Anti-Catholicism

December 22, 2008 11:42 PM

(NSFW)“To my thinking Roman Catholicism is not even a religion but simply the continuation of the Western Roman Empire, and everything in it is subordinated to that idea, faith to begin with. The Pope seized the earth, in an earthly throne and grapsed the sword: everything has gone on in the same way since, only they have added to the sword lying, fraud, deceit, fanaticism, superstition, villainy. They have trifled with the most holy, truthful, sincere, fervent feelings of the people; they have bartered it all, all for money, all for base earthly power. And isn't that the teaching of Anti-Christ?” – Dostoveysky, The Idiot

Note: Given the subject matter, some of these links might not be 100% Safe For Work. Please use your judgment. Thanks.

posted by jason's_planet (41 comments total)

Heh. Jealous.
posted by Artw at 11:47 PM on December 22, 2008

I could write volumes about why I don't think this is true but to make a long story short - Dostoveysky is being flip. Roman Catholicism took on a lot of the organizational principles, boundaries, and the language of the Roman empire, but I don't think it goes much further than that... assuming that the Catholic church was essentially the Roman empire, ignores that the Catholic church was very strong in Ireland and parts of Germany as well as place like Poland and the Ukraine which were never firm parts of the empire. I've often felt that analysis like this belittles the pagan religions and the vitality of the Germanic and Celtic cultures. That said, this analysis isn't completely out of left field.

The pagan tradition is that the Roman empire ended when Rome was sacked by Alric(?) in the 5th century. The pagan talking point was that the old gods protected Rome for thousands of years, while the Christian god lost the city in a few years.

You can argue that the pope was more an Italian prince than a "holy father" for most of the years the offfice has been in existence, but an emperor. Nah. I think a better arguement could be made that the Holy Roman Emperor, was the successor to the Roman Empire --- but I still think that is too big a stretch.

Its a great topic though.
posted by Deep Dish at 12:05 AM on December 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

While I am not a fan of the Catholic male-centric hierarchy, I find the strain of American anti-catholicism to be irrational and frustrating.

In my own Irish-American family, 1/3 of us are hedonists & agnostics/atheists, 1/3 Catholic, and 1/3 evangelic protestant. As a daughter of the protestant wing, one sure way to truly freak my mom and aunt out is to tell them that I went to mass last Sunday. Every time I mention that I want to go to Evensong, my mom wants reassurance that I am going to an Episcopal church and not a Catholic church.

When I try to suss out why my mom and aunt are so anti-catholic, I never get a good reason other than wouldn't I rather go to a nice Bible-centered church?

[smacks hand on forehead]

I am just waiting for the day when one of my Evangelical relatives tells me with all fervor that they are excited that their new church is 90% Bible centered, 6% Wicca, and 3% Koran centered, with 1% to be determined that Sunday.
posted by msjen at 12:32 AM on December 23, 2008

So some blogger named "Dostoveysky" has a grudge against Catholics.

LOLXIANS, amirite?

This sort of Christian-bashing, while typical of Metafilter's smug secularist liberals, is especially inappropriate at this the Holiest Time of the Year.

Flagged as intolerant axe-grinding.
posted by orthogonality at 12:36 AM on December 23, 2008 [10 favorites]

Yeah, I wish it were based on something other than what you are reading of Russian Inter-religious Understanding for Beginners.
posted by parmanparman at 12:40 AM on December 23, 2008

I am just waiting for the day when one of my Evangelical relatives tells me with all fervor that they are excited that their new church is 90% Bible centered, 6% Wicca, and 3% Koran centered, with 1% to be determined that Sunday.

Have they considered converting to Unitarian Universalism?


(Your % of religous admixture may vary, but coffee will be served.)
posted by Panjandrum at 12:49 AM on December 23, 2008 [2 favorites]

The Empire Never Ended, huh?
posted by Philby at 12:53 AM on December 23, 2008 [3 favorites]

The pagan talking point

Exsqueeze me?

I find the strain of American anti-catholicism to be irrational and frustrating.

In my own Irish-American family, 1/3 of us are hedonists & agnostics/atheists, 1/3 Catholic, and 1/3 evangelic protestant. As a daughter of the protestant wing, one sure way to truly freak my mom and aunt out is to tell them that I went to mass last Sunday.

Isn't this by your own admission more of a "your family" thing than an "American" thing? I mean, I'm sure there's anti-Catholicism out there, but it's probably a drop in the bucket compared to anti-Jewish or anti-black sentiment.

Anyways, in keeping with the measured, respectful tone this thread deserves I'll only add WHORE OF BABYLON AMIRITE?
posted by bardic at 1:04 AM on December 23, 2008

jason's_planet: are you looking for a serious discussion, or just trying to start another fuck-the-Pope trainwreck? There is an interesting discussion to be had about the persistence of anti-Catholic prejudice in American culture. But Googling for 'anti-Catholicism' and stringing the results onto an inflammatory anti-Catholic quotation, with no supporting commentary or explanation, is not the best way to go about it.

The argument that Catholicism isn't really a religion at all, but a secular power disguised as a religion, goes back centuries. (Thomas Hobbes summed it up concisely: 'And if a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.') This is not an argument to be taken seriously. If you're going to criticise Catholicism (and there is a lot to criticise), criticise it as a belief-system, as an ideology, as a structure of moral and intellectual authority. But if you pretend (I don't mean you personally, jason's_planet, I mean 'if one pretends') if you pretend that it isn't any of those things, you're indulging in the very crudest sort of anti-Catholic prejudice, not very different from the crude anti-semitism that sees Judaism as a gigantic financial conspiracy disguised as a religion.
posted by verstegan at 1:35 AM on December 23, 2008

They have trifled with the most holy, truthful, sincere, fervent feelings of the people; they have bartered it all, all for money, all for base earthly power. And isn't that the teaching of Anti-Christ?

It's funny 'cause it's true!
posted by jtron at 1:38 AM on December 23, 2008

I mean, I'm sure there's anti-Catholicism out there, but it's probably a drop in the bucket compared to anti-Jewish or anti-black sentiment.

It's not a competition!
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 1:48 AM on December 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

It's not a competition!

posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 4:48 AM on December 23 [+] [!]

...but it is an art form, apparently.
posted by lumensimus at 2:09 AM on December 23, 2008

This will not end, never mind well.
posted by srboisvert at 2:29 AM on December 23, 2008 [2 favorites]

Since this post is going to be deleted anyway I think I can get away with saying the only reason there is so much anti-catholicism is because it is a particularly stupid religion. If you want a free pass just become some sort of lazy Christian like an Anglican.
posted by ninebelow at 2:43 AM on December 23, 2008

A link to Ian Paisley is a definitive sign that the desired result is indeed a "fuck-the-Pope trainwreck."

Seriously. Ian Paisley? The proud demagogue and borderline lunatic anti-Catholic bigot? The big fan of Slobodan Milosevic? The guy who is convinced that seat 666 in the EU Parliament is reserved for the Anti-Christ?

Somehow, the links to a geocities page, a Wikipedia entry, and "Free Speech Lets The Eagle Screech" don't quite pick up the slack.

And oh yeah, flagged.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 3:01 AM on December 23, 2008

[SPOiler alert!]

I just read this book last month, and I really enjoyed it. There is in the text, the narrative of the of the interpretation of the Apocalypse by Lebedev, in his 'Water of Life' Hypothesis, and various others too are mentioned.

I suppose this excerpt is congruent with the with the theme of the Apocalypse. I would point out that this speech comes at a extremely critical point in the book, and this context should not be overlooked when examining this text. This is not purely an attempt to bash the Pope.

Now, this took place during a dinner party that was to resolve various questions regarding the potential marriage of the General Yepanchin's daughter, Agalya, to the prince. Various members of 'High-Society' are called to the General's house for a dinner party. Dostoyevsky intimates that these people represent a kind of deep social awareness.

The situation is that the prince has worked himself into a peculiar state of excitement, seemingly echoing the patterns of his previous 'fits'. Earlier, Anticipating just such an 'fit', Agalya (always acting mysteriously) suggests the prince will have this fit, and will knock over a particularly precious vase belonging to her mother. Agalya's suggestion is peculiar because it is very precise in describing what will happen. In fact, she is exactly correct.

The high-society guests at first welcome the seemingly astute observations of the prince, then become increasingly concerned as the Prince begins to behave erratically. He eventually gets up and begins waving his arms, while making these points about the Catholic church and ends up tripping and breaking the exact vase that Agalya predicted.

In the build up to the breaking of the vase, there is a kind of change in the prince. He gets the feeling that he cannot prevent himself from saying and doing the things he does. including, a strong premonition that he will eventually break the vase.

Here from Project G:
The crash, the cry, the sight of the fragments of valuable china
covering the carpet, the alarm of the company--what all this
meant to the poor prince it would be difficult to convey to the
mind of the reader, or for him to imagine.

But one very curious fact was that all the shame and vexation and
mortification which he felt over the accident were less powerful
than the deep impression of the almost supernatural truth of his
premonition. He stood still in alarm--in almost superstitious
alarm, for a moment; then all mists seemed to clear away from his
eyes; he was conscious of nothing but light and joy and ecstasy;
his breath came and went; but the moment passed. Thank God it was
not that! He drew a long breath and looked around.

So, immediately the atmosphere shifts to one of relief and the spell was broken. Free will returns and the mood of everyone in the room brightens. Which is very strange considering this smashing of the vase is the culmination of a protracted outburst, a polemic argument against the catholic church.

So, There is the angry rant against a church that has developed over time, into the abomination, the Anti-Christ and correspondingly, the Apocalypse. The rise of Atheism and the call of patriotic spirituality.

Then, the element of Fate that binds the prince until he is released-along with everyone in the room- from the sense of impending doom.

My own interpretation is that Dostoevsky uses the Apocalypse two ways. First historically, as a metaphor for the unraveling of the narratives of pre-enlightenment Russia. Second, as the industrial and scientific age is kicked off, he talks about the interconnectedness of human society posing as some proto-Orwellian or Marxist narrative. Specifically, Lebedevs interpretation of the apocalypse and the star Wormwood falling to earth poisoning the 'Water of Life'.

The account of Lebedev is actually much more important to the overall message of the 'Apocalypse' theme. Therein Lebedev describes the star Wormwood as the railroad systems in Europe and Russia. He notes that railroads form a star, or web shape as the tracks approach major cities and goes on to detail the effect of rapid transportation of goods and information on Russian society.

Quoth Project Gutenberg:
What does
the source, or 'spring,' of life really mean in the Apocalypse?
You have heard of the 'Star that is called Wormwood,' prince?"

"I have heard that Lebedeff explains it as the railroads that
cover Europe like a net."

Later,
"Do you mean to say," cried Gania, from the other corner, "do you
mean to say that railways are accursed inventions, that they are
a source of ruin to humanity, a poison poured upon the earth to
corrupt the springs of life?"

then,
"But, again, that is not the question. The question at
this moment is whether we have not weakened 'the springs of life'
by the extension ..."

"Of railways?" put in Colia eagerly.

"Not railways, properly speaking, presumptuous youth, but the
general tendency of which railways may be considered as the
outward expression and symbol.


We hurry and push and hustle, for
the good of humanity! 'The world is becoming too noisy, too
commercial!' groans some solitary thinker. 'Undoubtedly it is,
but the noise of wagons bearing bread to starving humanity is of
more value than tranquility of soul,' replies another
triumphantly, and passes on with an air of pride. As for me, I
don't believe in these wagons bringing bread to humanity. For,
founded on no moral principle, these may well, even in the act
of carrying bread to humanity, coldly exclude a considerable
portion of humanity from enjoying it; that has been seen more
than once.

"What, these wagons may coldly exclude?" repeated someone.

"That has been seen already," continued Lebedeff, not deigning to
notice the interruption. "Malthus was a friend of humanity, but,
with ill-founded moral principles, the friend of humanity is the
devourer of humanity, without mentioning his pride; for, touch
the vanity of one of these numberless philanthropists, and to
avenge his self-esteem, he will be ready at once to set fire to
the whole globe; and to tell the truth, we are all more or less
like that. I, perhaps, might be the first to set a light to the
fuel, and then run away. But, again, I must repeat, that is not
the question."


This last paragraph from the project Gutenberg translation suffers greatly, i think.

Finally, we must consider the justification, the story Lebedev gives to illustrate his theory. The man who consumed 60 monks. This humorous tale provides this reasoning: Now that the Clergy no longer fear being consumed, the Apocalypse draws nearer. Seemingly ridiculous, the argument hinges upon the fact that people who eat monks today are unwilling to enter into a communion that represented by the 'Water of Life', because they do not have the courage to confess to their crime.
posted by kuatto at 3:35 AM on December 23, 2008

whoops,

the argument hinges upon the fact that people who eat monks today are unwilling to enter into a communion that is represented by the 'Water of Life', because they do not have the courage to confess to their crime.
posted by kuatto at 3:37 AM on December 23, 2008

Dostoevsky was reading today's headlines? Pope accused of stoking homophobia after he equates homosexuality to climate change
posted by terranova at 3:51 AM on December 23, 2008

I lost interest when I realised that 1690 was 318 years ago. Great job keepin' that flame alive guys.
posted by aesop at 3:53 AM on December 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

(I mean people like 'Wee Gordon 1690', who posted the 'no pope of Rome' song. Classy guy.)
posted by aesop at 4:09 AM on December 23, 2008

...is especially inappropriate at this the Holiest Time of the Year.

The claim of ownership over entire seasons by the religious (especially ones they appropriated from others and rebranded) is exactly what makes "smug secularist liberals" want to engage in "Christian-bashing".
posted by DU at 4:26 AM on December 23, 2008 [4 favorites]

Holiest Time of the Year

It's Easter already?
posted by Stylus Happenstance at 4:29 AM on December 23, 2008 [8 favorites]

Calm down a minute. The quote is attributed to an author named Dostoyevsky. But is it the author directly quoted or is it one of his characters who says this? And does that make a difference? Is it the character whose nickname is also the name of the novel--The Idiot (a bad translation of the title)? And does the fact that he is called an idiot matter? Or is it another character in the novel that says this?

Example: the biggest hypocrite Shakespeare created tells his son in the play Hamlet
"to thine own self be true." But we know he is full of crap when he says this since he (Polonius)
is a syncophant...
posted by Postroad at 4:31 AM on December 23, 2008

It is indeed the holiest time of the year, but only if you're a pagan. Happy Yule.

Involving Christ? Not so much.
posted by jpburns at 4:42 AM on December 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

I suspect that the "Grand Inquisitor" episode in "Brothers Karamazov" comes pretty close to Dostoevsky's personal views, spiritual struggles and general philosophy.
posted by RavinDave at 4:46 AM on December 23, 2008

Thread needs more Ballboy!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:51 AM on December 23, 2008

Christmas joy to one and all! Everyone can enjoy christmas, even us agnostic/atheists! Joy! Love! Peace!

*hugs all around*
posted by Hildegarde at 4:52 AM on December 23, 2008 [1 favorite]

Calm down a minute. The quote is attributed to an author named Dostoyevsky. But is it the author directly quoted or is it one of his characters who says this? And does that make a difference? Is it the character whose nickname is also the name of the novel--The Idiot (a bad translation of the title)? And does the fact that he is called an idiot matter? Or is it another character in the novel that says this?

The comment is uttered by Prince Myshkin, who is a "holy fool" like Forrest Gump and "Being There's" Chance the Gardener. He speaks naked truth (reflecting Dostoevsky's views), uninhibited by social mores. Though others view him as an idiot, he is a Christlike figure raging against Christ's purported institutional legacy. He likens Catholicism to socialism -- both asserting authority over the masses by promising eventual equality.
posted by terranova at 5:06 AM on December 23, 2008

Since this post is going to be deleted anyway I think I can get away with saying the only reason there is so much anti-catholicism is because it is a particularly stupid religion. If you want a free pass just become some sort of lazy Christian like an Anglican.

But there is not "so much anti-catholicism". It exists pretty much exclusively amongst the small minority of Christians worldwide who are protestants, this makes sense of course because protestantism was a protest against aspects of the Roman Catholic Church from which it comes. There isn't much anti-catholicism outside the Anglosphere, which is ironic considering how unprotestant the CoE and North American Episcopal churches are compared to the 'real' protestants in my native Netherlands.
posted by atrazine at 5:11 AM on December 23, 2008

So long as we're airing greivances, you know who I really hate? Methodists. Yeah, I'm talking about you, you damn Wesleyans, what with your smug little liberal arts colleges and your schmaltzy wholesome television commercials.

Screw you Methodists.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:21 AM on December 23, 2008

hang the pope
posted by geos at 5:28 AM on December 23, 2008

There isn't much anti-catholicism outside the Anglosphere, which is ironic considering how unprotestant the CoE and North American Episcopal churches are compared to the 'real' protestants in my native Netherlands.

There are more Jews in the United States than Episcopalians. They make up less than 1% of the population. What does American anti-catholicism have anything to do with Anglicanism?
posted by Pollomacho at 5:29 AM on December 23, 2008

I've grown to expect stuff like this from metafilter. Christ's teaching are to turn the other cheek sooo......

Me/ walks away.

Merry Christmas all
posted by Mastercheddaar at 5:46 AM on December 23, 2008

Dostoveysky is being flip.

perhaps he's being a national and religious chauvinist - after all, it was said of russia that it was the 3rd rome, coming after the 2nd rome, constantinople, inheriting the main tradition and power of the eastern orthodox church - so this is not a protestant or a rationalist railing against the catholic church, but a russian orthodox railing against it - and, by claiming that the railroads are the star of wormwood, also railing against the western idea of progress, perhaps as a parody of some russian attitudes

The pagan tradition is that the Roman empire ended when Rome was sacked by Alric(?) in the 5th century.

the goths, by the time they were through with rome, were arian christians - alric was an english bishop a few hundreds years later - alaric ii was a king of the visigoths who ruled hispania and did not sack rome
posted by pyramid termite at 5:56 AM on December 23, 2008

He speaks naked truth (reflecting Dostoevsky's views), uninhibited by social mores.

However, in that particular passage, he's sort of caught up in the midst of a near psychotic breakdown that Dostoevsky characterizes a few paragraphs later as a "wild tirade...rush of strange and agitated words and confused, enthusiastic ideas" that "seemed suggestive of something ominous in the mental condition of the young man..."
posted by The Straightener at 5:56 AM on December 23, 2008

The modern concept of the English nation basically coalesced around being Not Catholics in the sixteenth century, after a few back-and-forths of burning folk at the stake as the monarch changed. That's the historical roots of it but the modern Fuck-The-Pope sectarianism of Paisley and his ilk or the Old Firm rivalries is really more to do with communalism and anti-Irishness than any theological questions. Of course, as the Irish saying has it, the foundation stones of the Church of England are the bollocks of Henry the Eighth, so as an established church at least theology wasn't really a question for the sometime Defensor Fidelis when he initiated the break.
posted by Abiezer at 6:13 AM on December 23, 2008

On the other hand, in my experience in discussions with Roman Catholics and members of other churches coming from the schisms before the Protestant Reformation, they tend to look down on many Protestant faiths as weak, anti-intellectual religions which make a mockery of Christianity.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 6:22 AM on December 23, 2008

I was brought up Catholic myself so no intimate knowledge of other theologies but some of the Predestination and what have you of certain Protestant sects seemed really bleak and miserable. I'd take salvation by Grace over that any day of the week were I a God-bothering man. Plus we get all that handy counter-magic against Satan and his imps. A Proddie Exorcist would be the shittest movie ever; loads of smug bourgeois on their knees praying hard and hoping God makes it all go away :p
posted by Abiezer at 6:27 AM on December 23, 2008 [3 favorites]

Yet another demonstration of the much-touted "tolerance" of the left. What did Christ say? "Let he who is without sin...?" Yeah.
posted by Law Talkin' Guy at 6:31 AM on December 23, 2008

> This sort of Christian-bashing, while typical of Metafilter's smug secularist liberals, is especially inappropriate at this the Holiest Time of the Year.

Holiest Time of the Year? - hell yeah. Shop til ya drop. Wall St is the new Vatican, and they need our help NOW.

(howzat for smug-frosted secular liberalism?)
posted by Artful Codger at 6:31 AM on December 23, 2008

Why make a FPP about "anti-Catholicism"? This is more like a blog post. Is there any link there that is "best of the web"?
posted by stbalbach at 6:44 AM on December 23, 2008