Talk:Anti-Catholicism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page

	Catholicism Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

I have archived the previous version of this talk page as it had gotten too large and was mostly out of date, any outstanding issues have been moved over to the talk archive.--Mifter (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General POV issues remain

I am concerned about the general tone of the article. It seems geared toward arguing for any idea which if not endorsed by Catholics is inherently anti-Catholic, something which seems ludicrous to say the least.

Social change in the United States for instance, has continually revolved around a liberal-progressive sort of ideology, in which it is believed that science and individual freedom can produce a better society. One of the results of this general trend over much of the 20th century has been to produce ideas and ideals which society believes are healthier and will lead to greater happiness than those founded on a strict Catholic ideology.

It seems as though Catholics who feel (rightly so) that they are slowly losing ground in American politics may subsequently be led to believe that they are being persecuted by the rest of society. This is no doubt due to the erroneous, unspoken presentiment that Catholics are the original Christians, they were saved by Jesus and must spread his message and their practices to the whole world; those who resist are unholy; they are anti-Catholic.

This sort of perspective is pervasive of the entire article. The genuine anti-Catholicism of the early centuries A.D. seems to have been mutated by Catholics into this sort of contemporary complex of continual persecution, consisting of arguments which attempt to portray the Catholic as trapped, repressed, and under-represented, an attempt at composing a Christian version of continuing antisemitism. On the contrary, Catholics now enjoy a fundamental protection from discrimination that they never had in the past.

So to put it bluntly, this article, which should be mainly on the genuine imprisonment, torture, and execution of martyrs and whatnot, and real modern examples, has instead been morphed into this sort of giant complaint about "no one does listens to us when we dictace morality, wahhh." Parts of the article seem to focus on contemporary issues which while said to be anti-Catholic, simply represent a difference in ideology, a lapse of warranted distinction which I feel, based on 7 years of attending Catholic school, is very characteristic of the Christian mindset in general.

However accurate one may believe my viewpoint to be, the page overall is not NPOV. I wish I could address each section in detail, but I am prevented by strict time constraints.

Kst447 (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to have raised any real POV issue; your post does not address a single specific instance of POV. The article in no way asserts that anyone who is "arguing for any idea which if not endorsed by Catholics is inherently anti-Catholic". Lots of people disagree with Catholic teachings, Buddhists, Mormons, Jews, all varieties of Protestants, but the article does not say that they are anti-Catholic merely because they disagree. The killing of Catholic faithful and the virtual elimination of priests and churches in many Mexican states in the early 20th Century is plainly anti-Catholic, as was the Maria Monk matter and Jack Chick, today. I think it is plainly wrong that only imprisonment, martrydom and the like are sufficient to constitute anti-Catholicism, and reliable sources back this point up. I'm going to remove the tag. If you can come up with concrete instances of what you feel is POV, feel free to repost it. Otherwise how are editors to address your vague claims of POV and make the entries neutral if in fact they are valid. There doesn't seem to be a legitimate, or at least clearly stated, POV issue here.Mamalujo (talk) 23:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe, firstly, the tag read "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

Anti-Catholic Satire and Humour:

The Catholic church has been a target for satire and humour, from the time of the Reformation to the present day.

I haven't bothered to copy the rest of this section as it is uncited anyway. Since when does humor equate to anti-Catholicism? I think simply put, this only serves to demonstrate that Catholics take themselves too seriously. A joke is just what it is called--it is based on reality and is intended to provoke laughter without real-life action, am I wrong? I think the only people who are really provoked to say or do anything after they hear an "anti-Catholic joke" are Catholics themselves. No blood was ever pumped into my viewpoint with a joke, rather, from real-life observations, inconveniences, perceived injustices etc. But I never laughed at something and then went picketing. Jokes, I believe, supplement a pre-existing worldview; a joke is a joke, violating the Catholic dogma to create one is not anti anything except anti-boring. A joke does not fall under the definitions of "discrimination, hostility or prejudice" directed at Roman Catholics unless blatantly untactful. These jokes exist, but are not representative as a rule.

Sexuality:

Lately sexual abuse by representatives of the Catholic church has been highlighted in such films as The Magdalene Sisters (2002). However the veracity of the bestselling Kathy's Story by Kathy O'Beirne which details physical and sexual abuse suffered in a Magdalene laundry in Ireland has been questioned in a new book entitled Kathy's Real Story by Hermann Kelly. In this book it is alleged that false allegations against the priesthood are being fueled by a government compensation scheme for victims.

I'm not sure how a single book, the contents of which are not even discussed, disproves widespread sexual abuse which occurred and was repeatedly turned a blind eye to, and in fact was facilitated by the administrative forces in the church. Am I just imagining that these things happened? This "book" is given undue weight, and as is noted, there are multiple films on this issue. Where is the discreditation of the rest of these films, and what of the books on the topic, and news reports? "Alleged" motivations for litigation have no place in an encyclopedia; they are not NPOV. Where is the investigative consensus on these things?

Sexuality, contraception and abortion:

How is protesting outside of a mass about Catholic ideals an example of anti-Catholicism? Clearly, the issue here is the projection of religious ideology into public policy. I think that falls under the heading of separation of church and state.

Then, it reads "desecrated the Eucharist during Mass." Whether or not the Eucharist is viewed to have been "desecrated" is completely irrelevant, and only serves to exacerbate the subjective sense of the reader that Catholics who knew of or were present at the event may have felt offended. The mere sense of being offended doesn't indicate an anti-anything in any situation, it can indicate over-sensitivity. In any case, a single instance of protesting and condom-throwing doesn't serve to demonstrate very much anyway, except that ideology is continuing to penetrate the public sphere in an increasingly secular world which is growing increasingly tired of it.

No one cares what Catholics believe, no one is going around to churches and saying "father, society has made of a list of things it doesn't think you should be allowed to profess at mass anymore"; they care when matters of faith overwhelm the influence of scientifically-based health issues and intrude on the genuine well-being of a people. This section attempts to insinuate differently, and is otherwise uncomprehensive.

Anti-Catholicism in the entertainment industry:

This section is mostly the opinion of a single opinionated author, and so can not possibly be considered NPOV to say the least. At most, a couple sentences and a citation may be in order, otherwise this person is given undue weight.

Overall, based on these examples at least, the only people who seem to be claiming anti-Catholicism are Catholics. What is Amnesty International saying on the issue, for instance? Shouldn't standards of human rights enter purposefully into the construction of this topic?

Furthermore, upon looking up the definition of "anti", which indeed is defined simply as "against or opposed to", leads me to believe there exists a conflict of interest in regard to what is discussed on this page. The article encompasses both "opposed to" and "taking action in direct opposition of" which I believe are distinct, and while the Merriam-Webster dictionary refers to the former, the definition of "anti-Catholicism" on the top of the page encompasses the latter.

So for instance, does making a pedophile-priest joke qualify as persecution because psychological pain may be felt due to the resurfacing sense that one's religious institution isn't perfect in its integrity? Does it damage the sense of self of the person to the point where not only do they lose a connection to their faith, but the integrity of their organization suffers as well? And as the church knowingly covered up such scandals in the past, is this really an illegitimate form of passive criticism, this distressing remark of satire? Or does it echo the genuine, legitimate concerns of a society which holds concerns on a dominating social institution based on the nearly-universal western morality about children and sexual abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kst447 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the scope of this page needs to be narrowed down to things that actually affect the practice of the Catholic faith by Catholics as opposed to trends or opinions which simply oppose Catholic intrusion into the secular sphere.

In other words, things will need to be written in the context of a more secular post-enlightenment world in which the nature of things is such that ideology is often questioned or plain just not taken seriously, actions which should not be equated to an attack or hostility.

Am I just ridiculous altogether?

Kst447 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that IMHO the topic of anti-Catholicism here should be descriptive rather than moralistic. I.e. we should describe instances where the Catholic church or individuals belonging to it are attacked in words or actions or laws or books or films but not feel obliged to give our own personal judgements as to whether such instances of anti-Catholicism are 'justified' or 'unjustified'. Some of the allegations against the Catholic church are so patently absurd and self-contradictory that they virtually refute themselves whilst others might pass as 'fair comment' according to the reader of the wikipedia's own frame of reference. Let the reader decide what is 'justified'. Colin4C (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)