|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: A ressurgence of Anti-Catholicism?
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
I'm increasingly shocked by what seems to be growing and frankly hysterical anti-Catholicism in 'respectable' places. A recent example was on Facebook, when a friend commented that 'if all Popes were like Francis, there would be more Catholics'; this was immediately greeted with 'and therefore more child abuse'. This isn't the first time I've come across this sort of thing in places that surprise me. One of the worst places is the Irish Times Facebook page. Now, the Times used to be the 'Protestant' paper in Ireland, but was always reasonably moderate, and since the 1960s or so made a real point of reaching out to the Roman Catholic majority (a shift paralleled by TCD).
Now, it seems to me that child sexual abuse and other hot-button issues (mostly LGBT issues and the RCC's alleged misogyny) can only be a small part, at most, of what's going on. Not least because the sexual abuse of children, and its cover up, has been shown (tragically and deeply regrettably) to have been common in a whole variety of settings where children were vulnerable, and not necessarily any more common in Roman Catholic institutions than in ones run either by other religious groups or secular organizations or the government.
Whilst there are areas of Roman Catholic social teaching and current Church practice with which I myself am in fervent disagreement, it seems to me that the majority or criticism of the RCC in the public eye is not a rational and informed critique, but instead hysterical and knee-jerk. Nine times out of ten, I feel that one group of people (most often, but by no means always, abused children and their families) is being used as ammunition in a war that has very little to do with them.
Obviously, it is no secret that most of the Anglophone world has a long history of Anti-Catholicism. But it seems that, when I was a boy, to voice blatant Anti-Catholicism was a socially unacceptable as racism or Anti-Semitism. The only groups that did voice such views (notably the Orange Order) were regarded in much the same way as Guardian readers today regard the BNP or EDL. That seems to have changed. Anti-Catholicism seems to be mainstream again, or at least more mainstream.
Do other Shipmates, particularly but not exclusively, Roman Catholics, find this to be true as well, or am I off my rocker?
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I think you're wrong to say that those things you've cited can't be the problem. They are the problem. They are the things that are associated in the popular mind with the Catholic Church. Although Francis is doing a rather good job of changing that.
Whether statistics bear you out in saying that child abuse wasn't any more prevalent in the Catholic Church, I've no idea. But the popular perception is that the Catholic Church was especially prone to it.
Also... I'm mystified as to why you would think Facebook pages count as respectable places.
[ 10. November 2013, 20:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I think you're wrong to say that those things you've cited can't be the problem. They are the problem. They are the things that are associated in the popular mind with the Catholic Church.
Whether statistics bear you out in saying that child abuse wasn't any more prevalent in the Catholic Church, I've no idea. But the popular perception is that the Catholic Church was especially prone to it.
Fine, but there are ways of treating that as a subject matter that don't descent into a sort of neo-Paisleyite 'no Popery' hysteria. It's possible to acknowledge the wrong without passing a damning judgement on every aspect of the RCC. The de Montherlant play 'La Ville dont le prince est un enfant' (adapted for the cinema in the 1990s) does this marvellously. Not a few of the IMDB comments are hysterical screeds against the film. Their complaints boil down to one point: it's not anti-Catholic enough.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Now, it seems to me that child sexual abuse and other hot-button issues (mostly LGBT issues and the RCC's alleged misogyny) can only be a small part, at most, of what's going on. Not least because the sexual abuse of children, and its cover up, has been shown (tragically and deeply regrettably) to have been common in a whole variety of settings where children were vulnerable, and not necessarily any more common in Roman Catholic institutions than in ones run either by other religious groups or secular organizations or the government.
AIUI most cases of child abuse in institutions in Ireland took place in Catholic institutions. This is because the overwhelming majority of such institutions were Catholic.
The Ryan Report gives a vivid account of the extent of the abuse.
I think the public reaction to this abuse was so strong because for years Catholic institutions were trusted implicitly.
Having said that, I will also say that I think the anti-Catholic reaction has gone too far.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
I think there needs to an showing Christian charity here , (a..k.a. love) . No one church is wholly right all the time . All churches have problems with abuse to some extent or other. And slanging one another is not Christian, sorry Ian Paisley et.al. We need to get awaay from self righteous pompous silly statements . For the record I have made such atatements and had to eat my words & positions later. So everyone let's show love
one to another.
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Bacchus wrote:
quote:
Fine, but there are ways of treating that as a subject matter that don't descent into a sort of neo-Paisleyite 'no Popery' hysteria.
Have to say, I haven't seen a lot of criticism of Catholic clerical abuse that descends into "anti-Popery" of the old school, Orangeman/Know-Nothing variety.
Even the people who might go a bit overboard in attacking Catholicism over the abuse scandals are probably the types who are hostile to religion in general, and so wouldn't have a lot of time for long-winded explications about how the RCC is the Whore Of Babylon. In fact, they would probably consider people like Ian Paisley and Jimmy Swaggart to be equally ridiculous as the Pope, even if they don't focus as much on the protestant whackjobs(possibly because there are fewer abuse scandals around them).
As a comparison, in my experience, criticism of Israel and/or Zionism DOES tend to attract a fair bit old-style anti-semites, who are just looking for any cause to attach their Jewish-hatred to. A newspaper comments section on Israel will often have at least one poster trying to push discussion in the direction of "Who controls the money?" and allied themes.
[ 10. November 2013, 22:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Facebook - and the comments section of online publications - both seem to cause a huge degree of stereotyping in the way contributors seek to posture in front of one another.
I certainly don't want to belittle the main thrust of your enquiry, S. Bacchus, but what you describe is what I would expect to see. I think such things are ugly, and it causes me some concern in the way people let themselves be manipulated into ever more extreme positions. But they must be held accountable for that - they didn't have to do that. I'm out of Facebook these days, largely for this socially manipulative aspect.
And of course there are real problems to be discussed, which hyperbole hinders rather than helps. So a lose/lose situation all round.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Now, it seems to me that child sexual abuse and other hot-button issues (mostly LGBT issues and the RCC's alleged misogyny) can only be a small part, at most, of what's going on.
I think a large part of the Catholic Church's image problem is statements like the one above. The basic premise seems to be that no one could really be offended by a large and powerful organization using its influence to shield a group of child rapists from the legal consequences of their actions, and that any objections are just a cover for prejudice. It might be worthwhile to ponder the possibility that people find a worldwide efforts to obstruct justice in pedophilia cases to be morally abhorrent in its own right, not just when Catholics do it.
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Not least because the sexual abuse of children, and its cover up, has been shown (tragically and deeply regrettably) to have been common in a whole variety of settings where children were vulnerable, and not necessarily any more common in Roman Catholic institutions than in ones run either by other religious groups or secular organizations or the government.
I'm a little hesitant to accept that premise, simply because the Roman Catholic Church seems to have greater resources at its disposal than just about any other similar organization and has shown a willingness to use them to, for example, move accused offenders across regional or international boundaries to escape prosecution. The only other religious groups where abuse seems to be as prevalent are those that deliberately limit adherent's contact with the outside world.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
There does seem to be some distinction between being against the institution (and perhaps more specifically the hierarchy and social teachings) of Catholicism, and being against individuals who are Catholic.
The latter area is the one which seems to have made gains in the past sixty years, with Catholics out of their former ethnic enclaves and living side-by-side with non-Catholics, who think nothing ill about their friends, neighbors, and family members. I think it's safe to conclude that far fewer Americans, for instance, would oppose a Catholic running for president than might have fifty years ago. In fact, I'd even suggest that there would probably be fairly decent support from the con-evo crowd, due to similar social teachings. Fifty years ago there undoubtedly would have been quite a bit of anti-Catholic rhetoric.
What people think about Institutional Catholicism is another thing, and it seems a not insignificant number of Catholics (in my circles, anyway, I'm sure geographical factors are at play) are likewise skeptical of the institution. Bad press is perhaps to blame, and some good PR is definitely called for, not just for Catholics but for most religions of the world.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
I think it's safe to conclude that far fewer Americans, for instance, would oppose a Catholic running for president than might have fifty years ago. In fact, I'd even suggest that there would probably be fairly decent support from the con-evo crowd, due to similar social teachings.
No need to conjecture, that's basically how Paul Ryan positioned himself as VP candidate last year - a Catholic backed by the evangelical Christian right. Alongside a Mormon. So bedfellows have become strange certainly in American religious politics.
To the OP, I think in general there's an increase in anti-church sentiment on the internet. In Ireland it's focused on the RCC for obvious reasons.
Take a look at the Guardian comments on religion and you will see the CofE accused of misogyny, homophobia, and brainwashing as well.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
It's easy to create a false impression.
Take a few points which are true, such as: - Some Roman Catholic priests abused children.
- Some bishops covered it up.
Then deliberately ignore any evidence which would go against your ideas. This is how conspiracy theories start.
That newspapers such as the Irish Times or the Grauniad are doing this is lazy journalism: This sort of thing has no reason to exist outside of a Dan Brown novel.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
If Facebook is a respectable place then Heaven help us.
I haven't seen a lot of anti-Catholicism but it's possibly just covered up by riddles about giraffes and what colour your bra is.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that when the Pope visited the UK, there was a tidal wave of anti-Catholic sentiment, not just about child abuse. It wasn't just the village atheist either, but the 'quality' newspapers as well seemed to join in, and the BBC did its bit.
I guess there is a deep historical vein of it in the UK - I remember it when I was a kid in the North of England - and it seems quite easy to revive it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that when the Pope visited the UK, there was a tidal wave of anti-Catholic sentiment, not just about child abuse. It wasn't just the village atheist either, but the 'quality' newspapers as well seemed to join in, and the BBC did its bit.
I guess there is a deep historical vein of it in the UK - I remember it when I was a kid in the North of England - and it seems quite easy to revive it.
Would it not be different if (when?) Francis visits the UK, though? Benedict was a different kind of pope and rather less instantly likeable.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
You mean the old cult of personality again. Deja vu.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that when the Pope visited the UK, there was a tidal wave of anti-Catholic sentiment, not just about child abuse. It wasn't just the village atheist either, but the 'quality' newspapers as well seemed to join in, and the BBC did its bit.
I guess there is a deep historical vein of it in the UK - I remember it when I was a kid in the North of England - and it seems quite easy to revive it.
Would it not be different if (when?) Francis visits the UK, though? Benedict was a different kind of pope and rather less instantly likeable.
That could well be. I think the child abuse stuff was at its height also, and various atheists and anti-theists were puffing their chests out like turkey-cocks. Robertson published his monstrously vapid book 'The Case of the Pope', which contained very little.
Also, I think today it's fashionable to be anti-Islam.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Now, it seems to me that child sexual abuse and other hot-button issues (mostly LGBT issues and the RCC's alleged misogyny) can only be a small part, at most, of what's going on.
I think a large part of the Catholic Church's image problem is statements like the one above. The basic premise seems to be that no one could really be offended by a large and powerful organization using its influence to shield a group of child rapists from the legal consequences of their actions, and that any objections are just a cover for prejudice. It might be worthwhile to ponder the possibility that people find a worldwide efforts to obstruct justice in pedophilia cases to be morally abhorrent in its own right, not just when Catholics do it.
I don't know. The Murdoch Press launch a tirade against the BBC for covering up child abuse. Do I believe that they are doing this solely because they are really offended? Oddly, I do not believe that. And this despite the Murdoch Press having a history of attacking paedophiles, along with paediatricians et al.
Contrariwise, if someone launches tirades at the Roman Catholic Church and doesn't launch tirades at the BBC, that's also going to make me a bit suspicious.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
That newspapers such as the Irish Times or the Grauniad are doing this is lazy journalism:
I do not know about the Irish Times. The Grauniad, aside from one or two guest columnists, is quite capable of distinguishing between 'X has engaged in a corrupt abuse of power that ought to be reported', and, 'All there is to X is the corrupt abuse of power'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Contrariwise, if someone launches tirades at the Roman Catholic Church and doesn't launch tirades at the BBC, that's also going to make me a bit suspicious.
I'm a bit suspicious of the "you can't criticize X unless you also criticize Y and Z" argument. Very often the aim of those advancing it isn't concern about Y or Z, but rather derailing any discussion of X. Plus trying to dictate what other people find worth discussing is just grating.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
"you're being hysterical and anti-popery if you complain about the child abuse in the Catholic Church and it's cover up and besides all the other churches and institutional care did it too" is not going to convince people who have seen the Church at its highest levels squelch investigations and punishment for those who have abused and promoted those who did it.
Much good stuff in the RC church shouldn't be thrown out in a condemnation of the above. Why should it be the task of outsiders to separate the wicked from the good and clean house? That would be the job of Church and believers. It will be interesting to see how much rubble flies when Francis tries to "fix" the Vatican administration.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
That newspapers such as the Irish Times or the Grauniad are doing this is lazy journalism:
I do not know about the Irish Times. The Grauniad, aside from one or two guest columnists, is quite capable of distinguishing between 'X has engaged in a corrupt abuse of power that ought to be reported', and, 'All there is to X is the corrupt abuse of power'.
As a longtime reader of the IT, one needs to distinguish between: a) specific abuses, which Irish Times staff helped uncover, b) relex anti-Catholicism of lapsed Irish RCs with a chip on their shoulder- as one sees in commentary articles, and c) support for minority rights and a longstanding opposition to RC integrists running the country. I happen to think that a) and c) are characteristic of the IT, but b) is a pretty widespread phenomenon in Ireland these days and you can find it in the Independent and even the Herald.
AFAIK as the opening point goes, anti-Romanism is one of the few socially acceptable prejudices around these days and can be indulged in at civilized dinner parties without anyone batting an eyelid. I see no increase in this over the past 15-20 years, but I must admit that over the period it has diminished greatly as a principal element in voting behaviour in eastern Ontario. I have noticed recently those who were hostile now cooling their opinions as they carefully and perhaps hopefully watch Pope Frank's activities.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
AtheA: quote:
AFAIK as the opening point goes, anti-Romanism is one of the few socially acceptable prejudices around these days and can be indulged in at civilized dinner parties without anyone batting an eyelid.
Things may well be different in Canada, but I don't recognise the situation you outline as happening in Britain. At "civilised dinner parties" people might disagree with RC teaching on many points, with being "anti-Rome". The RCC teaches many things that many people happen to disagree with, but I don't think that's the same as being prejudiced against it.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
It's fairly long-standing in Ontario, likely finding its origins in 19c opposition to Irish migrants and francophone settlers-- a researcher I know has been able to trace voting patterns alongside religious identification in rural parts of eastern Ontario, with remarkable continuity from 1851 to the early 180s. I have heard comments, verging on the visceral at times, at tables featuring university staff, doctors, and the like. The only professional areas with kind words are those in the immigration settlement and refugee assistance milieux.
I have only rarely heard anti-Roman sentiment in western Canada, and think that it might not be quite as strong.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
[QUOT
Much good stuff in the RC church shouldn't be thrown out in a condemnation of the above. Why should it be the task of outsiders to separate the wicked from the good and clean house? [/QB][/QUOTE]
It is always the duty for each person to, as you put it, 'separate the wicked from the good'. To see both in all their intertwined, infinite complexity. The failure to do so is one of those failures that starts out as intellectual and becomes ethical. It's a failure to which we are very often prone, but that doesn't make it right or excusable.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
It's fairly long-standing in Ontario, likely finding its origins in 19c opposition to Irish migrants and francophone settlers-- a researcher I know has been able to trace voting patterns alongside religious identification in rural parts of eastern Ontario, with remarkable continuity from 1851 to the early 180s. I have heard comments, verging on the visceral at times, at tables featuring university staff, doctors, and the like. The only professional areas with kind words are those in the immigration settlement and refugee assistance milieux.
I have only rarely heard anti-Roman sentiment in western Canada, and think that it might not be quite as strong.
I followed the debate around Bill Davis' funding of separate high schools in the mid 1980s, mostly through reading the Globe And Mail. At the time, it seemed to me that there actually WAS something of a weird overlap between old-school, conservative anti-Catholicism, and the more urbane, liberal variety you might see nowadays.
In those days, the Globe was more overtly feminist than it is now, and some of the arguments were built around fears that the Catholic schools would promote reactionary social attitudes. But I couldn't help but get the impression that the people writing these opinions had grown up hearing Orange Hall style anti-Catholicism at their grandfathers' knees.
I dunno, there was never anything explicitly religious about the Globe's position on that, but being aware of its historical sectarianism, I just kinda drew that conclusion.
[ 11. November 2013, 22:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Just for clarification, Augustine...
quote:
It's fairly long-standing in Ontario, likely finding its origins in 19c opposition to Irish migrants and francophone settlers-- a researcher I know has been able to trace voting patterns alongside religious identification in rural parts of eastern Ontario, with remarkable continuity from 1851 to the early 180s.
But of a typo, there, I think. Do you mean the early 1980s?
If so, that jibes with what I remember, because I think the 1985 election, when the Tories were reduced to a minority, is considered the last time that sectarianism played a major role in an Ontario election, with the sectarian-protestant abandoning their historic allegiance to the Tories in protest of Davis' school policies.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
(Broken commands and missing attribution in the above quotes repaired. Attempts to edit or delete the previous post were generating cgi errors.)
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Much good stuff in the RC church shouldn't be thrown out in a condemnation of the above. Why should it be the task of outsiders to separate the wicked from the good and clean house?
It is always the duty for each person to, as you put it, 'separate the wicked from the good'. To see both in all their intertwined, infinite complexity. The failure to do so is one of those failures that starts out as intellectual and becomes ethical. It's a failure to which we are very often prone, but that doesn't make it right or excusable.
So what have you done to separate the wicked from the good in the Catholic Church? I missed that in your OP.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I would agree with Stetson that the overlap is there, and that it is weird. Yes, I did a typo-- I meant the 1980s. Shortly afterward, the right-wing fringe parties (Confederation of Regions, Christian Heritage Party) began to attract integrist RCs, particularly pro-life Dutch and German RCs, and began to eat into the Liberal=RC Conservative=Protestan axis. That and Premier Davis' full funding of RC separate schools began the fatal kibosh (if I might mix a metaphor) to the old divide.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I meant the 1980s. Shortly afterward, the right-wing fringe parties (Confederation of Regions, Christian Heritage Party) began to attract integrist RCs, particularly pro-life Dutch and German RCs, and began to eat into the Liberal=RC Conservative=Protestan axis.
Yeah, I had a formerly Liberal, French-Canadian Catholic aunt who got involved with the CHP, over the abortion issue. I think at the higher levels, though, the party was dominated by Dutch Christian Reformed adherents.
The COR, as I recall(being from Alberta), was more focused on regionalist and linguistic grievances than on "moral issues", though there may indeed have been some of the latter thrown into the mix. I'd wager their opposition to blingualism(and general francophobia) might have limited their appeal among French Catholics.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In the Canadian west, growing up in the 1960s there was separation because the RCs all went to separate schools. The stereotype was that they were less educated and immigrant, mostly Ukrainians.
The mainline protestant denominations have declined but the RCs are still building churches and I think, recasting themselves as the mainline alternative against the rise of the fundy evangelicals. The effect seems to be the they are more involved in ecumenical efforts and do a lot of joint and practical things.
I was interested that in the recent consecration of the bishop of Qu'appelle that it happened in an RC church because the Anglican cathedral in Regina was in renovation. The Lutheran and RC bishops were prominent in attendance.
Ultimately, what I'm saying is that the old world divisions don't apply the same way, at least here in western Canada. I think Saskatchewan and Manitoba at about 50% RC heritage, and out number others. Alberta and BC are less but sizeable.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
No Prophet wrote:
quote:
Ultimately, what I'm saying is that the old world divisions don't apply the same way, at least here in western Canada.
Walking to classes at a separate school in Edmonton, circa 1982, I did have a kid walking in the other direction yell "Goddam Catholic!" at me.
Though that was mostly notable for the sheer oddity of it, since it wasn't a common thing to experience.
quote:
The stereotype was that they were less educated and immigrant, mostly Ukrainians.
I think in Edmonton, Ukrainians got ragged on qua Ukrainians, not qua Catholics. There was one long-serving mayor who regularly got denounced as a "big crook", and when you asked why he kept winning(if he was so bad) the answer was "Because all the Ukrainians voted for him". As if their vote was somehow less legitimate than anyone else's. You rarely heard this tied to religion.
The anti-French, anti-bilingualism thing in the 70s/80s was also more ethnic than sectarian. You occassionally met old-timers who managed to segue a rant about cereal-boxes into a tirade about how "the Church controls Quebec", but that was not the usual trajectory.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think in Edmonton, Ukrainians got ragged on qua Ukrainians, not qua Catholics.
You might be right. Though things may have also changed in the 15 or so years before your dates of high school.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
You might be right. Though things may have also changed in the 15 or so years before your dates of high school.
You could very well be right. A somewhat obscure incident from Canadian political lore...
quote:
On the Saturday of the convention, Caouette had given a 90-minute speech in which he described Thompson as a “marionette” for Premier of Alberta Ernest Manning, and said that in 1960, ten minutes before the leadership vote, Manning had instructed him to “tell your people to vote for Thompson because the West will never accept a Roman Catholic French Canadian leader”.[1]
Though Manning(assuming he really said that) might have been referring to Social Credit members, not westerners in general. And the article does say that Caouette was supported by W.A.C. Bennett, a protestant.
link
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me this is down to the way that people form their views of the world from the mass media.
Two aspects:
If the Catholic Church acting through the SVP does a huge amount to help the poor, that's not news. But any little twist of the ongoing meta-story about Catholic priests or religious and child abuse is news. Likewise, if Muslims lead pious lives of religious observance in their mosques, that's not news. But if one Muslim cleric gives an interview which touches on the matter of jihad, that's news.
Which is not for a moment to excuse the evil that has occurred; just that it's a smaller part of the whole than media reports might lead one to believe.
Second, the process of turning individual views into coherent, accurate and well-expressed collective views is a difficult and time-intensive one. Millions of ordinary lay Catholics and Muslims probably deplore the culture that covers up and excuses evils committed "for the good of the faith". But their voices don't make it into much of the mass media. Those who are willing to put in the effort to join together to make a noise are those with a particular interest, an axe to grind, a willingness to be identified with opposition to aspects of the current management. And most people, like me, have other things to do with their time.
And that silence is viewed by outsiders as assent. You identify yourself as a Muslim without some sort of disclaimer that it's not that sort of Islaam ? Then being one with the suicide bombers doesn't bother you. You put money in the collection plate which finances the bishop who won't sack the pedophiles ? You're part of the problem.
So no, not surprised at all that the non-religious vent their feelings about these evils had they hear about on any ordinary members of these religious groups who happen to cross their path.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
If there is more anti-Catholicism than usual, the Catholic Church can thank no one but themselves. I am a Catholic convert, formerly a very very devout one at that. I attempted religious life twice, was very active in the Secular Franciscans and also a survivor of sexual abuse by a Franciscan brother. The abuse was not the reason for my loss of faith, but rather the way the local bishops handled the whole affair, not to mention the way the same bishop handled other abuse cases at the same time. My abuser was allowed to move from diocese to diocese, still abusing for another 30+ years. I have seen this scenario carried out time after time in every diocese I've lived in. I personally know more priests who were abusers than I know in active ministry. Even the priest that gave me instructions when I was 13 turned out to be an abuser. This sort of thing is one reason why people are disillusioned with the Catholic Church. We all know either someone who has been abused or a priest who was an abuser.
Another reason for people showing animosity to the RCC, it the hierarchy's meddling with secular politics. Here in the USA it has been especially blatant. Consider our recent government shut down. One of the groups egging this on was the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
--------------------
My cooking blog: http://inthekitchenwithdon.blogspot.com/
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What anti-Catholic sentiment I run across seems very much of the knee-jerk variety, and I'm not sure it should be taken any more seriously than the standard Obama-haters who regularly turn up in the comments sections for Internet articles having nothing to do with government, politics, or Obama.
Like the Obama-haters, the anti-RCC commenters often seem to know nothing more about the object of their nastiness than the fact that there have been headlines about child abuse.
Granted, the RCC did itself no favors by circling its wagons when these revelations began to surface. But large complex organizations nearly always take that wrong approach; they self-protect just when they ought to charge in with new brooms and clean house.
There are two complicating factors: one, the RCC is so vast, so far-reaching in its dealings and actions that it's going to seem mysterious and immensely powerful to anybody with little experience of how any religious organization is apt to run on a local level, where most priests & parishioners (and, we hope, their bishops) are decent human beings doing the best they can, often in very difficult circumstances.
Two, child abuse, however narrowly or widely-spread it is in reality (and yes, I know it has been a serious problem; I'm not trying to diminish it), is a powerfully simple target. It's easy to loathe, easy to target, easy to pour scorn and contempt upon. By contrast, the Obama-haters at least occasionally run into Obama-supporters.
But nobody's going to speak up on behalf of child-abuse or those who commit it.
IMO, the RCC betrayed not only the abusers' victims but also the abusers themselves by moving them around and providing them with continued opportunities to abuse, rather than separating them from their vocations. Pedophilia is a disorder notoriously difficult to treat, and at least some abusers (by no means all) suffer intensely along with their victims with the wrenching conflict which exists between their sexual impulses and what they know to be right.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Two, child abuse, however narrowly or widely-spread it is in reality (and yes, I know it has been a serious problem; I'm not trying to diminish it), is a powerfully simple target. It's easy to loathe, easy to target, easy to pour scorn and contempt upon. By contrast, the Obama-haters at least occasionally run into Obama-supporters.
But nobody's going to speak up on behalf of child-abuse or those who commit it.
And yet Bill Donohue exists.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Neither Donahue nor Underwager is saying that child abuse is a fine thing and we should just let practitioners get on with it.
Donahue claims it's not "really" pedophilia, and It's All The Meedja's Fault. Underwager claims the kids were brainwashed into making false accusations and Nothing Really Happened.
Denial and rationalization are different coping strategies from outright advocacy. That's all I'm saying here: child abuse, having no actual advocates, makes an easy target.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
No.
Underwager said that pedophilia was a lifestyle choice and God approves. He was a bad man.
quote:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2.html
PAIDIKA: Is choosing paedophilia for you a responsible choice for the individuals?
RALPH UNDERWAGER: Certainly it is responsible. What I have been struck by as I have come to know more about and understand people who choose paedophilia is that they let themselves be too much defined by other people. That is usually an essentially negative definition. Paedophiles spend a lot of time and energy defending their choice. I don't think that a paedophile needs to do that. Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love. I am also a theologian and as a theologian, I believe it is God's will that there be closeness and intimacy, unity of the flesh, between people. A paedophile can say: "This closeness is possible for me within the choices that I've made."
Paedophiles are too defensive. They go around saying, "You people out there are saying that what I choose is bad, that it's no good. You're putting me in prison, you're doing all these terrible things to me. I have to define my love as being in some way or other illicit." What I think is that paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness, they can say, "I believe this is in fact part of God's will." They have the right to make these statements for themselves as personal choices. Now whether or not they can persuade other people they are right is another matter (laughs).
This is also enlightening: http://www.fmsfonline.org/wikipedia-fmsf.html
[ 14. November 2013, 01:58: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I remember back in 80s London my friends and I swapping jokes about Roman Catholic priests groping boys. My dominant memory is that Roman Catholics were a bit foreign and did wierd, foreign stuff.
If what I recollect was a common attitude, then all I can say is that sneery jokes to open outrage doesn't amount to increased prejudice against Roman Catholics but rather the reverse.
The above comment sticks in my mind too:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
No one church is wholly right all the time.
That is of course correct, but the perception amongst many - religious or otherwise - is that the Roman Catholic hierarchy sees it a bit differently, as demonstrated by the continued belief in papal inerrancy and the institutionalised cover-up of child abuse. The logic appears to run as follows: if you know you're right, why should you answer for the bad things done by your members?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yup. the reason why the child abuse thing goes beyond ' a few people abused children, a few bishops protected them' is that at least at some levels in the RCC, including some pretty high up levels, there was a structural unwillingness to deal with the problem, composed AFAICS of a mixture of well-intentioned but naive beliefs about the effects of repentance and forgiveness, and an authoritarian dislike of showing what might be seen as institutional weakness. (This was and is not unique to the RCC, by the way; I suspect it's been present in some CofE dioceses *cough* Chichester *cough* too.)
Now, none of that should invalidate the good work done by other or indeed the same elements of the Church; but quite understandably, it does give an impression that the institution cannot quite be trusted. And when you are beating the kind of violently and ill-informedly secularist drum that e.g. certain Guardian writers and rather more Guardian readers do, this is (to mix a metaphor) all grist to the mill. Hence e.g. the tendency to print newly-uncovered shocking revelations about abuse at RC schools without making it clear until several lines in that they happened say 20 years ago.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Today's Anti-Catholic prejudice isn't all about clerical abuse. I'm 28. When I was younger I remember plenty of off-color remarks about the Church made by "recovering Catholics" who had grown up in the strict Catholic schools and families that are largely, at least where I live, of a bygone era. For the most part though, being Catholic was just as normal as being Jewish, Protestant, Buddhist, or Atheist/Secular (those being the main religious groups in my school). Before the media lovefest around Pope Francis, though I noticed recently it becoming quite normal for otherwise quite tolerant members of these other faith or non-faith traditions to speak of anyone who would attend and give money to the Catholic Church as a bigot, an enabler or bigots, or a self-hating doormat who lets bigots walk all over him/her. Jokes about how crazy it is to actually believe what Catholics do and practice their rituals, as well as jokes about how effeminate and gaudy and wasteful Catholic ceremonies, vestments, etc. were became much more common than I remember them being when John Paul II was Pope (those jokes had always been there, but they used to be told by Catholics to other Catholics, or by ex-Catholics to other ex-Catholics, rather than by non-Catholics to other non-Catholics).
I don't think it was just the sexual abuse crisis that brought this about. Benedict XVI, God bless him, was terrible at P.R. and not as charismatic as John Paul II, but that also does not fully explain it. I think the huge shift in public attitudes on gay marriage and the high visibility of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in opposing it was another important factor. Also, the "New Atheists" were different from their mid-twentieth-century predecessors in that they did not just attack Biblical literalism, fundamentalism, and entaglement of Church and State, but any institution that promoted belief in the supernatural - and in the West, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest and most organized of such institutions. Finally, there were just more children raised in a largely secular atmosphere for whom all religious ritual seemed exotic and foreign, all religious belief presenting itself as Christian other than the watered-down Protestantism that forms a large part of US civic culture seemed kooky, and any opposition to civil liberties based on religious belief seemed like sanctimonious evil.
Will Pope Francis reverse these trends? Maybe a little bit. But all it would take is another Pope with a personality like Benedict XVI (whom I quite liked and preferred to Francis in some ways, although I as a super-liberal disagreed with him about many things) to bring the prejudicial attitudes back to where they were.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
