Posted on 10/28/2009 12:33:39 PM PDT by Gamecock
A funny thing happened on the way to the twenty-first century. Roman Catholics went from being the most un-American Christians in the United States to one of the nation's most supportive religious groups.
Only four decades ago, John F. Kennedy, while running for President, had to explain to Protestants that he would not put his allegiance to the Pope above his vow to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Today, conservative Protestants not only see nothing wrong with, but take encouragement from, Roman Catholics providing the most conservative interpretations of the Constitution as justices on the Supreme Court. The reversal of American Protestant attitudes toward Roman Catholics during the second half of the twentieth century was truly remarkable.
For most of the nation's history, Roman Catholics were the religious group most feared by American Protestants. Anti-Catholicism in America rested on a constellation of ideas that linked the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, and American democracy. According to this view, Protestantism was chiefly responsible for the advancement of political liberty and cultural progress. It stood for freedom, open inquiry, learning, and impartiality, while Roman Catholicism symbolized the opposite: tyranny, ignorance, superstition, and bigotry.
An early example of American Protestant prejudice against Roman Catholicism was Lyman Beecher's A Plea for the West (1835). When this New England Congregationalist moved to Ohio to preside over Lane Seminary, he became alarmed by the large number of Catholics who were streaming into the American heartland. One of his main objections to Roman Catholicism was the papacy's refusal to acknowledge the separation of church and state. In his view, Catholicism could not sustain a free and democratic society. He wrote:
The Sabbath, and the preaching of the gospel, are Heaven's consecrated instrumentality for the efficacious administration of the government of mind in a happy social state. By these only does the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his beams; and ignorance, and vice, and superstition encamp around evangelical institutions, to run in wherever their light and power is extinct. (pp. 41-42)
Beecher never spelled out the precise relationship between Protestantism and American politics. For most American Protestants, the connections between Protestant faith and American liberty were so intimate as to be obvious. Consequently, Beecher believed that Roman Catholics, simply by living in the United States, would recognize the authoritarianism of their own faith. Here is the way he put this hope:
If [Roman Catholics] associated with republicans, the power of caste would wear away. If they mingled in our schools, the republican atmosphere would impregnate their minds. If they scattered, unassociated, the attrition of circumstances would wear off their predilections and aversions. If they could read the Bible, and might and did, their darkened intellect would brighten, and their bowed down mind would rise. If they dared to think for themselves, the contrast of protestant independence with their thraldom, would awaken the desire of equal privileges, and put an end to an arbitrary clerical dominion over trembling superstitious minds. (p. 118)
Fifty years later, Josiah Strong, another Congregationalist minister, likewise asserted the dependence of American liberty on the right kind of faith in his popular book Our Country: Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis (1885). In fact, the ties between Protestantism and political liberty informed the most aggressive anti-Catholic books of the twentieth century, such as Paul Blanshard's American Freedom and Catholic Power (1949).
Conservative Presbyterians were not immune from this fear of and hostility to Rome. In his popular book, Roman Catholicism (1962), Lorraine Boettner identified Roman Catholicism as one of the two "totalitarian systems" threatening the United States. For Boettner, Rome's teaching was even more dangerous than Communism because "it covers its real nature with the cloak of religion" (p. 3).
This form of anti-Catholicism, however, proved to be no match for a Roman Catholic hierarchy that after 1960 signaled a different attitude to American forms of government. The Second Vatican Council, for instance, mandated that the church engage the modern world, dropped Rome's inveterate hostility to democracy, and recognized the fundamental right of freedom of conscience. Even more noticeably, John Paul II was an ally in the defeat of Communism and the defense of Christianity in a world teaming with immorality and secularism. Consequently, the last fifty years of Roman Catholic history have proved the traditional American Protestant critique of Rome to be woefully off target.
American Presbyterians should have known better than to identify Protestantism with American political ideals, if only through reading the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 20 on Christian liberty is straightforward in distinguishing liberty in Christ (spiritual) from political freedom (civil):
The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind. (20.1)
Liberty in Christ has nothing to do with the sort of political freedom that the American War for Independence granted to American citizens. The Confession adds:
And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. (20.4)
As much as this statement may have raised questions about the propriety of the events of 1776, it was just as strong in declaring that political and religious freedom are distinct matters. The Christian suffering under the greatest form of political tyranny is still the beneficiary of the greatest expression of freedom ever known to the human race.
The mistake that American Protestants made in opposing Rome was not to worry about Roman Catholic teaching about liberty. The liberties that believers enjoy in Christ are substantial and lead them to appreciate all the benefits of redemption. The problem was to confuse liberty in Christ with political freedom. American Protestants compounded this mistake by attacking Roman Catholicism for resisting the forms of liberal democracy that arose from the revolutions in America (1776) and France (1789). Ultimately, this confusion has led many American Protestants to lessen their opposition to Rome, now that the Vatican appears to be a valuable partner in the defense of the West and its Christian heritage. Why be anti-Catholic when Catholics are defending the social standards and political institutions that American Protestants consider to be under attack from liberal secularists?
Despite the recent thaw in relations between American Protestants and Roman Catholics, Protestants still need to be anti-Catholic for reasons having very much to do with liberty. The liberty that Protestants should defend, however, has little to do with the United States or its political ideals. Instead, the liberty for which Protestants must fight is the freedom that believers enjoy through the once-for-all redeeming work of Christ. As the Heidelberg Catechism so eloquently puts it, our sole comfort is that Christ has "fully paid for all [our] sins with his precious blood and has set [us] free from the tyranny of the devil" (Q. 1).
Rome tries to offer a version of Christian liberty, but in its teaching about merit, the Virgin Mary, purgatory, and the accomplishments of saints, it yields a version of freedom that is ultimately spiritual bondage. This is so because Rome's understanding of salvation still does not acknowledge the complete sufficiency of Christ for freedom from sin, guilt, death, and the devil. Thus, American Protestants should continue to oppose Roman Catholicism, not because of American conceptions of political freedom, but because of the Reformation's notion of spiritual liberty.
Of course there was another side to this coin. There were many sides to this coin. After the 1620s the Huguenots were not allowed to flee to Canada from Catholic France. Puritans in New England and Catholics in Maryland and Quakers in Pennsylvania fled to escape persecution in Anglican England.
No claim is being made here that Catholics were warm and fuzzy and everyone else was a barbarian. I am instead taking issue with the pat idea that Protestantism proved an ideological bulwark in the New World against religious oppression exemplified by Catholicism. That is pure historical fiction. All kinds of sects and churches were in fierce competition during the time, and religious toleration was a compromise born of necessity.
An ecumenical tag on an article that starts with as antagonistic a statement as this?Please.
Kind of like how I feel when I see something along the line of "Mary's CoRedemptrix, You'd Better Believe It [Ecumenical, y'all play nice]".
I note that they byline is Darryl Hart, whom I've found to be an interesting read in the past, so I'll probably read this one.
“”However, in doing so, we must challenge Catholicism””
By doing so you might end up becoming Catholic if you’re humble and honest with yourself,dear friend
I was once on your side of the fence and when I realized what was being challenged was about individuals who did bad things who did not follow Catholic teachings on faith and morals it became clear to me that following the Dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church is exactly following Christ.
The next step was to read the lives of the Early Church fathers and it became very clear that Jesus gave us a visible Church,not some invisible body of confused believers who read the Bible on their own with no unity.
Anything that lacks unity can be conquered easily and the fact the Catholic Church is still standing and protestantism or home bible readers who don;t belong to any denomination are divided has completely convinced me I follow the true church.
Furthermore ,I can back up all of the teachings of the Catholic Church through the writings of the very humble Church fathers -many who gave their lives in martyrdom out of extreme humility and love for Christ
“”I am instead taking issue with the pat idea that Protestantism proved an ideological bulwark in the New World against religious oppression””
Protestantism because of it’s ability to divide individuals in Christianity can be used by communist and socialism and other groups as a tool as Pope Leo XIII pointed out.
Excerpt from Encyclical written in 1949
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9nostis.htm
“You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings. But these enemies realize that they cannot hope for any agreement with the Catholic Church, which allows neither tampering with truths proposed by faith, nor adding any new human fictions to them. This is why they try to draw the Italian people over to Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God. Meanwhile they know full well that the chief principle of the Protestant tenets, i.e., that the holy scriptures are to be understood by the personal judgment of the individual, will greatly assist their impious cause. They are confident that they can first misuse the holy scriptures by wrong interpretation to spread their errors and claim God’s authority while doing it. Then they can cause men to call into doubt the common principles of justice and honor.”
Thank you. Very interesting and insightful article.
Here's an area where we can agree. None of the state churches had clean hands and I don't think any difference in numbers mitigates unchristian behavior.
I am instead taking issue with the pat idea that Protestantism proved an ideological bulwark in the New World against religious oppression exemplified by Catholicism.
The Roman Catholics may have been there first, but the churches that emerged during the reformation did their share. Would you agree that it's understandable to a degree that there would be an inherent distrust/dislike for RC's because they were the dominant church for so long and had a longer history of persecuting Christians who did not submit to their authority?
The great thing about our country is we do not have a state mandated religion. No doubt this is because of what came before.
***The religious groups that fled to America did so because the state run churches in Europe were not very accommodating. Was their prejudice influenced by this, or was Rome the one state church that was warm and fuzzy while all the rest were cruel?***
My Huguenot forefathers fled France for a reason.
It is only particular religious doctrines that are disputed here and they should be allowed to be talked about in context without the ravings of pseudo-offended and pseudo-persecuted individuals who need to grow-up. IMHO
And I suppose they had just a bit of animosity towards those they fled from.
I don't believe I would be to eager to embrace those I'm fleeing from.
It's unfortunate, there are a lot of people with good insights who would be interesting to read if the static was turned down a bit.
I think the role history plays in this case can't be overlooked. If a Christian church emerges after the Reformation it's much easier to stake out the "high ground" because that church didn't exist during the period where it was the norm for a church to be part of the state and exercise power as a state. Liberty and the idea that our rights are God given is really not that old and churches that existed before this belief became the norm are at a disadvantage.
Excerpt from Encyclical written in 1949
Should say 1849
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Understandable certainly. I think we Catholics need to come to terms with the fact that the festering corruption for century upon century within the Church made it very easy for people to just say nuts to the whole thing and look for something plainer and simpler. If we believe that the Church is the spotless Bride of Christ, we darn well better live that way...and if we don't, we are feeding the fires of heresy and schism. Some of the saints at the time of the Reformation, in fact, said exactly that: we share the blame for what happened.
The history behind Church persecutions is complex. Heresy/Apostasy against the state religion have always been crimes, even in pagan times. That's why Plato was executed. That's why the Christians were persecuted for not offering a pinch of incense to Minerva or to the Emperor.
When Christianity became the religion of the state, it naturally inherited that legal framework. So Theodosius and later rulers had laws specifically outlawing heresy against Nicene Christianity. These were *state* laws, not ecclesiastical laws.
However, there was a HUGE problem giving the state the power to prosecute heresy. Officials could very easily trump up heresy charges to make false convictions....and I pretty much guarantee that if I get an interrogator to cross-examine you on the Trinity you'll say something heretical in five minutes even if you are completely orthodox. So some corrupt nobleman can bring some poor landowner in, fire a bunch of virtually incomprehensible questions at him about the modes and operations and wills of the Trinity and then...bam....looky here, a heretic! That's a shame....well, I guess I can execute him and confiscate his land then!
The Inquisition was actually an attempt to reform this process by saying to the state....no way king/duke/mayor, YOU don't have any authority to determine heresy. That's the CHURCH's job. So the Church took over the fact-finding on heresy for the state...it did all the interrogating, etc. And then it made a recommendation to the state. If the guy was an obstinate heretic and would not recant, he would, in the language of the time, "be handed over to the secular arm to be burned." But it was always the state doing the executing, and not the Church.
I actually don't have problem with a state religion...and I think Christians shouldn't generally. Heck...even though the Constitution outlawed federal establishment in this country, the states often had their own established religions until the mid-1830s.
But using the power of state religion to prosecute heresy is where it gets REAL dicey, especially given Christ's admonition to leave the tares in the wheat until the final judgment. We have a different tradition in this country with all the sects that came over--we kinda went back to the way it was in the Roman Empire when no one group was completely dominant and the state was not taking sides one way or the other.
There was I think only a small window of time that Huguenots were even allowed to settle in Canada...from like 1600 to 1620-something or other. After that, France didn't allow any more Protestants to emigrate to the New World, which is one of the reasons Quebec turned out so solidly Catholic despite the religious division in the homeland.
Wmfights is right...nobody's hands are spotless in this mess. Old Scratch knows human nature well enough to see to that.
Hey Petronski, the thing is that the Catholic French helped the Revolution, remember :)
I think Scripture and history has shown that the RCC is not the Church Militant. I don't believe any visible church on earth can make that claim.
The history behind Church persecutions is complex. Heresy/Apostasy against the state religion have always been crimes, even in pagan times.
Agreed.
When Christianity became the religion of the state, it naturally inherited that legal framework. So Theodosius and later rulers had laws specifically outlawing heresy against Nicene Christianity. These were *state* laws, not ecclesiastical laws.
I think this is a little bit of dissembling. There is no history of the RCC hierarchy trying to stop the consolidation of power. It would have been an incredible step for a church that is a part of the state to fight for others who refuse to submit to it's power. The belief that those who disagreed with it had a God given right to do so has never been a practice.
The Inquisition was actually an attempt to reform this process by saying to the state....no way king/duke/mayor, YOU don't have any authority to determine heresy.
Not from the view of the persecuted.
I actually don't have problem with a state religion...and I think Christians shouldn't generally.
Given human history, the terrible atrocities that result from this merger, and the heretical beliefs that emerge because of it the thought terrifies me. I think your opinion is held by a lot of RC's. The thinking being that it would be good as long as it's your church that's calling the shots.
I'm a Baptist. It was the non conformist Baptistic churches that suffered the worst of the persecutions from the state churches. I have no desire to see us return to that system and theology that teaches dependence on a church rather than liberty in Christ Jesus.
What role do you believe (if any) did a church becoming dominant in a state have in how doctrine/dogma was established.
I think this is where liberty in Jesus Christ, or dependence on a church is triggered (the state-church connection). I don't think this is limited to the RCC. From what I've learned of the Reformation churches they have some similarities in structure and beliefs.
Agree.
Just look at any state church in Europe.
Thanks, it's nice to be in agreement sometimes. I believe the role of the prevailing culture and practices of a society/state plays a big part in how churches formalized their structure, claims on authority and doctrine/dogma.
Scripture gave us local bodies united by belief. The structure changed and a dominant hierarchy emerged because of external forces. The people involved in the process were probably mostly well intentioned committed Christians. Its just how we got to where we are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.