Pope Benedict has praised the American tradition of religious freedom and separation of church and state. But what is often forgotten is that Catholics were not originally part of this arrangement in America. I'm always amused when I hear about the Judeo-Christian heritage of America because not only were the Judeos not equal partners, neither were Catholics. What we really had for most of the early years of the colonial America was not even a Christian heritage but a protestant heritage.
Over the next two weeks I'm gong to explore the early history of Catholics and religious freedom (drawn from my new book Founding Faith), including some episodes that bely the notion that America has forever been a bastion of religious freedom.
Christopher Columbus believed that making the New World Catholic was a crucial reason for his voyage – and that God was guiding his trip. "With a hand that could be felt, the Lord opened my mind to the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies.” Though Columbus didn’t succeed in settling all of America, his success did spook England into getting serious sending their own in the 600s.
The twin goals of converting Indians and defeating Catholics provided a strong rallying cry for Virginia' settlers. Prospects were instructed to bring “no traitors, nor Papists that depend on the Great Whore." An Anglican promotional booklet argued that if the Spanish had so much luck pressing their corrupt religion, imagine how successful the English could be with their noble goals of saving "those wretched people."
At that moment in history, the Catholic Church was viewed in England not as a competing form of Christianity but as a fraudulent faith. It was called "the Whore" because it had prostituted itself by selling indulgences (the promise that for a fee, the church would make sure that the soul of a loved one wouldn't be stuck in purgatory). Protestants believed Catholics should be called "Papists," not Christians, because they had substituted worship of the Pope for devotion of Christ. And only the "anti-Christ," it was thought, would use the trappings of faith to so distort the message of Jesus. Not surprisingly, the Virginia government attempted to squelch Catholicism within the colony. In 1640, it prohibited Catholics from holding any public office unless they "had taken the oath of allegiance and supremacy" to the Church of England. It decreed that any "'popish priests'' who arrived in Virginia "should be deported forthwith."
Massachusetts, of course, was settled by the Puritans, who believed that despite Henry the VIII's split with Rome, the Church of England had retained too many vestiges of the Catholic Church. "Kneeling at the Sacrament, bowing to the Altar and to the name of Jesus, Popish holy days, Holiness of places, Organs and Cathedral Musick, The Books of Common prayer, or church Government by Bishops…They are nothing else but reliques of Popery, and remnants of Baal," sniffed one prominent Puritan. And they Pilgrims who settled Plymouth? They were Puritans who had become "Separatists" because they believed that the Church of England was so corruptly entangled with Catholicism that nothing short of a clean break would suffice. Catholics were not allowed in the colony. (Since the Puritans tried to embody the compassion of Jesus, they did allow that any "Jesuits" who had ended up in their midst due to a shipwreck need not to be killed.)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Gee, "Katie Angel", where to begin?
First, I would invite you to ACTUALLY READ the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Not the interpretations of the Council by various partisan "commentators." But actually read the documents that were approved over the course of four years (1962-1965). You will find nothing in those documents which either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI have worked against.
Second, I remind you that both of these individuals were actively engaged in the discussions at the Second Vatican Council. Benedict was a young "peritus" (or theological adviser) to the Archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal Fringe, a prominent "liberal." John Paul was, at the beginning of the Council, an auxiliary bishop, and then, by the end, an archbishop. He took on major drafting roles on both the Declaration on Religion Freedom and the Pastoral Council on The Church in the Modern World (Lumen Gentium). It is inconceivable that as authors who were "present at the creation" they would in any way roll back the meaning of Second Vatican Council which they helped to create.
Thirdly, NONE of the so-called "salvos" you mention (receiving the host on the tongue; permitting, in limited ways, the celebration of the Tridentine Rite in Latin; even, receiving the Precious Body and Blood while kneelind) were EVEN MENTIONED in the Second Vatican Council documents.
Besides, I can't understand YOUR IDEOLOGICAL RIGIDITY in hassling a few old-fashioned Catholics who want to receive Holy Communion in these albeit old-fashioned ways. It's not my style nor yours -- but who are we to criticize these folks for wanting to receive Communion that way? I mean to ask: "What's it to you?"
By the way, which theologians have been removed? Only Father Curran, if I am not mistaken? But he wasn't actually "removed." It's more accurate to say that since he wasn't ACTUALLY teaching the official theology of the Catholic Church, then he was denied the the Catholic equivalent of the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval." Makes sense to me! I call it the church version of "truth in advertising." If a "Catholic" theologian is going to hang out his shingle as a "Catholic theologian," shouldn't he ACTUALLY be teaching the theology and the moral truths of the Catholic Church? If you went to a doctor with an MD after his name -- and who advertised himself as Board certified -- and it turned he was actually practicing voodoo medicine, wouldn't you be the first to report him to the American Medical Association. I know I would!
There's so much more one could say here, but first I would urge to actually read the documents of the Second Vatican Council. After that, I might then entertain your fables about how these two Popes are undermining the Second Vatican Council.
One correction to previous post: The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World was "Gaudium et Spes" NOT "Lumen Gentium." Sorry :-)
Steven -
You make no mention of colonial Maryland - which pretty much destroys your disjointed and quarrelsome argument. It was founded in 1632 by royal charter issued to the second Baron Baltimore who was a staunch Catholic and has had a continuous Catholic present up to this day.
Asser Levy and a group of 23 Jews arrived in New York in 1654 and when Peter Stuyvesant the Dutch director general tried to deport them he was rebuffed by the Dutch West India Company which helped create the concept of religious tolerance in the new world transplanted from the religiously tolerant Netherlands.
In 1657 Stuyvesant, who did not tolerate full religious freedom in the colony, and especially the presence of Quakers, ordered the public torture of Robert Hodgson, a 23-year-old Quaker convert who had become an influential preacher. Stuyvesant then made an ordinance, punishable by fine and imprisonment, against anyone found guilty of harboring Quakers. This action led to a protest from the citizens of Flushing, Queens, which came to be known as the Flushing Remonstrance, considered by some a precursor to the United States Constitution's provision on freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights.
Steven as someone who has just supposedly wrote a book about the "founding faith" you must mention the long strain of religious tolerance in this country. And simply stating that religious bigotry existed - just as racial and ethnic bigotry existed is not a very illuminating topic. You need a better thesis.
Mark
Mark:
I don't believe Steven "supposedly" wrote a book on the "Founding Faith". Since I just read it, let me be the first to confirm its existence. He did indeed write the book, :)
I would also say to your post specifically that I believe religious tolerance in this country has been presumed by the majority. Religious tolerance is far less of a "thesis" than religious bigotry as it pertains to American history. Religious bigotry towards Catholics was vocal and widespread in the 18th century, and is frequently overlooked or misunderstood by the vast majority of Americans. It's not standard curriculum.
As for Maryland, the Catholic premise it was founded on had completely collapsed by 1700. The best the Catholics could do by 1700 is ward off anti-Catholic voting laws and other acts of discrimination by the Protestant majority.
JP -
The Catholic population grew enough that in 1789 Baltimore was erected as the first Diocese of the United States, covering the entire country! From these humble beginnings, the Catholic Church in America has grown to over 181 dioceses and archdioceses, over 49,000 priests, over 95,000 religious men and women and over 60 million Catholics, making them the largest single religious denomination in the United States.
Prior to 1776 there was no division of church and state and people were persecuted for various things including witchcraft - remember Salem. Slavery existed in many countries and people often had bigoted views about other nationalities.
Yes white Catholic Marylanders were persecuted by Protestant Virginians; and white Catholic Frenchman tried to persecute Protestant British settlers in Ohio and New York in the French and Indian War (1754 - 1763).
To state that somehow Catholics were an especially targeted minority does a disservice to Quaker, Jewish, and African minorities who where persecuted even more vehemently.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.