Talk:Anti-Catholicism/Archive 1

message: Umm, why put an attention tag on a talk page? If the article needs attention, put a more specific tag (NPOV maybe) there.
Just to remind people that it is wiki convention to put your comments at the bottom not the top of this page.....
: Comments which constitute new threads should be added to the bottom not the top of the page!
: Comments which are follow-on to existing threads should be added to those threads wherever they may be located on the page.  However, comments added to old threads (i.e. near the top of the page) may not be seen by as many people as those added to the bottom of the page.  You makes your choices and you takes your chances.  Also, please sign your comments.
: --Richard 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I would like to request that some assistance be given to filling in The Two Babylons page! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for assistance 

message: As this page was previously heavily biased (the general consesus here appears to agree with me on this), I have rewritten the page.  It now describes what types of behavior are generally characterized as anti-Catholic.  Hopefully, I've kept the POV neutral, but as I am Catholic, maybe some subconcious bias slipped in, so correct as needed.  Kenj0418 01:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Seems NPOV has been restored. Removing catagorization. PhatJew 10:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page rewrite 

message: I change the line that read:
: Criticising Catholic dogma,  and then silencing those Catholics who speak in defense of the teachings of their church.
back to:
: Criticising Catholic dogma
because:
# Silencing someone from expressing their religious beleifs is beyond the scope of this article.  If the comment was meant to say that they were not provided a forum to express their beleifs along with those critcising them, then it is irrelevant (see next item).
# The critism itself is what is generally labeled as anti-Catholic.  For example, if a Baptist group were to critise the Catholic's veneration of saints or Mary, this view would be considered anti-Catholic regardless of whether a Catholic rebuttal was allowed or not.
Kenj0418 18:02, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Is a good-faith criticism of Catholic dogma, on a purely theological/intellectual basis and submitted in a civil and respectful way by a well-meaning Protestant as part of a Catholic/Protestant ecumenical dialogue anti-Catholic? My own connotations for "anti-Catholic" include motivations of malice or at least reckless disregard of what Catholic doctrine really teaches, as opposed to what the challenger believes it to be. BTW, "doctrine" and "dogma" aren't really interchangeable, and I'd propose substituting "doctrine" for "dogma" throughout.
Just my $0.02 worth.
I changed Criticising Catholic dogma after having been shown to be incorrect to Criticising Catholic dogma. Reasons: the "after having been shown to be incorrect" part is highly POV. But I have to admit that I'd prefer removing the whole sentence, since criticising a catholic dogma in an non-polemic, scientific way is IMHO not anti-catholic per se. 85.124.182.40 22:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticising [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] [[dogma]] 

message: What is the purpose of this page? All it accomplishes as far as I can see is to point out that a person who is against Catholcism in any way can be described as anti-Catholic. But then a person opposed to baptist could be called anti-Baptist or a person opposed to cats could be called anti-cat. All this page seems to do is define the prefix anti and define it only in one very limitted context. If wikipedia really needs to explain what "anti" means (which I don't think it does as it isn't a dictionary) then anti should be given an entry not anti-catholic. If there is some pattern of anti-Catholicism or particular anti-Catholic movement (as with anti-Semitism) then I can see having an entry. But the entry does not deal with anything like that. It's just hodge podge of ideas that some people see as anti-Catholic.
:At one time, I tried to add some historical information to the page, mostly relating to politically motivated persecution of Roman Catholics by other Christians in the UK and USA, with links that discussed the penal laws and similar topics, like the Kulturkampf in Prussia.  This material was apparently not wanted here, and almost all of it has been removed; it will appear in the history.  Not sure what the criteria for being included is now, other than the implied charge that any criticism of Roman Catholic practices is anti-Catholic bigotry.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it has been reduced to saying almost nothing, when the reality is, there is a very definite historical "movement" of anti-Catholicism, especially in the US and UK, which was well outlined in the previous version of this page.  So, I have reverted this article back to its pre-rewrite state, and, for starters, removed a couple of the less useful or unsupported statements.  As mentioned above, why bother mentioning that the Church is criticised for its stand against abortion, female clergy, etc. - those are simply criticisms or arguments against the Church, not anti-Catholicism, per se.  I have also added a reference to Karl Keating's excellent reference, itself a history of anti-Catholicism. - Harris7 05:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current value of this page is disputable, certainly. A Catholic myself, I see obvious slant both for and against Catholicism. I believe that this page could potentially have value, if it were cleaned up and restricted to neutral, factual information about noteworthy anti-Catholics, events, and general information. Certainly there is an anti-Catholic movement, and there could be some useful information found here. As of now, there is too much opinion seeping into the article. - Phrackattack 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I added back most of the text from the previous version as a replacement for the older "historical anti-Catholicism" section, which seemed to me to be a caricature and pretty over the top; the edited version struck me as more neutral and plausible.  I did add one bit from the reverted version, linking to the so-called "Black Legend", because a link to that page struck me as worth keeping. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page of any value? 

message: The article could use some discussion of French mistrust of the Church since the revolution. -- Temtem 04:14, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto for the Mexican Revolution.
: I should have read this Talk page before adding my comment about "anti-clericalism" at the bottom.  Anyway, the "French mistrust of the Church" is a perfect example of what I meant by "anti-clericalism".  It is partly a result of the post-Enlightenment struggle of church vs. state.  It is also a result of people wanting the church to have less control over their lives.
: Richard 07:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Anti-Catholicism 

message: I've removed Some anti-Catholics think the Catholic Church is closer to Islam than Christianity, which seems pretty POV, though it maybe can be reformulated in a better way, with more concrete examples.
Are there any references for the bit on haiti ? I'm not sure that really counts as catholicism, it's more about power politics.
I also rephrased the bit on "anti-catholic authors", so that it doesn't designate them as anti-catholic any more, while acknowledging there influence in anti-catholic sentiment. Flammifer 15:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up, addressing NPOV issues 

message: I tried testing this claim..
To demonstrate: if "Catholic priest" or "Catholic Nun" is typed into most search engines, it's likely that most sites that show up will be former nuns or priests, bitter against Catholics, or tales of scandal. 
*Catholic Priest : A mix of critical sites and others. The first was the Department of Labor basically saying that the Catholic Church is hiring...
*Catholic Nun  A little more accurate, but not perfect. Karmafist 03:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Search Engine Test

message: I imagine this will always be NPOV, but I wonder if there is a way to have something about this subject that would be less controversial. Although I was mistaken in thinking "Anti-Catholicism" was a topic in the encyclopedias I know it is of some historical relevance. Maybe put what's useful in this article in one of the articles on the Know-Nothings or Nativists movements?--T. Anthony 08:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vague curiosity 

message: A good source :
http://www.yale.edu/ycias/europeanstudies/empire/Paper-Weeks.pdf
:Hey thanks. It's the wrong hour for me to look over it, but I figured the parts about Russia are kind of poor at present. Although I knew Anti-Catholicism was significant in Russia in that period.--T. Anthony 10:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks okay I think. I made a slight change on Haiti, I don't think giving Voudouns freedom is itself Anti-Catholic really which is how it was reading, but otherwise I don't see a problem yet. Although it's a weird hour for me so I may later.--T. Anthony 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not a weasel expression, it's a statement of his actual life. The Chinese condemned Wei Jing after death then changed their mind several times back and forth. That doesn't retroactively unmake Wei Jing as a Chinese official. Still I'll accept him being off, but what was the deal with mentioning Savanorola when doing so?--T. Anthony 21:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Copernicanism was not furthed by the Church, except that Copernicus was indeed a Catholic priest, working for the church. That is something that is usually omited when criticizing the Church and its followers. Can we say something to that effect?--Cuchullain 20:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you mean Giordano Bruno? Girolamo Savonarola was excommunicated in 1497 for prophecy and sedition. In 1497 Nicolaus Copernicus was just starting his observations and had not yet even written his Commentariolus. Still I get that Copernicus is more of a Catholic rather than a person whose science was supported by the Catholic Church.(A meaningful difference) Protestantism was rising in Poland towards the end of his life though so I think if he'd wanted to quit being Catholic he could've done so. Also to keep the number of names roughly the same I'll add somebody.--T. Anthony 00:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Catholicism in Russia

message: I tagged a bunch of statements in the Abuse of the term section as wanting sources. I stopped short of tagging the whole article as unsourced, though it is. An article like this, that, by its nature, makes a bunch of accusations, really needs to be well-sourced. --Elliskev 13:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had that section because someone indicated I wasn't allowing stuff about the sex scandal in. I wasn't allowing it in because it's mostly a modern issue, but the guy was insistent so I threw that stuff together. I'll just remove pretty much that whole thing now.--T. Anthony 20:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: I have to say I'm not totally out of sympathy with the recent edits. I did add criticism sections, but I kind of wish that hadn't been necessary. There is no similar section at Anti-Protestantism even though Protestants have certainly killed a fair amount of people for their religions. They've likely killed less because they've been around less. That said I think those sections have validity as a historical explanation for behaviors and perhaps the solution is to add a section to Anti-Protestantism rather than remove one from here.
However Philip Jenkins book is a valid mention I feel. Possibly skepticism about his position can be raised, but it is an actual book. It is written by a actual historian, rather than say by a journalist or something, and published by a prestigious university. I gave the ISBN though to add to that.--T. Anthony 07:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Any article who's page-head introduction is this negative and/or dismissive is in need of a re-evaluation. It simply doesn't read like an encyclopedia article introduction. Granted, this is a pretty weighty article (as are most anti-<insert policy, group, or belief system here> articles), but that hasn't stopped us before. If we can agree on anything, it has to be the dignity of the information we're trying to collect here. The introduction to this page doesn't seem to share that sentiment.
Beyond that, the page seems to be suffering from a great deal of link-to-everything/insert-a-million-quotes syndrome, which makes for impressive, if not actually substantive, writing. I get the feeling that those who have attempted to balance the article out have felt compelled to do so by providing external-source-link counterweight, which might even the article out overall, but certainly degrades the read quality and muddies the page. Many of the best articles (and consequently, a good bulk of really great practices behind them) aren't especially fond of the external link arrows. It's imporant to have grounds for contributing specific statements, but riddling your paragraph with links isn't going to make it any more credible than being true in the first place. Put the source links in the bottom, where they belong, and paraphrase long passages which aren't directly pertinent. Anything which requires half a dozen inline external sources is probably (but not always) heading off the deep end. 
Generalization? Of course. But it helps... a lot.
I also get the impression that it attempts to provide a sort of "field guide" for recognizing and categorizing anti-catholic behavior. My own understanding of the wikipedia leads me to believe a chronological, rather than categorial, organization of this page would provide a better backbone for further edits without miring the whole affair in NPOV and personal sensitivity issues, which are simply going to occur in pages like this. I'll watch this page for a while, and if nothing comes about, i'll do my best to rework it chronologically.
Hopefully something new will come of it, and the page will take on a new, less burdened, life.
Helicon 07:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I trimmed the introduction.  Next I'm going to improve the organization and the selection of detail.  While I'm not going to solicit approval before I make each change, I'm happy to explain or discuss if asked.  --quo 17:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that was quite an improvement. I went ahead and killed the last sentence as well. It doesn't really add anything factual and i have a feeling it might have raised some eyebrows. If you have an objection to the cut, let me know. Helicon 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first two lines, hyperlinkism, chronology? 

message: Maybe it's just the Anglo-American bias of the authors/editors of this article but I noticed that there is nothing in this article about "anti-clericalism" which was a huge sentiment in Europe in reaction to the heavy-handed control that the Catholic Church imposed on Catholic Europe through the clerical hierarchy (archbishops, bishops and priests).
Anti-clericalism is a recurring theme in European politics, culture and literature.  Also in Latin America.
I'm not arguing for or against "anti-clericalism".  I'm just saying omitting mention of it is a major flaw in this article.
In fact, it's telling that there is almost nothing about anti-Catholicism in Europe.  This is another huge hole in the article.
Richard 06:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a section on anti-clericalism, especially in Europe 

message: American Catholics being pro-Franco is a big claim, please list your sources.
::strong majorities favored Franco as did nearly all bishops. historian John Diggins said "'at first glance it does appear that the American clergy had indeed composed a political choir in behalf of Fascism.' Diggins portrayed a large number of Catholic clergy led by figures like Cardinal William O'Connell of Boston and Father Charles E. Coughlin who found occasion to praise Mussolini. He outlined the views of the major Catholic periodicals and discovered that only the Paulist-sponsored Catholic World took exception to fascism with any consistency. ....Ryan's critique of both the doctrine and practice of Italian fascism set him apart from the vast majority of Catholic thinkers and spokesmen. Most Catholics who addressed the matter ignored questions of principle and simply measured fascism in the light of the interests of the Vatican and the Italian church and reacted favorably towards it."  Wilson D. Miscamble, "The Limits of American Catholic Antifascism: The Case of John A. Ryan" Church History. Volume: 59. Issue: 4. 1990. Page 523+. also: Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism, pp. 182-190. and Diggins , "American Catholics and Italian Fascism," Journal of Contemporary History 2 (1967 ): 51-68 Rjensen 22:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More often I think you saw hostility to the Republican side which was seen as Soviet-backed and hostile to the faith. This view is not entirely unjustified although Basque Catholics faced abuse by Franco. Anyway yhe Vatican had stated previously that the Republic was hostile to the Church, but never said anything against Franco as far as I know. This is unlike Mussolini or Hitler both of whom were criticized in encyclicals by Popes.I  think some American Catholics supported Franco as the lesser evil or chose no side. I think it is fair to say the majority then did not side against Franco anyway, but I'm not sure if it's accurate or not to say the majority supported him. America was isolationist in the 30s to a large degree so my guess would be that most American Catholics didn't have strong opinions on Franco one way or the other.(I am a church-attending conservative Catholic BTW. Also "you did not see me, I am not here)--T. Anthony 08:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the data from Gallup poll Dec 16 '38) Which side do you sympathize with in the Spanish civil war—the Loyalists or Franco? 
National total 	76% for Loyalists	24% for Franco
Catholics 	42% for Loyalists	58% for Franco
Protestants 	83  for Loyalists	17  for Franco
source: Cantril Public Opinion, 1935-1946. Page 808. 
Rjensen 08:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go, good job. It looks like they weren't given the choice to say "neither" so I'm still curious what that'd be. It's a strong majority, but 42% is a sizeable minority too.--T. Anthony 12:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Catholics were Pro-Franco? 

message: I added the cleanup tag because even a quick skimming of the article showed so much sloppiness, I found it genuinely distracting. Some particular issues:
* Spelling and punctuation errors.
* Citations could be formatted much better.
* Some section headings have only one or two sentences. These should probably be either expanded to at least a short paragraph, or the subheading should be removed so the stub is merged with its parent section.
Those are the just the things that jumped out at me the most. Any article like this is bound to have some potential POV problems too; I hope everyone can also try write clearly as you figure out what the content should be. Wesley 12:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: Thank you, Wesley, for your comments.  Indeed, this article needs a lot of reworking.  To start, I have re-written the working definition of anti-Catholicism in the first paragraph.  I have employed the distinctions which Scott Hahn makes about the matter.  Without using such an inflammatory term in the article itself, anti-Catholicism is a form of bigotry, that is an irrational negative pre-disposition or even hatred.  This takes the matter out of the realm of mere disagreement.  With such a definition, we may make more headway in cleaning up this article.  I welcome all comments as a concensus on this definition will affect future editing decisions.  --Vaquero100 14:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New working definition 

message: QUESTION: Should differences regarding church doctrine and church governance be moved to Criticism of the Catholic Church?  Anti-Catholic bigotry will stay here.
===Votes in favor===
# Richard
# Wesley 16:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw vote for the purpose of determining consensus 

message: # Richard
# Wesley 16:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes in favor

message: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#Mass_Merging Dominick (TALK) 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Merge Discussion 

message: I've tried to make more cultural, chronological and thematic sense out of this and have rewritten some parts and re-arranged others - though it is still very far from perfect. Although this is a serious subject I can't help thinking that there is a rich vein of absurdity in trad Anti-Catholic sentiments, of which I have provided hints...Colin4C 20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism in Literature and popular media 

message: What is this meant to mean? (from intro):
'The charge of anti-Catholicism is usually intended to assert bigotry.'
It appears to suggest that charging someone as being 'anti-Catholic' is a bigoted assertion....which seems to be the opposite meaning to the one intended....I guess....Colin4C 14:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Syntax 

message: I am by no means an expert in editing a wiki. However, I am LDS, and have more than enough resources to prove that the shown relationship of "Mormonism" to anti-Catholicism is absolutely false. No offence to the author. There may be a correlation, but not as it's shown here. I will try to summerize as best I can. The founding of the LDS church isn't "partly due" to the anti-Catholic bias in upstate N.Y. Joseph Smith questioned religion because of the amount of relious battle from church to church at the time. Joseph Smith also wasn't Catholic nor had anything to do with the Catholic church. Who knows, the bias might have helped in causing him to question. But overall not in causing the founding of the LDS church. As Joseph recounted the "first vision" it was Christ who commanded him to restore his church. So whether this is believed to be true or not; the doctrine of the church is that the reason it was restored was that it was commanded of Christ. Martin harris did not join the LDS church to promote anti-catholicism. Though **at first** he did publish the Book of Mormon as a buisness venture he continued, after joining the church, to publish it out of desire to spread it to others.  Also, the official viewpoint of the LDS church(Found on www.LDS.org) is that the "Whore of Babylon" is NOT refering to the Catholic church, and thus is not even related to this article. This is refering to any church which is not supporting the cause of good and is seeking its own gain. Retroactive baptism is incorrect termanology. It is more properly known as "Baptism for the Dead". The reason given for this practice is also close but not accurate. The Vatican "Refuses to dignify" is incorrect. The Vatican  has ignored the matter. Ignoring isn't refusing. The Vatican might not seen any need for addressing the matter. If I am wrong, then please give a citation or quote to go off. The way it was worded was just contradictary.
The LDS church is not anti-Catholic or related to anti-Catholicism. Though there may be members of the LDS church who are, and of the Catholic church who are anti-Mormon; there is no official anti-Catholic standpoint from the church. The Bias definition in the first paragraph states that it is not a mere disagreement on theology etc. Though the LDS church has different beliefs, it is not in any way anti-Catholic and has no official "bias" against the Catholic church. Therfore, I suggest that this article is full more of speculation, opinion, and viewpoints. It does not provide any information or statistc. I do not mean to just edit out the whole paragraph but as it is written it is inaccurate. I tried my best to fix this. After doing so I realised that it doesn't relate to anti-Catholic "bias" at all. I want to say that I do not have an agenda either. If you rewrite a more accurate section then I would completely encourage it. If I edit that, it would only be for proper terminology or trying to help relate it to this article. Just as it is does not relate. (sorry for the length) TheMusicalGenius 05:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints & The Catholic Church

message: Is Wikipedia supposed to be listed as an anti-Catholic website, or is this a joke? 82.41.225.44 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be vandalism.Elcocinero 00:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Not entirely untrue, but yeah vandalism.--T. Anthony 03:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I notice that Antisemitism doesn't link to antisemetic sites. Why should this one? Freder1ck 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia listed as anti-Catholic website

message: I strongly question the value of having a section on Eleanor Roosevelt on the Anti-Catholicism page, when (a) no other individual has an entire section devoted to them, and (b) it repeats word-for-word the content under Eleanor Roosevelt on The Catholic issue. If Eleanor Roosevelt's anti-Catholicism is considered to be important in the US, that information can be better provided by a link than by copying the information so that it appears on both pages. Yonmei 07:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eleanor Roosevelt

message: Just to say that maybe somebody who knows something about it (a German?) could contribute something on the above topic - seeing as we have covered anti-Catholicism in the other two  prominent Protestant countries viz: England and the USA. Colin4C 13:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was something on the Kulturkampf in an earlier version, has that been erased?--T. Anthony 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism in Germany 

message: I ran across this page during some random research on the authenticity of references made on the Catholic League's website (by way of a comment made by the leader on MSNBC).
Looks like a rogue group with weak citings but other then that this article is clearly written by someone with that group as a lot of the wording and references are taken from their website.  I've talked to Catholics that have never even hard of this group nor agree with their tactics.  That is the reason for the lack of references.  
I'm not denying that anti-catholicism exists but that the "facts" of this article and the Catholic League are taken out of context, misconstrued and/or just plain made up.  I do agree that Catholics are more persecuted today then other times in history but the perpetrators are the Fundamentalist right-wing religion pirates led by Jerry Falwell and his contemporaries (the same people from which this group barrows a lot of its arguments) and not necessarily the general public per se.
It's for THAT reason that it should be rewritten, maybe scraped and started over.  It's an important subject especially in respect to American immigration history and I don't agree that it should be removed at all.
I'd like to see someone with more background then I have on this subject to rewrite it.  I remember interesting political cartoons on this subject in my history books and the accounts of the suffering of Catholic immigrants.  I would hate to see some high school student use this article for a paper and miss the real stories involved with this issue.
Dividebyzero 22:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might help if we knew your specific problems with this article. To compare it to something by the Catholic League strikes me as unfair. Outside of Dan Brown nothing in the mainstream of contemporary culture is mentioned in this article, but the Catholic League tends to see anti-Catholicism in many mainstream TV shows. To call it a "political advertisement" strikes me as strange. I think some people are deeply offended this article exists at all, I don't accuse you of being such a person, but without knowing your objection I'm not sure what you want.--T. Anthony 16:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see now. You seem to think it gives undue coverage to Left-wing or liberal anti-Catholics. That might be so. Part of that might be that Christian Right anti-Catholicism is basically what it was a century ago. Still people like Jack Chick are mentioned. Tony Alamo or Fred Phelps could likely be added as well if they're not there now. Still their views aren't much different than earlier Christian Right anti-Catholics. Liberal or Left Anti-Catholic people have evolved more and are a bit more interesting. (Especially for Catholics. That wacko preachers don't like Catholics is sort of standard)--T. Anthony 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is a Political Advertisement 

message: I read a summary of a study of Dutch anti-catholicism which highlighted a result that was completely unexepected i.e. that the literature classified as anti-Catholic detailing sensationalist accounts of imprisonment of nuns etc. was mostly read as a form of entertainment by Catholics. Andries 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch "anti-catholic" literature was read by Dutch Catholics

message: The links section had degenerated into a link farm.  If there are notable websites (pro or anti) then they should be rolled in and cited as sources, or we should give them as examples and cite a source which notes that they are significant examples. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I'm surprised no one has addressed anti-Catholicism in China.  Anyone wish to have a go at it? Majoreditor 02:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China? 

message: :::I assume that an 'Anti-Catholic Satire and Humour' article is going to be created soon on the wikipedia? Just hope that nobody puts a 'Merge' notice on it...Colin4C 10:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Anti-Catholic satire and humor have its own (small) section in this article with a link to its own main article? Majoreditor 03:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure but I've been a busy boy (look at History of Christianity and History of the Papacy) and I'm just played out.  I'll leave it for someone else to write a summary for this article.  --Richard 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Catholic satire and humor

message: In the section on anti-catholic sentiment in the U.S. removed the phrase "For better or worse" before the statement that the US is a cultural legacy of Great Britain.  Such a statement is clearly POV, and generally has negative connotations. JimZDP 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor POV edit 

message: I have removed the Cleanup tag from the article.  The article is in better form, thanks to your collective efforts. There are still several sections which need facts -- hence, the More Sources tag remains.  And, of course, there are opportunities to expand the article's coverage of anti-Catholicism outside North America.  Majoreditor 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Cleanup Tag 

message: The disputed portion on feminist opposition doesn't cite facts nor mention how they oppose the Catholic Church.  This section will need to be fleshed out if it's to remain.  Can someone cite specific actions or statements by feminists which are anti-Catholic?  (I don't think there's a shortage of examples). Thanks, Majoreditor 03:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Richard. Majoreditor 18:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome but that was just a down payment on the house, so to speak.  I didn't have a lot of time this morning and I don't have a lot of time now but I think the point you make is "on the money" and it needs even more fleshing out.  I hope to get back to this in the next few days with more concrete examples and citations. --Richard 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminist opposition

message: User:Dems110 deleted the following text twice "It has tended to be associated with the Left-wing of the political spectrum, and with middle and working class intellectuals." 
Dems110's second deletion was accompanied by the edit summary "prejudice is not on any side of the political spectrum".
This is true as a general truism but it ignores the history of anti-clericalism in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.  Now anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism are not exactly the same thing but much anti-Catholicism has its roots in anti-clericalism so we should at least consider the possibility that the deleted text has some validity in some countries in certain eras.
The truth is that Catholicism has often sided with secular power in the past, often throwing its spiritual authority and secular influence on the side of monarchy, nobility and aristocracy.  For these reasons, the Catholic church has often been seen as being on the side of reactionary oppressors of the masses (this rhetoric was espoused by socialists and Communists;I am not necessarily agreeing with it;I'm just describing it).
In many Catholic countries of Europe, the Pope was a supporter of (or contender with) the ruling classes.  The bishops were bourgeois along the same lines as minor nobility and mid-level bureaucrats and the local clergy were often petit bourgeois.
It is for this reason that Marx argued that "religion is the opiate of the masses".  He argued that religion, specifically Christianity, simply palliated the suffering of the masses so that they could continue being oppressed by the aristocrats and capitalists.
This was also true in colonial empires such as the Spanish colonies in Latin America and, I believe, the colonial empires in Africa and Southeast Asia.  Even in 20th century Latin America, the Catholic church was seen as being part of the oligarchic power structure.  It is against this perception (and reality) that liberation theology was born.
Now, I concede that this section is poorly written and the sentence in question is certainly no exception.  However, to delete it dismissively with the suggestion that it is unsourced and POV risks glossing over an important facet of modern-day anti-Catholicism.
--Richard 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, it was unsourced.  But I agree with what I think you are getting at—a much better solution would have been to source it.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism characterized as associated with left-wing of the political spectrum 

message: I think this whole section needs to be reviewed and reworked.  The points that I made in the section above should be worked into the text but we need to keep in mind that there is an article on anti-clericalism and so we have to decide how much to say here and how much should be left for discussion in that article.
I am leaving on vacation in a few hours and won't be back until Monday but I will read any responses then and get to work on this section if no one else has taken it up in the meantime.  Have a good weekend, all!
--Richard 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism and anti-clericalism 

message: Substituted at 20:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment