about those dissenters persecuted and killed under Mary I. Does that mean there is some Catholic conspiracy and cover-up? Not it doesn’t.

 

[reggieM]

There is no cover-up, it’s just that there is more than one side to this history.

Ok, I appreciate your opinion and I think you responded honestly, even though I disagree.

Yes, the Gunpowder Plotters, for instance, were trying to protect their religion, but to suggest they were not also traitors just flies in the face of the facts: they were religious terrorists (but you can call them freedom fighters if you will) trying to destroy the government of their country.

They were trying to defend their religion, yes. Traitors - no.

You have said nothing (I think) about those dissenters persecuted and killed under Mary I.

I didn’t say anything because nobody in England thinks Mary’s opponents were traitors. They’ll claim they were good Protestant believers fighting for faith. This proves my point. The whole Bloody Mary thing is too obvious to even mention - but I just did, so there it is. Anti-Catholicism is just part of the culture. People can try to get rid of it, but it will take time.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Ok, I appreciate your opinion and I think you responded honestly, even though I disagree.

They were trying to defend their religion, yes. Traitors - no.

I didn’t say anything because nobody in England thinks Mary’s opponents were traitors. They’ll claim they were good Protestant believers fighting for faith. This proves my point. The whole Bloody Mary thing is too obvious to even mention - but I just did, so there it is. Anti-Catholicism is just part of the culture. People can try to get rid of it, but it will take time.

Well, fine, we disagree.

 

[Vonsalza]

Yes, the Gunpowder Plotters, for instance, were trying to protect their religion, but to suggest they were not also traitors just flies in the face of the facts: they were religious terrorists

I think it’s a given in post-modern thought that there are no objective terrorists aside from, perhaps, dyed-in-the-wool anarchists.

You’re a traitor and a terrorist if you “lose” and the winners thusly get to brand you as such.

On the other hand, you’re a patriot and founding-father if you “win”.

Your actions were the same either way.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, it’s a good comparison to how America dealt with slaves. There’s a collective guilt. Later generations will say they had nothing to do with it. But for the people who were persecuted, they can see an attitude still resident in society that doesn’t go away easily. Call it racism or prejudice or whatever. If this was all just some historic thing, entirely gone now - that would be one thing. But if the attitudes and subtle prejudices live on, then that’s what the OP is addressing.

Whether the issue is racism or anti-Catholicism, let’s deal with the issues that we are facing TODAY. If there is a bias or a problem or an exclusion TODAY, let’s take steps, going forward from TODAY, to deal with it.

History is good sometimes for understanding a context or a background as to why things today ended up how they are, but I completely reject the idea of “collective guilt” for things that I didn’t cause and had no control over, including things that happened way before I was even born. Trying to impose this sort of guilt on any group of people, whether it’s whites, Catholics, Church of England, or all men for oppressing women, etc. is unproductive and clouds the issue of actually getting something positive accomplished in the way of removing obstacles to unity and ending oppression TODAY. Do you want to help the problem or just make a lot of people say “huh, not my problem, I wasn’t even on earth, what are you complaining about, whiners, go away”.

And when I start picking my battles to end prejudice against Catholics, doing away with somebody’s Guy Fawkes fireworks party is way way way way down the list.

 

[Vonsalza]

My point is that we still have people in England (and elsewhere, obviously) who think that what happened to the Catholics was either not significant, or that the Catholics were to blame for the government takeover of the church. This is absurd.

Verily. Most without a religious “dog in the fight” give general assent that the takeover of the Church in England was overwhelmingly Henry VIII’s doing.

As I also said, this situation is not going to change unless/until the CofE separates from the state, which of course, may never happen.

Given the current and perceived trajectory of participation by the laity and crossed with the cost of just building upkeep, the CoE likely couldn’t survive that transition. When a denomination reaches a certain point in the journey toward progressivism, “Why even go to Church?” becomes an increasingly pertinent question.
Some like Dr. Diarmaid MacColloch continue out of love of orthopraxy. But most don’t seem to share his love.

 

[Clevus]

No one is saying to remain silent, but I think some people have been gently trying to urge caution in how we assign responsibility for complex historical social, religious, and political controversies. To say that “the British System” is evil because it persecuted Catholics is simplistic. You could just as easily say the “Catholic System” is evil because at various times heretics were suppressed even when they operated outside of the Catholic Church.

I mean every single person who is part of any religious or ethnic group can point fingers to a hundred other groups all day but finger pointing does not change history–it only wastes time in an everlasting game of blame shifting. By all means, remember injustice and learn from history but don’t go to the extreme of labeling entire nations “evil”.

It is important to consider the moral integrity of the British in the form they desired to be recognized, a collective entity. The subjects of that body desired and placed all their decision making in the hands of one man, the head. So they did so even when it was foreknown that man is capable of error, and they also trusted he will make decisions in the interest of the common good, only to yield to the rights of those subjects when the legislation as passed it’s intended purpose.(not withstanding good monarchs, some making use of the state of fear tended to become self motivated).

They had the duty collectively to overthrow the throne because of his hardened heart, but they didn’t. The plight of their subjects was the paramount issue.

Nations desire collectivization, and they evidence this by their appeals for Divine intervention collectively, and their desire for mercy collectively. Their successes and ills of their decision making is distributed among the subjects. We recall that the Amalakites* were taken to account of their Godless ways, and there was no democracy here either.

As for the Catholic Church, it will always be perfect, a faceted jewel, and her ministers strive to become holy as is expected of them. You will note this collective doesn’t forget either, and sets the example by not covering the injustices, or hide those ministers who attempt to taint her reputation(as if the gates of hell could prevail against it.).So there is no comparison. The Church has always picked up and tried to make right when it’s ministers stumbled.

The King had made a Catholic baptismal promise to obey the Church, and the Credo was a prayer he also said. He should have put his faith in God with his ancestral concerns. Taking it to the people was an option of a humble king, “what is it do you wish me to do in my difficulty?” would have raised a shout of loyalty and cohesive bond among them that the likes have never been seen in Britain.

The issue is one of Justice, and even now from all parts of the world we attempt to right wrongs.

            *"His just penalty will be reserved. Whole nations come within the compass of

His rod. By the individuals composing a community, and whose personal welfare a woe is necessarily identified with the condition of the community, there is a great danger that the national sin should be regarded rather as an abstraction than as a reality, rather as an ideal than a substantial criminality. But it is not thus that God, in the incident before us, deals with it. He affixes it, as a substantive charge, upon the community."

*Saul, The First King of Israel" - Joseph A Miller(Congregational Church, Windsor)

 

[Vonsalza]

Granted. We must find a way forward as we cannot return to Eden.

 

[GKC]

Yep.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes. Very often it was the lord of the manor who had the church built and donated glebe land for the support of the clergy. The legal position of some of the successors to these arrangements can be complicated and expensive.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chancel_repair_liability

It’s not just that, many of the great landowning families of England, to this day, made their fortunes/family fortunes out of the dissolution of the monasteries etc (far, far more significant in terms of wealth than the current stock of CofE Churches and their historic roof replacement bills). All part of the development of capitalism, of course.

England was just early in the process of redistributing the accumulated wealth of the Church.

 

[GKC]

Yep. Cartoon cutouts.

 

[Picky_Picky]

It’s not just that, many of the great landowning families of England, to this day, made their fortunes/family fortunes out of the dissolution of the monasteries etc (far, far more significant in terms of wealth than the current stock of CofE Churches and their historic roof replacement bills). All part of the development of capitalism, of course.

England was just early in the process of redistributing the accumulated wealth of the Church.

Yes indeed. Many of the great families made their fortunes that way. Most of the rest came over with the Conqueror and stole from the English. Bloomin’ French, eh? I’ll try to work myself into a tizzy about them.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Like the English jokey stuff about the French, which I have just illustrated. Pleasant and humorous: unless it ends up in Brexit.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes indeed. Many of the great families made their fortunes that way. Most of the rest came over with the Conqueror and stole from the English. Bloomin’ French, eh? I’ll try to work myself into a tizzy about them.

Exactly, the land had been stolen from the Anglo-Saxons and distributed to Norman leaders and the Norman Church hierarchy.

So, you’re allowed to get into a tizzy about the whole Viking/Viking-Russ/Normans/Normans in Sicily etc business as well. There’s an awful lot of naughtiness to be acknowledged.

 

[Vonsalza]

Verily, Christianity in England has a complex story. But frankly, Christianity most everywhere else has a complex story as well.

So no, the origin of the CoE may not be fully, 100% because of Henry VIII. Concession readily and enthusiastically granted (it may be more like 98% ). But the adage quoted by your older family members does indeed contain “a small amount of truth”.

The deeds of Hank play an unambiguously critical role in the locus of origin for the CoE. As such, there will forever and always be an ontological concern inherent to the CoE; as all conclusions inherit the virtues of their premises.

Just looking at it from a purely polemic stance, that concern creates a critical need to obfuscate and minimize his involvement as much as possible for anyone who feels compelled to defend the legitimacy of the CoE. Another, less valid tactic would be to turn the focus back onto my partner concerning another matter.

And I think we see that. At least, when the threads on this specific topic don’t get deleted.

 

[reggieM]

I guess it’s just like getting in a tizzy about the Norman Invasion or the Vikings.
Ancient history - no lingering effects. Predjudice? What?

However, the sections that ban Catholic succession were not repealed. Catholics are still officially termed as being “naturally dead and deemed to be dead” in terms of succession. This distinction was first legislated in the Bill of Rights 1689.[26] Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con) also confirmed “the Act of Settlement deems somebody who has been a Catholic for a minute to be ‘dead’ in terms of the succession, and it passes over them ‘as if they were dead’. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead”. Mark Durkan (SDLP) tried to compare this with McCarthyism, “In effect, it is the McCarthyite question: ‘Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic?’ For anybody who has ever been a Catholic in any shape or form, that is it, they are out; they count as dead for these purposes”.[27] The ban continues.

 

[Vonsalza]

I guess it’s just like getting in a tizzy about the Norman Invasion or the Vikings.
Ancient history - no lingering effects. Predjudice? What?

However, the sections that ban Catholic succession were not repealed. Catholics are still officially termed as being “naturally dead and deemed to be dead” in terms of succession. This distinction was first legislated in the Bill of Rights 1689.[26] Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con) also confirmed “the Act of Settlement deems somebody who has been a Catholic for a minute to be ‘dead’ in terms of the succession, and it passes over them ‘as if they were dead’. It is an absolute. If at any moment in their whole life they were in communion with Rome, they are excluded from the throne, deemed to be dead”. Mark Durkan (SDLP) tried to compare this with McCarthyism, “In effect, it is the McCarthyite question: ‘Are you now or have you ever been a Catholic?’ For anybody who has ever been a Catholic in any shape or form, that is it, they are out; they count as dead for these purposes”.[27] The ban continues.

Ah, I thought they’d finally done away with that.

Prince William’s wife grew up as a “Romanist”, from what I hear.

The “Jacobites” may at long-last win back the throne, if with a different lineage.

 

[Ridgerunner]

When I was a kid, I knew who all had been active in the KKK. The best citizens, by and large. My father was in business, and sometimes masons (same membership as the KKK) would come to his house to do business because they didn’t want to be seen patronizing him. he was good at what he did.

I grew up among Fundamentalists, and really didn’t have a bad time from them. When I was in public school, they were just as dumped on by the town mainliners as we Catholics were. Some of my best friends, to this day, are Fundamentalists, and we agree on a lot. They are the major source of converts in my parish, at least. There’s less difference between us and them than most people realize.