Talk:Anti-Catholicism/Archive 4

A Catholic
I think the fact that Hitler was himself a Catholic does indeed matter, because (1st) most people, as we have seen, do not believe it even when they're told, and (2nd) because it is a very rare phenomenon in history that the Church was so hatefully suppressed by people who were her own members (the same is true for Goebbels).

I promised to give a source for the fact that Hitler was a Catholic, and not „erstwhile“ but until his death. The German original text from Albert Speer's biography: Speer, Albert: Erinnerungen, Verlag Ullstein, Frankfurt a.M./Berlin, 1969, page 109 goes as follows.

''Als Hitler etwa 1937 davon hörte, daß auf Betreiben der Partei und der SS zahllose seiner Anhänger aus der Kirche ausgetreten seien, weil sich diese halsstarrig Hitlers Absichten widersetzte, befahl er aus Gründen der Opportunität, daß seine wichtigsten Mitarbeiter, vor allem aber Göring und Goebbels, weiter der Kirche anzugehören hätten. Auch er würde Mitglied der katholischen Kirche bleiben, obwohl er keine innere Bindung zu ihr habe. Er blieb es bis zu seinem Selbstmord.''

If you search the quote in the English translation, you may find it towards the end of the 7th chapter. I do not have the translation, so I made my own.

''When Hitler heard in about 1937 that, with the Party’s and the SS’s support, countless of his followers had secedered from the Church, because the latter was headstrongly resisting to his intentions, he commanded for reasons of opportunity that his most important co-operators, and most notably Göring and Goebbels, cease not to belong to the Church. He would himself stay a member of the Catholic Church as well, even though he said he had no inner connection with her. [Indeed,] he stayed it until his suicide.'' Rudefuss (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the relevance to anti-catholicism? If as you say most people do not believe it then its not creating the phenomena.  It may be relevant on other articles but not here -- Snowded  TALK  14:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Snowded, you are right that it has indeed little relevance to this lemma. But, it seems to be a topic, or should I say a mantra, popular among ... to bash the catholic church. Anyway, even the claim itself seems to be wrong as recent research by historian Michael Hesemann, supported by the Pave the Way Foundation, in archives of years 1930-33 has shown that already 3 years before Hitler came to power nazi party members were indeed excommunicated, „any Catholic who joined the Nazi party, wore the uniform or flew the swastika flag would no longer be able to receive the sacraments.“. In addition, already a 1931 booklet by Capuchin Ingbert Naab clearly stated that Hitler and nazi ideology was anti-christian. --Túrelio (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is indeed relevant, as I pointed out. But if you think it's "bashing Catholicism", then just leave it out. I consider that a very strange oppinion, however. And please know that I'm a believer in the Catholic Church myself.Rudefuss (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the Hitler angle is immaterial, Anti-Catholicism also includes a component which believes that the Catholic Church stood idly during the Holocaust, and that some high ranking clerics assisted Nazis out of Europe after the war. I am not claiming these allegations to be true, just that they are the basis of some Anti-Catholic sentiment.155.84.57.253 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Although Mr. Hitler was a Catholic by birth, he assuredly was no more of one in practice than Bugsy Siegel was religiously Jewish (Mr. Siegel was ethnically Jewish notwithstanding). Many Catholic clergy risked their lives to stop Mr. Hitler's horrific plan to kill the disabled. In response, Mr. Hitler claimed knowledge of how to deal with the Church and proceeded to murder the "unfit", which later would include entire races. Some horrific Catholic clerics served this monsters ends. Doubtless the Church could have done more to stop the genocide. By the same token, the Hungarian leader, Admiral Horthy, was not found guilty at Nuremburg. After all, he properly argued, a smaller nation in thrall to the      ts cannot be expected to take up arms against them. This opinion prevailed as respects that country; many view Admiral Horthy a hero because of his work to save the lives of countless Jews under the circumstances. For me, he remains one of the great mysteries of the war, like Mr. Benes. In any case, it is too recent to form an objective opinion with respect to the Church and WWII. With time, objectivity will be possible. For now, the most important thing is to stop the denialism of the Japanese; why on earth they would want to continue to offend so many with objections to that which no living Japanese person can be blamed is beyond me.CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bashing a particular faith for the Nazi enterprise is a bad idea. One might blame Luther, for example, only to discover that Luther's anti semitic tracts depended on Paul of Burgos, a Catholic theologian who converted from Judaism and used his Talmudic skills to write immensely anti Jewish texts! Also, who can forget Eck, the Catholic contemporary of Luther in this respect? Taking people out of their time is a gross disservice; to see how really true this is, attempt to find a non misogynist in any religion before 1700 (Queen Elizabeth and other rulers do not count in this matter). By contrast, it always amazes that Gerhard Kittel, Paul Althaus, and Emanual Hirsch, are not mentioned as Protestant theologians who played such a mighty role in the religious justification of Nazi enterprise. Hitler gained a great following among Muslims. Many of Hitler's assistants found in Hinduism a kindred spirit, a matter of interest given the recent release of a 1958 pro-Hitler treatise by a prominent Hindu. Japanese      m, of course, was religiously founded in Bhuddism. Jehovah's witnesses and Jews did not participate in part because practitioners of those faiths were to be exterminated.CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In essence though, Hitler was Catholic and supported Catholicism. The only sources that disagree were written by Catholics.  Tell me, why would you go to Catholics to learn about Nazism?  Why not just go to Nazism itself and see that Hitler truly claimed to be Catholic?  I believe this sentence is what we are really talking about here, "The Nazi ideology was anti-Christian and particularly anti-Catholic. Catholicism was widely suppressed in Nazi Germany from 1933 on. State measures started with sermons being supervised and grew to the abduction of clerics, as well as laymen, to concentration camps."  There is no source for it.  Yes, maybe a few Catholics were thrown in the concentration camps, but it wasn't because they were Catholic; it was because they supported the resistance against Nazi Germany.  Catholicism wasn't suppressed in Nazi Germany at all.  Hell, the Popes sat by idly and watched the atrocities happen from afar.  If anything, they didn't care that millions of Jews were being slaughtered.  All in all, Hitler was Catholic and he supported Catholicism as a religion along with the Christians of the time.  I think this section on Nazi Germany being anti-Catholic should be ultimately removed. 98.28.186.91 (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about. Saying Hitler was Catholic is like saying the famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a Presbyterian or that Joseph Stalin was Orthodox.  It is true that each of those persons was baptized in those faiths, but also true they rejected them in their youths. It wasn't just a few Catholics that were killed, indeed in Poland nearly 20% of the priests were murdered. As far as Hitler supporting Catholicism, the opposite is true.  It is well documented that he had a plan to destroy Christianity. Sources? New York Times (5 part series) and Rutgers Law School (not exactly Catholic or even Catholic-friendly sources): Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity and The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches. Mamalujo (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Most politicians "believe" in themselves. Few in religion. Maybe Carter an exception. All for public "show." Stalin was a failed Orthodox seminarian as I recall. Hardly germane to his career, I would say.


 * When Pope Pius smuggled a letter critical of Naziis, to be read to German Catholics, 1/3 of the priests were arrested and sent to "concentration" (extermination) camps.


 * But yes, repeated quoting that "Hitler was a Catholic and therefore Catholics are pro-Nazi" would be Anti-Catholic IMO. But qould require outside citation. Student7 (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of Hitlers religion, there is still no citation for the statement that the Nazis were 'particularly anti-Catholic'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.142.21 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will check to see if the article mentions Mit brennender Sorge along with the reaction mentioned in the article. Probably should if it doesn't. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it but without any explanation. Probably needs some help with that.
 * I would say that killing 48% of the clergy could not be construed as "friendly." If you are saying that they hated Jews more than they hated Catholics, I guess I could agree with that, but degrees of hate is not the issue with this article. Student7 (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One could say that Nazism was an enemy of all religions, not just Judaism, and it certainly was uniquely anti-Roman Catholic either. Yes, Hitler was a Baptized Catholic, and he never technically joined another religious affiliation, so yes, Roman Catholicism has the dubvious distinction of being the mother faith of the most infamous butcher of the 20th century. Catholics, it's historical fact, get over it, or if it really bothers you, join another religion. The Orthodox Church will welcome you! <> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.140.156 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rationalizing anti-catholicism
A sentence reads "This form of anti-Catholicism has its roots in ... the Sack of Constantinople by Catholic forces from Western Europe in the Fourth Crusade in 1204." Is it the purpose of this article to justify anti-catholicism? If so, nearly all of it can be justified, I am sure. The forces sent by the pope were to Jerusalem in the fourth crusade. Most of the leaders wound up excommunicated by the time they got to Constantinople. Read as a story, by someone who doesn't enjoy harboring grudges, it actually reads pretty funny. Nonetheless, crusaders, who were always supposed to be elsewhere, did wind up sacking Constantinople. And yes, they were Catholic. They were also European, white, adults between the ages of ..., over 4 feet tall, etc. But suggesting that their primary attribute was "Catholic" is pretty droll, if you read the story. "Too smart for their own good," or "not too smart" would be a better description. After 800 years, it's still pretty hard figuring out which one fits best.

But rationalizing anti-Catholicism should not be the task of this article IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Reason" "motivation" and "justification" are not synonims, that sentence passes no judgement it meerly states why. It does not say its justified as a result of the reasoning. Smitty1337 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is FAR to easy to rationalize anti-Catholicism, so much evil has been done in its name over the centuries for it to merit its destruction. Perhaps we should try to rationalize pro-Catholic sentiment, that would be an amazing article!

The article also reads "The justification for anti-Catholicism began with the Protestant Reformation." It is more accurate to say anti-Catholicism was justified due to the Inquisition. Groups of people the WORLD OVER have been anti-Catholic. Could have been because of the Holy Roman Empire. Kind of like being anti-murder or anti-slavery/serfdom. It is two different things to oppose on one hand Rome's political Empire and on the other hand the theology of Catholicism. Amish 06:55 25, Aug 2010 (UTC)

Justifying anti-Catholicism dates MUCH further back than the Inquisition. Think the eleventh century and the proto-"Catholic" religion of pre-1054 Italy. Yet again, the Roman Church usurped the title of "Catholic" for its own purposes, what is called the "Orthodox Church" by westerners calls herself the Catholic Church.


 * Are you honestly saying that being anti-Catholic is the same as being anti-murder? And you do know that the inquisition was government-run, not Church-run, right?  And that the inquisitions arose in response to what was seen as heresy.  In other words, the protestantism, in a way, came first.  Its really kind of silly to say it was justified due to the inquisition when they were anti-Catholic before the inquisitions.Farsight001 (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, you probably didn't notice, but the last comment before yours was May 2nd. It's kind of over.  If you want to continue this line of talk, it'll get more attention if you start a new section at the bottom of the page.Farsight001 (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so Orthodox Christianity doesn't exist? Divisions in Christianity are Roman Catholic/Protestant, eh? Sounds more like someone has a narrow, and thus Western European, world view. To bad, you are missing out on A LOT more interesting facts! Heresey is not a justification for imprisoning people, obviously there would never have been an Inquisition if Roman Catholicism was correct, it would not need to justify itself with torture, physical or otherwise.

Today's edits
I don't think we need to mention a random speech here, and we very much don't need "Equally logical assigning the origin of perceived anti Catholicism to the history of the Catholic Church with relationship to the Judaism" -- whatever that actually means. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary, the irruption of the speech is a verbal assault upon the Pope; this was not a random speech, but a speech designed to build bridges between religions. The irrupter was not a random individual, but the leadership of the Sharia Courts in the West Bank and Gaza. He is just as relevant as the leadership of any religious entity, including the Pope. You cannot simply remove an edit because it goes against what your political agenda. Substantiate your assertion that nothing apart from the establishment of Israel could have produced any anti Catholicism.

Of greater significance, is the removal of an entire section, the anti Catholicism of Turkey, which will be considerably expanded with time, as will the anti Catholicism of other countries, such as Morocco. This you simply cannot do without reason. The murder of a Bishop is assuredly an anti Catholic act when it is accompanied by hateful language. It would surely be a hate crime according to US law. CharlesHenryLeaFan —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What is going on?
Without permission or even discussion, my edits have been removed. That the murder of a Bishop is an anti Catholic act is irrefragable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See Bold, Revert, Discuss. I reverted and started a discussion: you were supposed to then discuss, instead of reverting again -- and continuing to post in not-quite-English. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you may wish to say about my language skills, you lack of references with respect to the destruction of Churches and expulsion of Priests is very odd. Let us discuss matters here if you wish. Why is the murder of a Catholic Bishop not anti Catholic, in your view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk • contribs) 16:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that the murder of a woman is not automatically misogynistic. If there are reliable sources stating that it was an Anti-Catholic act, rather than a random act of insanity, that's usable: otherwise, it's original research. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hate crimes are indeed crimes committed by persons as a result of ethnicity or religion. Definition A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html

Assuredly, this was a hate crime, as evidenced by statements that include shouts of Alahu Akbar, references to the act's having been divinely inspired, and also references to the killing of Satan. There exists no other explanation but antipathy towards Catholicism for such statements. You will note that in the tables the FBI provides, matters are listed as anti Black hate crimes. This was an anti Catholic hate crime de facto.

Even were you to argue, as the lawyer might indeed argue, that this was done out of insanity or "self defense" (an odd argument when a head is chopped off in a manner consistent with Islamic Extremism) you must contend with the analysis of Archbishop Ruggero Franceschini, 71, 6 years Latin archbishop of Izmir:

I believe that with this murder, which has an explicitly religious, Islamic element, we are faced with something that goes beyond the government it points towards nostalgic, perhaps anarchist groups who want to destabilize the government.

The very modalities of the murder aim to manipulate public opinion. After having killed the bishop, the young Murat Altun shouted "I killed the great Satan. Allah Akbar. " But this is really strange. Murat had never before said those violent sentences. I knew him for at least 10 years. I was the one who took him on to work for the Church. He had never expressed himself in this way. He was not a practicing Muslim. He was a young man who had a Christian culture, without being Christian. Neither he nor his father were our enemy. In my opinion, were a being used like a tool in the hands of others.

The use of Islamic ritual serves to divert attention: it is like suggesting that the track is religious and not political. Moreover, by pushing the religious track, that of a conflict between Islam and Christianity, public opinion can be inflamed in an area where we are weak and believed we have no strength. What’s more, Prime Minister Erdogan’s strongest supporters are not to be found among radical Islam but in the moderates And I fear that now he no longer has even their support.

http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Archbishop-of-Smyrna:-The-martyrdom-of-bishop-Padovese-want-the-truth-and-not-pious-lies-18639.html

The differences between a murder of a woman on a street and the chopping off of the head of a Bishop by someone denoted to favor a "fundamentalist cause" should be clear.

How can you assert Israeli anti Catholicism began with 1948? After D Day, the Allied forces destroyed many Churches and some Cathedrals; none reckon that as anti Catholicism. CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC):18, 22 June 2010
 * Simple: I don't assert that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So how then does anti Catholicism in Israel begin in 1948? Have you any proof that the destruction occurred outside the time of the war? If not, remove that sentence as being unsubstantiated. Also you must remove the parts about the priests being expelled; they lack substantiation and also context. You would appear to have lost as respects the murder of a Bishop by a man who chopped the head off the body, unless you believe such to be a normal activityCharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I have no idea about where you got the statement "denied residence status to Catholic clerics" or what it means. Also, what other Catholic Bishops were opposed by Israel? Unless you can answer the above, the article can be written as follows for a neutral point of view:

In the 1948 war, several villages with majority Catholic populations, such as Kafr Bir'im and Iqrit, were depopulated by the Israel Defence Forces.[50] Israel opposed, but did not prevent, the Holy See's appointment of Boutros Mouallem as archbishop of Galilee; this opposition was condemned by the Vatican and other nations.[51,52] In October 2002 Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Elias Chacour and Archbishop Boutros Mouallem were prevented from leaving Jerusalem to attend an interfaith meeting in London.[53] In May 2009, the leader of the West Bank and Gaza's Sharia Court irrupted a presentation by Pope Benedict XVI, on his first official visit to Israel, commandeering the microphone and speaking without permission for ten minutes; the act was condemned by the Vatican.

Newspapers such as the Telegraph are assuredly reliable sources of news stories. CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Another episode of anti Catholic violence:

In March 2006, a Jewish man, his Christian wife, and their daughter entered the Basilica of the Anunciation, threw some firecrackers and small gas cannisters from the balcony, causing minor damages; in the resulting melee, the family was beaten by worshipers before being escorted in cognito by police, who protected them from a crowd of thousands. Afterwards, multiple riots harmed 24, including a baker's dozen of police officers. 

Provided the religion of all is included, this would assuredly be a neutral point of view statement of an anti Catholic act. CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no, there's no indication in the source given that that's anti-Catholic. There's barely even indication that that's anti-Christian. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict]This is a perfect example of how original research cannot be used. Just because this happened at the Basilica of the Anunciation doesn't make it an Anti-Catholic event. It "could" be anti-Christian, vandalsim, a prank, etc. You need a reliable source that says it is anti-Catholic before adding it to this article. Marauder40 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

News agencies are definitely reliable sources of news, and are so according to the rules. Violence against a Church and nothing else is an anti Church action; it might be a bit humorous, as in this case, but it definitely is an act against the Church. I imagined being one of the folks who got fire crackers tossed at them; heck, I'd be mad as Hades.

In this respect, why would depopulating a few Catholic villages during a war effort directed primarily against Muslims be specifically anti Catholic? Did the Isrealis do something like urinate in the Holy Water of any Church? Were there any reports of the raping of nuns or priests? Deliberate acts with specail effort against the clergy as against the surroundings would indeed be acts against the religion of the clergy. Otherwise, they are simply acts of war.

You have not answered the arguments put to you.CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the problem with Hate Crime legislation. Was that person killed because he was black/gay/religious or was he killed because he was in the wrong location at the wrong time, part of a drug deal, or in a fight?  Proving it isn't easy.  Assuming just because a certain action is Anti-Catholic fits in the same category.  Unless you have something specifically stating it is against the Catholic church you can't assume otherwise you are doing original research.  If it was so clear why haven't you found valid reliable source that says it was specifically against the Catholic church and not some random act?  These are two important policies of WP, no original research, and reliable sources.  This goes hand-in-hand with NPOV. Marauder40 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The FBI is a reliable source, as are newspapers; those who abominate hate crimes laws tend to be Ted Pike and other similar bags of cat vomit. The article provides no authoritative source to prove that anything said to be anti Catholic is indeed anti Catholic; by your arguments, the entire paragraph should be removed. In fact, "Suspicion and hostility towards Catholic clerics has led to incidents such as the October 2002 detention and harassment of Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Elias Chacour and Archbishop Boutros Mouallem, who were prevented from leaving Jerusalem to attend an interfaith meeting in London.[53]" crudely misinterprets the article it references, which concludes:

Israeli authorities representing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Religious Affairs rushed to meet with the delegation. Rabbi Melchior of the Israeli Foreign Ministry called from London to personally apologize. All involved have promised 'a turning point' in their relationships and promised that the group would receive appropriate treatment when they attempted to leave again on the afternoon flight. Reports from the airport indicated that there were no further incidents and that the delegation continued the journey to London.

____

If X says "Z prevented Y from doing act Q", it follows that, if X is speaking in truth, Y did not do act Q. The sentence lies by saying the delegates were prevented from leaving Jerusalem to attend the conference. The article first mentions Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem and Bishop Munib Younan of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jerusalem. The sentence deliberately excludes mention of these persons to imply a specific anti Catholicism that does not exist.

Worse than original research is the provision of lies to an unsuspecting public. The author should be banned for this. I REQUEST THAT WIKIPEDIA NOTE THE SECTION ON ISRAEL IS IN DISPUTECharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You really got to ease off. First off I didn't say hate crimes don't exist I just said it is hard to prove something is a hate crime vs. something else. The courts deal with that all the time.  Second, it's pure and simple.  If you want to add something you need a reliable source that says it is anti-catholic vs. something else.  If you don't have it you can't add it. You are trying to address to many issues at the same exact time, thus making it impossible to talk about any issues. It may be helpful to split up what you are addressing into different subjects on the talk page.  In one section you are addressing what you want to add, in another you are addressing something that is already there.  You need to learn to work within WP policies you might want to read the Bold, revert, discuss policy and assume good faith policies.  Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

When a topic is in dispute, it is good faith to note that fact in the topic, lest readers be misled. This notation is not present in the article.

Address specifically the charge of misrepresenting the source first. The one immediately above your paragraph. Then we will proceed to other issues. 66.230.2.106 (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The .last sentence of the Israel section should be removed as it appears to be a grossly dishonest misuse of its source
"Suspicion and hostility towards Catholic clerics has led to incidents such as the October 2002 detention and harassment of Melkite Greek Catholic Archbishop Elias Chacour and Archbishop Boutros Mouallem, who were prevented from leaving Jerusalem to attend an interfaith meeting in London.[53]" crudely misinterprets the article it references, which concludes:

Israeli authorities representing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Religious Affairs rushed to meet with the delegation. Rabbi Melchior of the Israeli Foreign Ministry called from London to personally apologize. All involved have promised 'a turning point' in their relationships and promised that the group would receive appropriate treatment when they attempted to leave again on the afternoon flight. Reports from the airport indicated that there were no further incidents and that the delegation continued the journey to London.

____

If X says "Z prevented Y from doing act Q", it follows that, if X is speaking in truth, Y did not do act Q. The sentence lies by saying the delegates were prevented from leaving Jerusalem to attend the conference. The article first mentions Bishop Riah Abu El-Assal, the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem and Bishop Munib Younan of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jerusalem. The sentence deliberately excludes mention of these persons to imply a specific anti Catholicism that does not exist.

Sentences that lie have no business being in Wikipedia.CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The third sentence of the Israel section should be extirpated as it appears to misrepresent its source.
The third sentence now reads:

"More recently Israel has denied residence status to Catholic clerics and has attempted to block the appointment of Catholic bishops.[51]

__________

The title of the sourced newspaper article is: "Israel opposes Vatican choice of Palestinian archbishop." The abusive sentence implies two separate sets of acts 1) Israel denies residence status to more than one Catholic cleric; 2) Israel tried to block the appointment of more than one Catholic Bishop. A newspaper article is acceptable if it provides news on one event, as this one does. The event being referenced is Netanyahu's attempt to "block the appointment of Bishop Boutros Mouallem, a Palestinian refugee living in Brazil, as bishop of Galilee." The sentence lies by stating the article says more than one Bishop was the object of Israel's acts. The sentence lies by stating the article says that any Bishop was denied residence status; whether Israel did or did not in fact deny anyone residence status is moot, given that the article does not assert this to be the case. The denial of residence status appears to be some sort of a technical term, which would be beyond the scope of a newspaper not directed to the attention of attorneys. Moreover, for any act to be anti Catholic, it would at least have to be shown to affect Catholic clergy more so than clergy of other faiths. The article never asserts such a thing; neither can the conclusion be logically deduced from the contents of the article.

The misuses of source material mandate expurgation of the sentence to prevent anyone's impugning the integrity of Wikipedia.CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The final Israel sentence should be extirpated because it misrepresents its source and encourages anti Catholic bigotry.
The final sentence now reads: Israeli government attempts such as the failed 1998 effort to block the Holy See's appointment of Boutros Mouallem as archbishop of Galilee were condemned by the Vatican and other nations.[52]

The link for the article: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=8237&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=630811

This again is a newspaper, a quite reasonable source of information about the single incident it reports. The abusive sentence lies by attributing to the article the notion that the Israeli government committed other similar acts; the article says no such thing. The abusive sentence attributes to the article the notion that “other nations” objected to the opposition of Prime Minister Netenyahu; the article again says no such thing. Let us make the worst of Mr. Netenyahu, almost certainly true in this case. Assume he wanted to oppose Bishop Mouallem because it would imply the law of return has some validity and because he did not like the gentleman’s politics vis a vis the Middle East. Clearly, Mr. Netenyahu would have been dead wrong on this one. The Bishop has barely been noticed; this article is the first time he came to my attention. The reason for this is that, like most Bishops, Bishop Mouallem is so overloaded with work associated with being a big time administrator he simply lacks time to make speeches more than a few times a year. The reader is invited to remember those clergy of his or her faith (that would include priests, nuns, imams, ministers, rabbis, and all other titles) who fleece their flock; excess contemplation is not recommended because persisting thoughts of defenestration ruin the appetite. Church documents over the centuries show the sempiternal human who is supposed to serve others but chooses to behave badly; it’s the same in every organization, religious, government, or business. In any case, you see, the Bishop spends a good deal of his time flushing out corrupt clergy and, more frequently, corrupt persons who prey upon honest clergy. The Bishop was actually a superb choice because the detection of fraud and the like is considerably facilitated by knowledge of the local cultures and customs; no one would know frauds perpetrated by and upon Palestinian Catholics like a Palestinian! Moreover, there were likely particular reasons for this man’s choice that we do not know; it is possible a particular difficulty within the Church in Palestine/Israel that no one has the right to know about existed that the Bishop was uniquely positioned to solve. Even with this scenario, Mr. Netenyahu would not be expressing anti Catholic bigotry, but anti Palestinian bigotry. This can be made clear by a ridiculous example. Arguendo, assume 1) Meier Lansky is alive today; 2) no one knows he is connected to the mob except the cognoscenti; 3) he converted and convinced someone in the Roman Curia to appoint him to be the next Bishop in Jerusalem; 4) the FBI and the Israeli police know about the fiend, but cannot tell the Vatican for about three months, until they discover who the corrupt person was who was responsible for this (this is to avoid endangering any innocent person’s life because they intend to nail the culprit within one day of finding out who he is). Clearly opposition to Meier Lansky’s appointment comes from a desire to not have another mobster in Isreal; in fact, the Isreali police likely picked up signals the pig was beginning to make contacts with some Russian friends. Disputing the presence of a single person other than the leader of an organization or country almost never signifies opposition to an organization as a whole. It is assuredly wrong to infer anti Catholicism from this single incident. The article never says that this particular incident is an expression of anti Catholicism; in this matter, the sentence again lies.

The wording is problematic because of the nature of anti Catholicism in the United States. It is technically correct to call the Vatican a nation. This it is by the Peace of Westphalia definition of a nation state. This it is when you look up the Vatican in the CIA online book. Nonetheless, it is advisable to avoid such expression, implied by “the Vatican and other nations” except in those technical circumstances where it is warranted. This is because Roman Catholics take orders from the Vatican, just as Anglicans and Episcopalians take orders from London and Mormons take orders from Salt Lake City. The problem with calling the Vatican a nation arises because it unfortunately implies, to those who want it to imply this, that Catholics represent an alien presence in the US. This very sick prejudice actually expressed itself recently in an interview with Rep. Gutierez. The topic was something about immigration; but the disturbing feature was the journalist, who proceeded to ask the Congressman about his relative loyalties to the US and to the Vatican! It was horrific watching the poor man squirm on this one instead of simply punching the interviewer in the nose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC) CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Not sure I absorbed all that). Anyway, Christians living in Israel uniformly believe they are subject to second class citizenship, or, if not citizens, second class status. I agree that this must have valid citations when inserted in an article. Case in point: The "Upper Room", a pilgrimage site for Christians disallows religious rites because it is over the "tomb of David" which a) nearly everyone agrees is not his real tomb, but there is no other one to show tourists (!); and b) even if it were the tomb of David, why are Christian pilgrims forbidden to hold services in a building quite separate from the tomb? Just a tiny example of bigotry. This one has gone on since 1948. (disclosure: the Upper Room is not the original but an ancient reconstruction). Student7 (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That example wouldn't fit here, though, because it's an example of anti-Christian restrictions, not specifically anti-Catholic ones.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hate Crimes
Statements by Mr./Ms. Marauder40 on Hate Crimes: This is the problem with Hate Crime legislation. Was that person killed because he was black/gay/religious or was he killed because he was in the wrong location at the wrong time, part of a drug deal, or in a fight? Proving it isn't easy. Assuming just because a certain action is Anti-Catholic fits in the same category. Unless you have something specifically stating it is against the Catholic church you can't assume otherwise you are doing original research. If it was so clear why haven't you found valid reliable source that says it was specifically against the Catholic church and not some random act? These are two important policies of WP, no original research, and reliable sources. This goes hand-in-hand with NPOV. Marauder40 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You really got to ease off. First off I didn't say hate crimes don't exist I just said it is hard to prove something is a hate crime vs. something else. The courts deal with that all the time. Second, it's pure and simple. If you want to add something you need a reliable source that says it is anti-catholic vs. something else. If you don't have it you can't add it. You are trying to address to many issues at the same exact time, thus making it impossible to talk about any issues. It may be helpful to split up what you are addressing into different subjects on the talk page. In one section you are addressing what you want to add, in another you are addressing something that is already there. You need to learn to work within WP policies you might want to read the Bold, revert, discuss policy and assume good faith policies. Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Distinctions as to motivation BUT SELDOM trouble LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNELLE, viz (from Texas law):

Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual. (b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.

The same is true with respect to crimes reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/aboutucr.html Uniform Crime Reports come not from court rooms.

As Hate Crimes are thus defined without respect to the courtroom, it follows that one can readily insert the definition of Hate Crimes into the discourse, evidence the existence of malice towards the victim's being hate based in the usual fashion, and add it to the discourse. If an editor has a problem with this, he or she is certainly able to argue that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that an element of malice towards religion is not present. What he or she cannot do is to state that logical inferences constitute original research.

To take the current example, the chopping off the head of the Bishop of Turkey:

''Hate crimes are indeed crimes committed by persons as a result of ethnicity or religion. Definition A hate crime, also known as a bias crime, is a criminal offense committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.'' http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html  ''Assuredly, this was a hate crime, as evidenced by statements that include shouts of Alahu Akbar, references to the act's having been divinely inspired, and also references to the killing of Satan. There exists no other explanation but antipathy towards Catholicism for such statements. You will note that in the tables the FBI provides, matters are listed as anti Black hate crimes. This was an anti Catholic hate crime de facto.'' Even were you to argue, as the lawyer might indeed argue, that this was done out of insanity or "self defense" (an odd argument when a head is chopped off in a manner consistent with Islamic Extremism) you must contend with the analysis of Archbishop Ruggero Franceschini, 71, 6 years Latin archbishop of Izmir: ''I believe that with this murder, which has an explicitly religious, Islamic element, we are faced with something that goes beyond the government it points towards nostalgic, perhaps anarchist groups who want to destabilize the government. The very modalities of the murder aim to manipulate public opinion. After having killed the bishop, the young Murat Altun shouted "I killed the great Satan. Allah Akbar. " But this is really strange. Murat had never before said those violent sentences. I knew him for at least 10 years. I was the one who took him on to work for the Church. He had never expressed himself in this way. He was not a practicing Muslim. He was a young man who had a Christian culture, without being Christian. Neither he nor his father were our enemy. In my opinion, were a being used like a tool in the hands of others. The use of Islamic ritual serves to divert attention: it is like suggesting that the track is religious and not political. Moreover, by pushing the religious track, that of a conflict between Islam and Christianity, public opinion can be inflamed in an area where we are weak and believed we have no strength. What’s more, Prime Minister Erdogan’s strongest supporters are not to be found among radical Islam but in the moderates And I fear that now he no longer has even their support.'' http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Archbishop-of-Smyrna:-The-martyrdom-of-bishop-Padovese-want-the-truth-and-not-pious-lies-18639.html  The differences between a murder of a woman on a street and the chopping off of the head of a Bishop by someone denoted to favor a "fundamentalist cause" should be clear.

This is clearly anti Catholicism. You might wish to phrase it other than that, but it definitely is anti Catholicism.CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk) 04:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no reason to address a personal attack or what I have already addressed. This entire section in no way addresses what this topic is about. I have no idea why you are attacking me since I haven't even edited any of your edits.  If you continue I will report you to the admins.  You really need to watch yourself considering the only person that has reverted your edits IS an admin. I am personally suprised that the admin left this diatribe on here, but since I can see that you cannot have a rational discussion I will bow out of the discussion.Marauder40 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered any of the charges leveled against this section. Hence, you lose; this permits me to eliminate the final sentences. I would suggest you support in some fashion the conjectures of the first sentence, specifically, that Mr. Khalidi in his book states 1) that there exists a specific anti Catholic, as distinct from anti Palestinian, policy that could have been responsible for the depopulations, 2) a specifically anti Catholic government policy exists, and 3) the anti Catholic policy began with the depopulation of those cities that are mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Concurrence
Because 1) the subject of concern is not a Wikipedia guideline or policy and 2) sufficient time has elapsed for a response to be developed, the rule that silence is concurrence applies. Consensus has been achieved that for the sentence

 Israeli government attempts such as the failed 1998 effort to block the Holy See's appointment of Boutros Mouallem as archbishop of Galilee were condemned by the Vatican and other nations.[52]

support for which supposedly arises from

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=8237&repos=4&subrepos=1&searchid=630811

as well as for the sentence

More recently Israel has denied residence status to Catholic clerics and has attempted to block the appointment of Catholic bishops.[51]

support for which supposedly arises from

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/8862/israel-opposes-vatican-choice-of-palestinian-archbishop/

the sentences misrepresent information provided by their sources. The sentences will thus be excised as soon as this edit is submitted. Attempts to reinsert these sentences without discussion constitute lies and will be reported to the administrator as such.

CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Threats do not go well on WP. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. Marauder40 (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Marauder40, a promise, not a threat, is hereby made. If you reinstate the sentences without providing evidence that the charges against them are invalid, I will report the change to the administrators as the production of one or more lies.

CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Go ahead report what you want. You may also want to read WP:Civil. Marauder40 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Marauder40:

Threats referenced in the guidelines appear to concern either threats to safety or of some sort of lawsuit, as best one can be gathered. Please rest assured that I will send no gunman to your door; neither will I direct that legal papers be served upon you. Your words above say say you would persist in reporting me to the administrators without listing specific acts that might cause you do to this. Declarations of action by X against Y without reference to specific action by Y are statements against Y as a person that lack reference to acts of Y; such bespeak prejudice.

From the guidelines:

'''Expect strong resistance—even hostility: Deliberately getting people to revert or respond to you feels a bit like disruption. Trying to change things certainly does, even when it's an obvious change for the better! If you do this cycle perfectly, most people will grudgingly accept you. Do it less than perfectly, and they will certainly be mad at you. Do it wrong, and they will hate your guts.'''

Your being disgruntled is understood; arguments that sentences treasured by me misrepresent their sources would upset me. For all one knows, you might believe them to be lines suitable for a Shakespearean play. Simple decency, however, would direct my first examining the argument before either refuting it if it lacks merit or accepting it if it is valid. You have not refuted the arguments. Most tend to disassociate themselves from statements that misrepresent sources; doing otherwise renders them liars. After a complaint that one might infer originated from your hand (it might have been a friend interested in introducing me to the procedured), administrator's instructions were followed such that any sentences my reflections interpreted to have been personal attacks upon you were removed.

Good Sir or Good Madam, tomorrow the entry will be checked. Unexpected will be the presence of sentences that misrepresent their sources. If such do appear, it will be necessary to report the matter to the administrators.

With kind regards.

CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's entirely possible to be a disruptive or tendentious editor without making explicit threats, and in my opinion, you crossed the line quite a while ago. Comment on edits, not editors. And don't write 30 words when five will do. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr./Ms. SarekOfVulkan: '''Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. Just as some articles are likely to receive more counter-NPOV edits than others, some writers are more likely to make them. Tendentious editing is what the latter writers do. Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behavior is generally characterized as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions. Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia.'''

Odd is conceiving a first foray into an activity as a behavioral pattern; nonetheless your criticism is wise. This being a contentous topic, no editing on my part will occur sans Talk page discourse. Apparently supernumerary explanatory sentences surpass brief expressions of prejudice. Impossible is my propounding potential anti Catholic bigotry without limning its nature as it appears to me. Reductio ad absurdam, used to expose what appear to me to be flaws in assigning anti Catholic bias to the failed opposition to the Bishop’s appointment, is legitimate argumentation; such usually a risible example. That no answer was provided evinces the arguments’ validity, facilitating consensus. The angel of compromise suggests an evening’s contemplation. Perhaps a reasoned inference can be derived, acceptable as a minority opinion; granting that renders invalid the notion that the source must specifically designate an act as anti Catholic. An attempt will be made to reconstruct the two sentences so they exhibit fidelity to the source material and the apparent intent of the author. With kind regards. CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO, it is violates WP:CIVIL to "guess" at the gender of an editor. For questions, not polemics, directed at a particular editor, the mere pseudonym without dual honorifics will do, please. Student7 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Concern raised about the last sentence in the Isreal section
The sentence of concern is:

Catholic priests have been expelled from the country [citation needed]., and dozens of churches have been occupied, closed or forcibly sold since 1948[citation needed].,

The sheet apparently says this sentence has lacked support since February. Six months was time sufficient to create the empire state building. Sans the production of citations within one week, this sentence should be extirpated as unsubstantiated rumor. Alternately, one might write the sentence as

Vicious and unsubstantiated rumors exist to the effect that Catholic priests have been expelled from the country [citation needed]., and dozens of churches have been occupied, closed or forcibly sold since 1948[citation needed].,

The above would be perfectly acceptable to me. Any objections?

CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally agree that one line can go. Marauder40 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to last part of Israeli anti Catholicism section
Current sentences: More recently Israel has denied residence status to Catholic clerics and has attempted to block the appointment of Catholic bishops.[51] Israeli government attempts such as the failed 1998 effort to block the Holy See's appointment of Boutros Mouallem as archbishop of Galilee were condemned by the Vatican.[52]

Proposed sentence: '''The Isreali government’s failed attempt in 1998 to block the appointment of Boutros Mouallem as archbishop of Galilee was condemned by the Vatican. ''' The intent of the writer is to assign anti Catholicism to the incident described in the two references; the proposed version strengthens that claim by combining references, proving to everyone that this was not simply noted by the Vatican alone, as one might infer from the extant online version. The proposed sentence avoids a potentially serious claim of dishonesty on the part of the writer, those of us who contribute to this article, and Wikipedia in general by eliminating implications that the sources state that more than attempt was made to block a Roman Catholic appointment. It eliminates a potential inference that the Vatican was so puerile as to take a dispute of this nature, one resolved in favor of Archbishop Mouallem, to other governments for their comments. The proposed version avoids wording that might serve the ends of anti Catholic bigots. Note that I do not feel this is anti Catholicism, but assuredly approve its presence. A review article, which includes  encyclopedia articles, is not original research, which analyzes data or original objects, but an analysis of sources, hopefully more primary than secondary. Latitude should be granted the editor in his or her interpretations of the sources. Thus, a person who views an act as anti Catholic should be permitted to say this unless evidence or logic fully preclude such as statement. This is especially so for attacks on Catholic clergy, especially physical assaults and murder; a distinguishing feature of religious bigotry against Catholics is crimes committed against Catholic clergy. Why Jesuits are chosen in particular for such things as opposed to Dominicans, who have more valuable stuff such as Champagne to plunder, is one of history’s mysteries. In any case, the requirement that a source specifically designate something as anti Catholic before it can be included is malapropos, particularly as the first sentence of this whole article, which properly defines anti Catholicism, lacks such a reference. Note that the second sentence has a meaningless reference (it went for me to a definition of Catholicism).

My friends, I look forward to your response. For me, this article is not only of high importance for inter faith issues, it is of vital importance. Let’s see if we can improve our grade from a C- to at least a B+ Kindly, CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Query concerning sentences 1 and 2. Cathars.
Friends:

The first two sentences read:

'''Anti-Catholicism is a generic term for discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed against Catholicism, and especially against the Roman Catholic Church, its clergy or its adherents. The term also applies to the religious persecution of Catholics or to a "religious orientation opposed to Catholicism."[1]'''

As noted, the reference yields a definition of Catholicism, not a "religious orientation opposed to Catholicism." Assuming that hostility, whose definition is:

hos·til·i·ty   /hɒˈstɪlɪti/ Show Spelled[ho-stil-i-tee]  Show IPA –noun, plural -ties. 1. a hostile state, condition, or attitude; enmity; antagonism; unfriendliness. 2. a hostile act. 3. opposition or resistance to an idea, plan, project, etc. 4. hostilities, a. acts of warfare. b. war.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hostility

and that one still wishes to include a "religious orientation opposed to Catholicism" as part of the definition, it would follow that the Cathars fit the bill. It would be of great interest to start a Cathari section. Has anyone a logical objection to this? I will attempt to find information about the Cathars as soon as possible.

From the essay "Silence and Consensus":

Most of the time, you will find that it's fine to assume consensus, even if just for now, as it's more important to keep editing and cooperating smoothly in good faith as much as possible.

Corollary If you disagree, the onus is on you to say so.

[edit] Quotes Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (Thus, silence gives consent; he ought to have spoken when he was able to). "The maxim is "Qui tacet consentiret": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented." —Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons[1]

I shall assume that five days constitutes some sort of consensus. Is that proper? If not, please let me know. In five days, if no one responds, I'll begin a Cathar part.

With Kind Regards.

CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are using too many words which make it difficult to see what point you are trying to make. What is your proposed change to the article? Briefly, why? Do not quote dictionaries or guidelines unless required (i.e. someone doubts what the dictionary or guideline says). Any changes will need reliable sources that clearly support wording used in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Johnuniq:

Explication as needed can be supplied to any who request it. Quoting guidelines as you have advised will be avoided. Dictionary definitions will be supplied only if an interlocutor appears to require it.

The proposed change: To create a section describing the Cathers.

Reason: '''Given the definition supplied in the first two sentences, the absence of a description of the Cathers and their history renders the topic "anti Catholism" grossly incomplete. If Catharism is not to be included the definition must then be altered.'''

Sources (partial list): History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages by Charles Henry Lea, The Cathars; The Most Successful Heresy of the Middle Ages by Sean Martin; The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages Malcolm Barber

Potential response #1: '''There is a section entitled Catharism. No way we want to duplicate anything there; Answer: There is also an article entitled the Protestant Reformation. How can you live with yourself, having made that objection, and putting multiple sentences on it here? Are you really so hypocritical?'''

Potential response #2: This is really not intended to be a site to engage the intellect. Answer: In that case, this whole article must be dropped.

Potential response #3: The purpose of this site is to increase bigotry and decrease understanding; hence, we can support neither a discussion of a Bishop's getting his head hacked off in Turkey nor a discussion of the Cathars. Answer: In that case, let us put the real purpose of the site in the first sentence.

The brevity of the above should satiate the lust of the severest martinet.

Best regards.

CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to rephrase your "Potential responses" to remove the antagonism. Marauder40 (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Antagonism is either "an active hostility or opposition, as between unfriendly or conflicting groups: the antagonism between the liberal and the conservative parties" or "an opposing force, principle, or tendency". To remove the antagonism would be to remove the response to the objection. Is that what you mean?--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent consensus about last part of Israeli section
Five days having passed, the sentences: More recently Israel has denied residence status to Catholic clerics and has attempted to block the appointment of Catholic bishops.[51] Israeli government attempts such as the failed 1998 effort to block the Holy See's appointment of Boutros Mouallem as archbishop of Galilee were condemned by the Vatican and other nations.[52]

Will be replaced by: '''The Isreali government’s failed attempt in 1998 to block the appointment of Boutros Mouallem as archbishop of Galilee was condemned by the Vatican. ''' --CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As soon as this is added.

Friends: If someone returns matters to the original, I’ll likely simply leave, as the interest in stopping obvious dishonesty is not within me. As soon as the next in press gets to published, 100 book chapters and articles in another field will bear my authorship. My goals, if you want my assistance: 1) to help change this article from a C to at least a B; 2) to help work matters so discrimination against Catholics becomes better understood; and 3) to help you folks ensure that maybe, just maybe, five fewer priests and nuns are murdered over the next twenty years. Prejudice against Roman Catholics has many of the same diamonds and rubies that prejudice against Jews has, e.g., dual loyalty, excess power, confiscation of religious property. Different, however, are attacks against the clergy, which can be seen here in the discussion of the Protestant Reformation; this gem, a Tanzanite, is unique and also interesting, as it stems from anti clericism. By heavens, do you really think, as news reports would indicate, that only Catholic Priests commit child abuse? In any case, I’ll look to see tomorrow what happens. It would be fun to rework this article with you. Maybe we can get it so sharp looking that one of the priests we know will help out. Think about it.

Best regards.

CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly I think the biggest problem you are having here is realizing that people are trying to work with you not against you. If you want to stay here you got to realize that what you are trying to write might not be correct.  Also the methods you are using doesn't really fit within the "normal" wiki methods.  In general if you are making a change if it is reverted you need to discuss it, thus the WP:BRD policies.  BUT unless it is requested you don't need to write a huge diatribe about the change.  Stick to what you are changing and why and keep it short.  Don't bring in lots of unrelated facts (i.e. the Empire State building was built in less then 6 months.)  Learning to edit on Wiki takes time. A good suggestion for beginners is usually stick to uncontraversial pages or edits until you learn "what's what" then dig in.  Sometimes instead of making radical changes to an article to remove POV just removing/changing a word or two can do wonders.  Just make sure you know all the relevant policies (i.e. WP:NPOV, WP:Civil, WP:5P etc.) and try to follow them. Marauder40 (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Marauder40: One new to a complex, interesting arena errs. Self reminders of cooperation: the honorific "good" and the ending "best regards." Controversy likely here stems from difficulty; e.g., discussing the Protestant Reformation mandates limning the Crusades. Apart from worries about safety of priests and nuns, the difficulties are seductive--conquering them with you will increase my understanding of history and current religious difficulties. A diatribe is "a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism"; mentioning the empire state building's construction time is not. To avoid appearances of bitterness, St. Thomas method will be used, viz: 'Current: 'Old sentences Suggested: Suggested replacement. Objection 1: Rationale for change: ''Ans. Obj. 1: Will begin to work with you on the first paragraph next week. Best Regards. --CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum: we do not address each other by name (except rarely when needed to make a direct reply), and you must stop padding your comments with unrelated text, otherwise they will be reverted as disruptive to the development of the article. See WP:TPG. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well, addresses by name and "best regards" will not be appended, per your advice. Please reference the rules that designate argumentation concerning an article's sentence(s)' validity as "unrelated text", that they might be followedd with care. Proof that publication of a sentence or group of sentences would render the article the bearer of lies, as demonstrated above, would seem related except to those in favor of falsehood. Proof comprises, in part, legitimate forms of argument, one of which is reductio ad absurdem.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell you folks what. Google will be used. The full argument will be provisioned in a Google web publication that will be appended to a single sentence summaries of each argument or even compression of arguments to a single word, e.g., "the sentence in question misrepresents its source [ref 1], misuses the past tense [ref 2], contradicts logic [ref 3]. If no response to these arguments is made within five days, the suggestion will be adopted." CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that the Israelis have been particularly amicable to any Christian denomination, it's just that this particular instance seems anti-Palestinian, rather than anti-Catholic. I'm sure plenty of of anti-Catholic, though probably more anti-Christian instances can be found that are not ambiguous. Student7 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything is possible, but sentences should not misrepresent sources. Let us see if the writer of the first sentence can prove the military destruction of those cities had a religious motive. To preserve misrepresentation after it has been shown to be present is to knowingly misrepresent the truth, a fancy way of saying to lie. Assuredly there exists religious intolerance in Israel, as is true everywhere.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the article.
Current first two sentences: '''Anti-Catholicism is a generic term for discrimination, hostility or prejudice directed against Catholicism, and especially against the Roman Catholic Church, its clergy or its adherents. The term also applies to the religious persecution of Catholics or to a "religious orientation opposed to Catholicism."[1]'''

Suggested change:  '''This article concerns religious prejudice and bigotry that victimizes Catholics and Catholicism. In determining whether or not a particular act or statement is anti Catholic, one might ask oneself if a similar act or statement would be deemed anti-Semitic or Islamophobic. Two quotes from an essay on the topic should be taken into account:'''

''This prejudice," wrote Greeley, "is not as harmful to individuals as either anti-Semitism or racism ... [But] it is more insidious because it is not acknowledged, not recognized, not explicitly and self-consciously rejected. Good American liberals who would not dream of using sexist language or racist slurs or anti-Semitic jokes have no problem at all about using anti-Catholic language, ethnic slurs or Polish jokes." There is still some truth in Writer Peter Viereck's remark in 1959: "Anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectual."''

Rationale: The purported dictionary definition of “anti Catholicism” would, as shown above, permit the article to become a discourse on the suppression of what the Catholic Church propounded heretical, a fascinating topic, but hardly relevant to what I believe is the purpose of what we are here doing. The reference in the web link does not provide the definition in the sentence; retaining the current version would render the article the provider of a lie.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitely not, per WP:SELF. Further, you're asking the reader to engage in WP:Original research to determine whether or not something is anti-Catholic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It would only " permit the article to become a discourse on the suppression of what the Catholic Church propounded heretical" if it read as this "The term also applies to the religious persecution by Catholics or to a "religious orientation opposed to Catholicism." That sentence is saying persecution OF Catholics not BY Catholics, and the second part after the OR is simply saying this "The term also applies to a religious orientation opposed to Catholicism" (i simply removed the content prior to the OR). No place in that sentence does it say anti-Catholicism is perpetrated by a catholic onto a non-catholic. Albeit the grammar is a bit fuzzy Smitty1337 (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The points are of interest and require recasting of the rationale. The author of the essay is assuredly an expert who can be quoted as such, extirpating the self issue. As shown above, the Cathers would be a legitimate subject of discussion by the current definitions. The Cathers exhibited hostility to the Catholic Church at the time; they were assuredly a religious orientation opposed to Catholicism. Discourse on heresies is not exactly what is of interest here. What would constitute original research by the proposed definition that would not have existed in the original definition? If one shows one or more acts to have met the requirements of anti Catholicism by the original definition, it then meets the definition. What level of authority is required to ascertain by authority that anti Catholicism is present? Newspaper and periodical articles, unless provisioned with an academic title independent of the Church, would seem no more authoritative in this assessment than any of us.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A revised statement to take into account your apt critiques: '''This article concerns religious prejudice and bigotry that victimizes Catholics and Catholicism. In 1979, Lance Morrow noted:' This prejudice," wrote Greeley, "is not as harmful to individuals as either anti-Semitism or racism ... [But] it is more insidious because it is not acknowledged, not recognized, not explicitly and self-consciously rejected. Good American liberals who would not dream of using sexist language or racist slurs or anti-Semitic jokes have no problem at all about using anti-Catholic language, ethnic slurs or Polish jokes." There is still some truth in Writer Peter Viereck's remark in 1959: "Anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectual."''

Is that satisfactory? It would seem that grammatically equating hostility and prejudice endangers discourse. After all, St. Bernard wrote incredibly hostile things about the Church in his day. None would, one hopes, deem him an anti Catholic bigot for having done so. Also, dictionary definitions would seem unwise; anyone seeing a dictionary definition assumes that definition suffices for the article unless specific information is provided to the contrary.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not satisfactory -- it requires "victimization" for Anti-Catholicism to occur. The current opening is just fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One can get rid of the word "victimization" if that offends you, but you should ensure the arguments against the current version are not valid:

1) The current opening, as shown above, permits the article to become a discourse on what the Catholic Church propounded heretical.

2) The reference in the web link does not provide the definition in the sentence; retaining the current version would render the article the provider of a lie.

3) Grammatically equating hostility and prejudice endangers discourse. Many highly esteemed individuals, including Saints, were extremely hostile to the Church in their day, with their emphasis on major league flaws they fought to correct; today they are rightfully viewed as reformers.

What is your answer to these arguments?--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is thought-provoking, but no. Too drastic and too WP:OR. Another editor reordered the structure of several article ("Persecution of..." "Criticism of..." etc.) some time ago. A structure could be used as an internal guide perhaps (as his was), but not as part of the article.
 * Not sure but that some of your quotes might be used well down inside an article someplace with good connection to what is already there. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then let's just use this simple sentence instead of the first two: This article concerns prejudice against Catholics and Catholicism. No one would think twice, and the dangers would be eliminated. Vital is not having a lie in the second sentence; not only is the definition not in the website, but the quote at the bottom of the page is wrong. It attributes "Anti Catholicism is the anti Semitism of the intellectual" to Pat Buchanan, rendering the webpage unreliable. In fact, it fooled me so that my first try was: "Notwithstanding Mr. Buchanan's general lack of intelligent exposition, one of his sentences shows great verbal prowess: anti Catholicism is the anti Semitism of the intellectual."--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for source for purported history of anti Catholicism.
Currently the history of anti Catholicism is summarized as follows: '''In the Early Modern period, the Catholic Church struggled to maintain its traditional religious and political role in the face of rising secular powers in Europe. As a result of these struggles, there arose a hostile attitude towards the considerable political, social, spiritual and religious power of the Pope of the day and the clergy in the form of "anti-clericalism". To this was added the epochal crisis over the church's spiritual authority brought about by the Protestant Reformation, giving rise to sectarian conflict and a new wave of anti-Catholicism.'''

Please provide a reliable source for that summary. The guidelines advise against creating historical narratives.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 22:17, 12 July

There are several reasons to be concerned about this summary. Considering anything a state before the Peace of Westphalia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_westphalia is a misnomer. Centralized government did rise, but it was not independent of a religious power. Luther opposed things in the Church such as the sale of indulgences and simony that have no relevance to today's world; the conflict concerning pre-destination is also moot with respect to bigotry against Catholics today. This matters because one abuse of history that is bigotry against Catholicism is harping on the Inquisition in such manner as to pretend that being Protestant inferred the absence of religiously sanctioned torture or capital punishment. If you look up the history of America's fifth amendment (the right against self-incrimination) you will find the Anglican Church involved with the torture of individuals. Also, if you look at Old Bailey's WebSite, you will find being a Jesuit a big time cause of being killed by the State.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another difficulty is the implication of blithe and Godly righteousness before the early modern period. The worst government threats in Church history were Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and King Clovis. Fred, named Emperor by anti Pope Adrian, wanted the advantages, one gathers, of Islam by being head of government and Church. Fred claimed, likely with justice, superior skill at persecuting heretics. Pope Alexander III was the main reason Fred got clobbered. King Clovis would have made every French Catholic a corpse; the monster, who killed relatives to prevent competition, was a superb general. Fortunately, his wife and a cleric converted the gentleman to Catholicism. The wife and cleric were properly named Saints. Clovis got a Parisian building named after him.--CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Old Catholic Church
I think this article could benefit from referring to the Old Catholic Church which is an interesting split-off from the Roman Catholic church because of disagreement on some issues. Arnoutf (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism in Modern Times
Hello everybody. I found the article a fascinating read, and I much enjoyed. I'm wondering if it would be too much to ask for a small subsection on the Dynamics of Anti-Catholicism during the Kennedy Era, and how things have changed compared to older times? As a reader, I found the article as it is greatly interesting, but when it stopped just beyond the immigration movement, I found myself wanting to know more.

Or, if that doesn't seem feasible, perhaps there could be a link to another article about Catholicism during the kennedy era? I personally wouldn't like this, because it encourages spaghetti link runs, and also because including anti-catholicism during the kennedy campaign seems to fit so naturally into this topic. I'd love to read about it. Thank you, folks. I can assure you that I love the work you're doing here, and you all have my 100 percent appreciation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.38.168 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For me that would be ideal. Please include the video of his famous speech, the origin of the "wall of separation of Church and State". --CharlesHenryLeaFan (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Foxe Book of Martyrs
It may be too minor to note, but Foxe's Book of Martyrs was later "condensed" to its most lurid anecdotes and used to flame anti-Catholic feeling. It may be no worse than any other in that respect, and was considered more or less accurate except for it pov presentation in the original, for its time. Student7 (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel
In both cases, the perceived "anti-Catholicism" was due to possible or probably PLO sympathies, and not due to Anti-Catholicism at all. Really needs to be replaced with the more subtle day-by-day bigotry exercised by the government. All Christians, not just Catholics, are second class citizens, if that. A bit ironic, since the people are no longer religious! Student7 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ingenuity
he...

Most of the "Anti-catholic persecutions" listed here were not religiously motivated, but politically (the Church siding in the side of the reactionaries almost all the time), so what is the exact point in calling it anti-catholicism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoygan!! (talk • contribs) 04:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is anti-Catholicism "not religiously motivated" in the article? Where is it stated that the church may not hold an opinion? Or state it? How is a statement by one person in the church equated to "being okay to persecute everyone in the church? All priests and all of the laity?" How is that "not religiously motivated"?
 * When someone persecutes all Jewish people, what is one to think? Why does that same rule not apply to other faiths as well? Why are some exempt from persecution, and some "did it to themselves - just asking for it?" Student7 (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism? Who deleted the Israel section and when?
Someone recently has removed the entire Israel section from the article. Some regular contributor needs to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.96.156 (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you don't mean Anti-Christian sentiment? I restored it a few days back there. Didn't spot it here but maybe didn't look far enough. If you can find it, list a ptr to it. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire
Catholic Christianity was legalized in 313 under Constantine's Edict of Milan,[9] and declared the state religion of the Empire in 380.[10] Really??? Well, that's funny cause Catholic Christianity only officially came into existence about 700 years later(along with Orthodox Christianity)... The term Catholic as used in this section and its connotations are unhistorical and anachronistic... Ironically while this article is mostly an article about the rivalry between Catholics and Protestants, both a Catholic and a Protestant skewed point of view (bias) of history (or lack thereof) are obvious (to people of non Catholic, non Protestant backgrounds). Most if not all modern Christian denominations weren't around as such in the 300s or certainly during the 1st century AD or ...The whole "Persecution of early Christians in the Roman Empire" section is either irrelevant or it needs further qualifications;if this section is to be included, emphasis is strongly needed that Catholicism as such is a much later branch of the Imperial Roman Christian religion.Moreover neither Catholicism nor the latter(=Imperial Christianity = Catholics + Orthodox + whatever one may add-include (usually not) for earlier periods) is the only branch of Chrisitianity relevant to the period(s) mentioned and therefore not the only one having historical claims on it... P.S.Don't know if my objection has already been discussed in the past.I've gone briefly through the archives of this talk page but found nothing, so...P.P.S.The "Eastern Christianity" section isn't an answer to these anachronisms... Thanatos|talk 11:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is true, there is more to pre-1000 Christianity than Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. There are also Armenians, Copts, Syriacs, Ethiopians, Indians, and Assyrians, as well as a variety of now long gone sects that in their day threatened the official religious establishment. Actually, if anything, the form of Christianity that was made offical in 380 was more like present day Orthodox Christianity than Roman Catholicism. This says more about just how far Roman Catholicism has changed than it does to Orthodox Christianity's adherance to an ancient model. Technically, Orthodox Christianity has existed since the legalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire, if not earlier. Obviously if there was an offical religion there had to be an "Orthodox" as in "correct" form of it that was decided upon by the religious leaders of the Empire. The first seven Ecumenical Councils, which governed the established Christian Church of the Roman Empire, were convined by the Byzantine Emperor, not the Bishop of Rome nor any other Bishop.

Ironically, only the Orthodox have a legitimate claim to being the Church of the Roman Empire, however, the surviving ancient churches are testament that they are not the only survivors of that era (early fourth-century). Roman Catholicism has seen the need to "modernize" itself every few centuries or even decades in order to maintain its own existance, developing new concepts and by doing so inadvertantly pushing the ancient voices of Christianity, apart from Augustine, further into the background and even ignoring them, thus making Roman Catholicism unrecognisable to even those who practiced it 100 years ago. Eastern Christianity in all its forms seems to be able to survive stagnation and persecution, I doubt the same is true of Roman Catholicism since it has (with the exception of from 1870-1929) always been a powerful temporal state within the Italian Penninsula since the mid-eighth century. Roman Catholicism thrives only when it has power, be that political or popular. It requires globalization in order to survive as every congregation MUST have contact with the Papacy to be considered "Catholic" (case in point the "Chinese Catholic Church" scandal), meanwhile any Eastern Christian group could survive on its own out in the middle of Siberia for instance, and still be "Orthodox" since the term has more to do with religious doctrine than with alligence to one or another bishop. The Papacy is the SOLE legitimizing factor in Roman Catholicism. Without it, it becomes a weird combination of Orthodox Christianity and Evangelicalism.

There were also many forms that where condemned as heretical such as Arianism, which had a major impact on the Germanic tribes of Western Europe, which weren't under Rome's dominance until the seventh century. You are also right about this page being a Catholic/Protestant war zone. Western Christians seem to think that they are alone in the world and that everything is C/P cut and dry, well we both know it isn't. Thanks for commenting, I enjoyed reading your posts and I hope I answered more questions than made them. If you have any, please post them, I will be glad to answer them to the best of my ability, which isn't saying much but I'll try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.162.230 (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A note-clarification:I come from a historically Orthodox country (well in fact, perhaps the Definition of an Orthodox country...),Greece, but I haven't writen the above in order to propagandise a pro Orthodox anti Catholic(or whatever) religious view(I'm hardly a believer...;-));the objections I have are historical and factual:It makes no sense to speak about Orthodox or Catholic or whatever Christianity in ,as an example, the first or early fourth century AD...Thanatos|talk 01:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understood you were writing from an historical view point, and I tried to use History (it's my major at University) in my response. If I appear anti-western it's only because the western position doesn't hold up historically, while the eastern position does (at least from the establishment of Christianity as a legal religion, further back than that IS historically debatable.) Notice that I didn't say that Orthodox Christianity was the "True" religion, I said it was the successor of the Official Christian Church of the Roman Empire, which was hardly the first legal form of Christianity.

Most forms of Christianity don't even remotely resemble ancient historical Christianity. The best one could say is that Eastern forms have maintained MORE similarities to these ancient forms due to their geographical isolation and lack of development or "reform" movements ("frozen in time"), while Western forms have been in continuous stages of remodeling trying to graft themselves into secular Western society as a means of survival. Also it is EXTREMLY doubtful that anyone personally identified themselves as "Orthodox" or "Catholic" before the eleventh century, they simply would have called themselves Christians.

I hope that was a bit less religious in tone than my last posting. It is very enjoyable for me to debate things from an historical perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.138.101 (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In truth, the material on Roman "Anti-Catholicism" should really be moved to the "Anti-Christian" article. There are several problems with that, however. 1) Right now, the Anti-Christian article is not concerned with past history at all. It would not be a seamless merge!
 * 2) There are Protestants who believe Christianity "diverged" at some near point in time to 30 AD and therefore wish to disassociate themselves from the name "Christianity" beyond that point until the Reformation or some much later date.
 * But certainly, the Romans were anti-Latin, anti-Orthodox, which did not really split until later despite changes in rituals. Student7 (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is highly debatable, given that some Christians don't even believe that Roman Catholics are really Christians at all, but actually practicioners of a thinly disguised form of Neo-Roman Paganism with an infallible emperor (Pope) and a semi-divine female demi-goddess (Mary). This could be Radical Protestants or Restorationists (Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses), many Evangelicals, or even extremly traditionalist Old Calendar Orthodox Christians, as well as some Sedevacantant Traditionalist Catholic movements who believe that the offical Roman Catholic Church is actually controlled by Satan. Not to mention the way certain other non-Christian religions see the Roman Catholic Church. Given that the Roman Catholic Church also has esqued membership figures that count even totally nominal members who may have never been inside a church more than once in their entire lives, the number of real practioners of Roman Catholicism may be less than the number of people who believe that Rome is the Anti-Christ or even the work of the Devil. --71.240.142.106 (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Germany was/is not a protestant country
Germany was/is not really a protestant country (as claimed in article) but rather a (tradidional) catholic/protestant(lutheran) mixed country with (tradidional) catholic areas, (tradidional) protestant areas and (tradidional) mixed areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.5.184.243 (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could copy the sentence(s) you have a concern with. Could not find what you were talking about. The section seems to describe the new German republic's attempt to wean Catholics from Rome. Student7 (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-catholicism as a method of invoking collective suicide.
The current article fails to explain the consequences of anti-catholicism, even though those were extremely severe. France achieved laicity shortly before WWI, was fully catholic before. Prusian-ruled Germany crushed catholicism underfoot shortly before WWI. USA reached the top of anti-catholic hysteria shortly before WWI. Then came the carnage of WWI and the resulting spanish flue epidemic and a total of 95-100 million people perished worldwide.

Obviously, if anti-catholicism had less success, all that tragedy wouldn't have happened, since the more respected word of the Pope could ban fully or partly catholic nations from jumping at each other's throat. The govermental application of anti-catholic practices made sure that a globally respected voice of jesusian values was effectively silenced, making it easier to turn civilised people into carnivorous beasts. This revelation does not sit well with protestants, but is still true. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As with this, as all the other comments, if you have WP:RS that cover this, you may perhaps insert them. I'm Catholic and like your attitude, but not sure about your conclusions. Spanish flu was not obviously caused by going secular IMO. The pope was effectively silenced by Napoleon in 1800. Got his papal states back until 1870 when he ceased to be a ruler of a nation. Kind of lost his voice until Italy arranged a peace with him in 1938 or so. Primates of various countries may have had some effect. Not sure what a general "be nice to each other" pronouncement has on anything. All well-meant of course. The Dalai Lama says the same thing. Just as ineffectively IMO. What is lacking is diplomatic initiatives. There haven't been many that noticeable or effective for a long time. Student7 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Conscience clause"
Oct13 inserted a section titled "Conscience clause" which discusses the current controversy over insurance coverage for abortions and contraception. While this is a dispute that involves the Catholic Church, I am not convinced that it is an example of "anti-Catholicism" per se. There are other Christian denominations that oppose abortion and contraception so the Catholic Church is not being targeted individually. Moreover, the fact that the Catholic Church is involved on one side of a dispute does not inherently mean that its opponents are "anti-Catholic". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no freaking way does that section belong there, any more than a law requiring coverage of blood transfusions would be anti-Jehovah's Witnesses. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with this.Oct13 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"In communist countries"
Oct13 also inserted a section titled "In communist countries" that discussed the atheistic anti-religious attitudes of communist regimes. Once again, it strikes me that these attitudes and policies are not specifically anti-Catholic but rather anti-religious in general. If we were to discuss anti-Catholicism in communist countries, we would need to treat cases where communist regimes have specifically targeted Catholics more than other Christian denominations or other religions. An example that comes to mind is the preferred treatment of the Russian Orthodox Church under Stalin. I believe that Stalin treated Catholics in Eastern Europe (e.g. Poland and Lithuania) more harshly than he did the Russian Orthodox in Russia (specifically during WWII when he needed the support of the Orthodox Church in his fight against Hitler). --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I referenced a book about anti-Catholicism in Soviet Russia (taken from the Anti-Communism article) and an article that discusses anti-Catholicism in China (taken from the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association article).Oct13 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to give this topic the treatment it deserves. It's late here and I need to go to bed.  In brief, there is probably something to write about the targeting of Catholics in communist countries (see Anti-clericalism) but what Oct13 wrote is inadequate.  Just for starters, the problem that communists have with Catholicism is not just about property although that does play a part.  You have to go back to Marx's dictum that "religion is the opiate of the masses" and then roll forward to the power of Orthodox and Catholic clerics who represent a challenge to the state's authority.  That's all that I have time for tonight.  Perhaps other editors can chime in and help make the points that Oct13 is struggling to make but hasn't managed to do so successfully yet.  It's not sufficient to reference the articles; a concise and cogent summary of the articles is required.  If Oct13's text is an accurate summary of the articles, then we need to find better references. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please be more formal. Your informality is creepy. Anyway, I've given the topic some thought: Since Communism isn't the only type of government that is, in a way, anti-Catholic (I remembered that Protestant theocracy used to exist), and, in order to avoid, which would undoubtedly come up, the common misconception that capitalism is a type of government (it's actually a type of economy), I think "In Communist countries" should be left out of the article.Oct13 (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen
User Mamaluju wants to delete the passage in which Daniel Goldhagen gives his balanced views on the issue of anti-catholicism. Could Mamalujo please explain before deleting what has been stable text the reasons why Goldhagen is not allowed to give his opinions on the issue. I realise that with some extremist catholics he would be considered part of the "Jewish faction" but this is Wikipedia and not a religious encyclopedia. I could expand this section to include the issue of the anti-Catholic card being used to silence scholars but Goldhagens seems a balanced, perhaps understated viewpoint. Yt95 (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tangental/superfluous" is better than "understated". The first half of the paragraph is about as innocuous a claim as "the sun will come up tomorrow", with the totally superfluous "even when they make innocent mistakes" tagging along at the end serving no constructive encyclopedic purpose.  The second half is neither about anticatholicism nor apologetics, but rather about rhetorical devices and logical fallacies.  First half an empty waste of space, second half off topic.  I agree it serves no purpose here, in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I can expand the section to give more details of Goldhagens point of view along with others who comment on the misuse of the term "anti-Catholicism" in order to intimidate those who wish, in their opinion, tell the truth about history but, if I understand you correctly, you don't want any of this in the article? Why should the claimed use of it as rhetorical device be excluded from the article? Yt95 (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland?
I have some doubts concerning the inclusion of Switzerland. Perhaps someone with greater knowledge can help here. Switzerland has maintained a delicate balance among several ethnic and religious groups. The needs of federalism may be political and not religious. Perhaps we've judging Swiss history without having a complete knowledge of the context. If it is merely political should we have this in an article that, according to the lead, is about discrimination and prejudice? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

New additions
Diff 539853692, I don't really believe the article explains HOW the church's abuse scandals has shown the trend claimed in the edit. Thoughts? --Fbifriday (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Citation needs to support the actual text. Establishing that there are multiple references to child abuse is not the same thing.  At the moment the text is synthesis.  Its also in the lede which should summarise the article, so that needs editing first.  If no better source it gets deleted  Snowded  TALK 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Newest citation added doesn't support text added. I'm in favor or removal. The sexual abuse scandals has it's own page, link it under "See also" at the bottom and call it good. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the biggest thing is that there is a difference between Anti-Catholicism, and Criticism of Catholicism. The sexual abuse scandals has more to do with Criticism that Anti-Catholicism. --Fbifriday (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed and we have two SPAs making the changes as well.  I have a personal 2RR rule so have tagged it for the moment and put welcome notices on both editor talk pages  Snowded  TALK 08:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Larkin, Church and State
See Talk:Louis André -- PBS (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany
The section regarding Nazi Germany does not have source errors or bias so to speak, but it does seem to have a dishonest use of sources. While the sources demonstrate that the Nazis were, in many cases, anti-Christian, many of the sources given fail to establish that they were more specifically anti-Catholic. Additionally, the inset photograph suggests that the "priests barracks" at Dachau was a holding place for Catholic priests only. This is not specifically stated, but its location in that section of the article infers such. The inclusion of this section is suspect and, at the least, needs to be heavily corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.243.2 (talk) 17:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have made some amendments to address the section more directly to Catholics. It could probably still be trimmed. Ozhistory (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Presecution of Catholics
We've had a number of violent cases entered recently. The lead describes the decision made a while back to fork violence, as opposed to mere prejudice to Persecution of Christians article. Not here. Christians were one group until the 16th century so it makes sense to lump them together. Student7 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Early martyrs
What I've seen in Ante-Nicene writing is genuine martyrdom, sometimes foolishly on the part of the martyrs, but true martyrdom. Pagan writers attributed anger of the Gods to the heretical Christians as a basis for Rome's "bad luck". So not sure how this is perceived as "political." Political stuff came later with the emergence of the Church out of the ruins of the Roman Empire. Student7 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)