![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/06\/TurkFrank.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This was a very in-depth debate with an anti-Catholic Reformed Baptist, Frank Turk<\/a>, from 9-24-05. I have abridged it. The original two-part debate (for masochists and obsessed completists) can be read at Internet Archive (part I<\/a> \/ part II<\/a>).\u00a0Frank\u2019s words will be in\u00a0green<\/span>. My past words (cited in the original Part II from Part I) will be in\u00a0purple<\/span>; older words than that will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. Frank\u2019s past words will be in\u00a0red<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n It\u2019s an essay that, to this day, Armstrong overlooks. He does not address a single point made here,<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve addressed such points or similar ones times without number.<\/p>\n and relies on a single quote from<\/span>\u00a0[sociologist James Davison]\u00a0Hunter, out of context, to simply whistle in the dark past this issue.<\/span><\/p>\n I do not rely on one quote from Hunter, but upon widespread use of the term\u00a0anti-Catholic\u00a0<\/i>among thousands of Protestant scholars. I\u2019ve documented 55 of these. If I am using it as simply a synonym for \u201cbigot\u201d or \u201chateful person who wants to bodily harm Catholics,\u201d then so are they.<\/p>\n This topic has a particular interest for me because I have myself been branded, at various times over the last 5 years, an \u201canti-catholic\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n You don\u2019t consider Catholicism a form of Christianity, so the title is quite apt.<\/p>\n I have been told that the term originates in a work entitled\u00a0Culture Wars<\/i>\u00a0by James Davison Hunter,<\/span><\/p>\n By whom? Certainly not I; I would never assert such a ridiculously false thing. The term was in common usage for many decades before Hunter was born.<\/p>\n and that Hunter\u2019s work outlines a particular brand of hatred on the part of Protestants against Catholics which is unsubstantiated and irrational.<\/span><\/p>\n Sure, but that has no bearing on how I am using the term (which has nothing to do with hatred, etc.).<\/p>\n Notice that Hunter defines it in an environment of mutual disregard: it is not a matter of the poor victimized Catholics being treated badly by the damned insolent or ignorant (or both) Protestants: it is a matter of a foundational dispute between the two. The dispute is inherently theological,<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly; therefore it is perfectly proper to use the term with sole reference to its theological components, not its wider range of meaning, which includes violence, hatred, bigotry, discrimination, disenfranchisement, etc. How can it not be so, if indeed theology is \u201cinherent\u201d to the word in question?<\/p>\n And in that, Hunter describes the tension to spill over into political and social conflict:<\/span><\/p>\n See, again; the very fact that you acknowledge an initial tension that can \u201cspill over\u201d into \u201cpolitical and social conflict\u201d shows that there was already the theological tension; thus the term can be properly applied to such conflicts\u00a0antecedent<\/i>\u00a0to their potential \u201cspilling over\u201d into something even more heinous: socially, as well as theologically and ecumenically destructive.<\/p>\n So the phenomenon Hunter is describing here is not a matter of one-sided insular Protestant bigotry: it is a matter of mutual disregard which, after a century of overt war, turned to the quiet warfare of personal relationships.<\/span><\/p>\n Absolutely. As I have stated many times, often the term is used to describe such phenomena, which also includes anti-Protestantism: which I have repeatedly condemned also. But it is not confined to social and political troubles.<\/p>\n It is in this context that Hunter uses the term \u201canti-Catholicism\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n The term was already in use. It didn\u2019t have to be defined by the context of his book because it was already known, for heaven\u2019s sake.<\/p>\n There is no doubt that Hunter either coins or simply applies the term \u201cAnti-Catholicism\u201d in his work,<\/span><\/p>\n You seriously consider the possibility that Hunter \u201ccoined\u201d the term? Wow, this is getting surreal, even for you. You are\u00a0that<\/i>\u00a0ignorant about the term, yet you want to lecture me that I supposedly don\u2019t know anything about it, and use it as a dishonest cover for calling people bigots?<\/p>\n but the question is: what is Hunter describing? Is he describing the inherently-Protestant theological view that Catholics are heretics,<\/span><\/p>\n In part yes, as I documented: \u201c. . . it took expression primarily as a\u00a0religious<\/i>\u00a0hostility \u2013 as a quarrel over religious doctrine, practice, and authority. . .\u201d (p. 71; Hunter\u2019s italics)<\/p>\n or is he describing the political and social upheaval that resulted when the dispute over theology turned, in popular hands, into a reason to discriminate against a man for an honest education or the right to gain employment for a wage?<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, he does that, too. So what? I\u2019ve always acknowledged that. Just because you are blinded to that fact, for some odd reason, doesn\u2019t mean I don\u2019t know about it.<\/p>\n Clearly, Hunter thinks the dispute over theology is the root cause \u2013<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly; so again, that\u2019s why it is perfectly proper to use the term in a strictly theological way.<\/p>\n but it is a two-sided cause.<\/span><\/p>\n Often it is, but not\u00a0necessarily<\/i>, as I have stressed till I am blue in the face. For some reason, anti-Catholics hate to be called that. It\u2019s like liberal disdain of the word\u00a0liberal<\/i>, I guess. Yet they have no qualms about using the terms\u00a0anti-Protestant<\/i>,\u00a0anti-evangelical<\/i>,\u00a0anti-Calvinist<\/i>\u00a0(I\u2019ve documented many examples of James White and Eric Svendsen using those terms). That\u2019s fine, so let me ask you, Turk: why do you not condemn\u00a0them<\/i>\u00a0for being (as you claim) equally arbitrary and irrational, and hate-mongering, for using the equivalent terms the other way around?<\/p>\n But of course, you have [recently] denied that Protestants ever\u00a0use<\/i>\u00a0such language. You being unacquainted with the facts of a matter under dispute is, sadly, no unusual thing for you. You don\u2019t even know that your own heroes and champions are using these terms. I do, because I got sick and tired of these charges you reiterate and thus sought to show that those who make the charge are often guilty of gross hypocrisy. I am not, because I have used the term consistently in one fashion, not inconsistently, as White and Svendsen do: using their own \u201canti-\u201d terminology but always accusing Catholics of something unsavoury when they merely do the same thing.<\/p>\n If he were writing a history of southern Europe, one has to wonder how he would have positioned the circumstances of Protestants given his brief description already cited.<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously not. His specialty is American religion, in any event.<\/p>\n He does call the editorial policies of the Chicago Tribune<\/em> and the substance of the \u201cgreat school wars\u201d \u201canti-Catholicism\u201d, but does he qualify all Protestant theology as anti-Catholic?<\/span><\/p>\n Of course not; anyone with half a brain cell knows that. Note the remote insinuation that somehow I am doing this: one of your more ludicrous and absolutely asinine charges about me. For heaven\u2019s sake, I used to\u00a0be\u00a0<\/i>a Protestant who was not an anti-Catholic, so how in the world could I turn around and deny that such a thing exists? I would have to lie about my own past history.<\/p>\n You have to lob one of your outrageous lies about me when (as recently) you claimed that I classify all Protestants as \u201canti-Catholic.\u201d Yet you want so badly to dialogue with me. Why in the world would I want to do so with a person who has continually lied about my positions; even bald facts, and refuses to be corrected on any of them?<\/p>\n I\u2019m only here now, hoping that some rational, fair-minded Christian soul who reads your blog will see this and correct and rebuke you in love, before you make a fool of yourself to an even greater extent than you already have. Lying about others is a sin. Even if I am all these things that you and Phil Johnson and Steve Hays and Svendsen and White and all my other [anti-Catholic] critics think of me, it\u2019s still a sin to lie and bear false witness, if it is proven that such has taken place. This is just one instance among many. But you refuse to deal with them. Instead it\u2019s all mockery and further misrepresentation.<\/p>\n Even as Hunter develops his thesis that Protestant biases inhabited the political system, he makes this clear concession:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAt a more profound level, however, biblical theism gave Protestants, Catholics, and Jews many of the common ideals of public life.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Amen! Am I to take this as some small degree of ecumenism on your part? Praise God.<\/p>\n It is the acceptance of the Bible as the unitive heritage of men who fear God that resolves their differences. That hardly sounds like a Catholic perspective: it sounds significantly Protestant.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s Catholic, too, of course. We rejoice that we share the biblical heritage in common.<\/p>\n The doctrine of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 that Scripture alone has the authority to correct all other forms of authority, and that it alone in the normative standard \u2013 is not Catholic but Protestant, and it is this ideal of Scripture conforming the minds of men to which Hunter ascribes the basis and the ground of whatever resolution has occurred over time between the\u00a0parties.<\/span><\/p>\n No. He merely referred to \u201cbiblical theism\u201d and included Jews in the equation also. Obviously, Jews don\u2019t believe in\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, either; it is strictly a Protestant thing. We have this in common (the Bible). We don\u2019t have\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0in common.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s keep that in mind the next time someone wants to throw out the term \u201canti-Catholic\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, let\u2019s. And let\u2019s also keep all this in mind when White or Svendsen hypocritically use terms like\u00a0anti-evangelical<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0anti-Reformed<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0anti-Calvinist<\/i>. No one has addressed that\u00a0phenomenon, to my knowledge, except yours truly.<\/p>\n I take a wholly-Protestant view of Catholic theology, but even I do not call for the disenfranchisement of Catholics.<\/span><\/p>\n Good for\u00a0you<\/i>! \u201cEven\u201d you don\u2019t do that, huh? What, have you been tempted to do so or something? Why even\u00a0state<\/i>\u00a0such a silly thing? It\u2019s like the old thing about a man saying out of the blue, \u201cI don\u2019t beat my wife.\u201d<\/p>\n I don\u2019t think you should go out and beat Catholics, nor rob them of their possessions, nor that you should slander them for things they have never done.<\/span><\/p>\n What progress! Frank Turk is not in favor of beating and robbing Catholics. Great. He does not, however, have any compunctions about\u00a0lying<\/i>\u00a0repeatedly about\u00a0one<\/i>\u00a0of them; namely, Dave Armstrong. That\u2019s one of the Ten Commandments, too, last time I checked. Yet you repeatedly slander me by attributing to me notions and beliefs that I do not now hold; nor (in most instances) have I\u00a0ever<\/i>\u00a0held them. And don\u2019t ask me to list them, as that is what I have already done in the paper you chose to deliberately ignore (for very good reason).<\/p>\n And in that, I find the term \u201canti-Catholic\u201d both reductive and inflammatory \u2013 because the term means \u201cbigot\u201d,<\/span><\/p>\n In some usages it does, but not all.<\/p>\n and I am certain that one can hold Protestant views of Catholicism without being a bigot.<\/span><\/p>\n Me too, since I did it myself from 1977 to 1990, as a fervent evangelical Protestant!<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Now, having made this general survey and expressed my own opinions on the matter for the umpteenth time, I thought it would be instructive to simply consult dictionaries and get a definition of the term\u00a0anti-Catholicism<\/i>. Like any other word, it ought to be fairly easy to find the correct definition, right? Granted, words can be used in different ways, and can have various meanings. But dictionaries will inform us of that range, too.<\/p>\n I have acknowledged (as I always have) that Frank\u2019s preferred definition of\u00a0anti-Catholicism<\/i>\u00a0is a perfectly valid one. But he wants to act as if the way I have been using it (strictly in theological terms) is\u00a0not<\/i>. He wants to make\u00a0his<\/i>\u00a0use\u00a0exclusive<\/i>. This isn\u2019t, however, an \u201ceither\/or\u201d scenario, but a \u201cboth\/and\u201d one, as is the case with most words.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s look it up in a few places and see what we can find. How about\u00a0Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary<\/i><\/a>? If one looks up \u201canti\u201d, one finds some very interesting things:<\/p>\n Main Entry: anti- Etymology: anti- from Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin, against, from Greek, from anti; ant- from Middle English, from Latin, against, from Greek, from anti; anth- from Latin, against, from Greek, from anti \u2014 more at ANTE-<\/p>\n 1 a : of the same kind but situated opposite, exerting energy in the opposite direction, or pursuing an opposite policy\u00a0b : one that is opposite in kind to It then provides a host of examples. Here is the list up through the letter \u201cc\u201d, bolding the theologically related uses:<\/p>\n anti-academic anti-acne anti-administration anti-aggression anti-aging anti-AIDS anti-alcohol anti-alcoholism anti-alien anti-allergenic anti-anemia anti-apartheid anti-aphrodisiac anti-aristocratic anti-arthritic anti-arthritis anti-assimilation anti-asthma anti-authoritarian anti-authoritarianism anti-authority anti-backlash anti-bias anti-billboard anti-Bolshevik anti-boss anti-bourgeois anti-boycott anti-British anti-bug anti-bureaucratic anti-burglar anti-burglary anti-caking anti-capitalism anti-capitalist anti-carcinogen anti-carcinogenic anti-caries\u00a0anti-Catholic anti-Catholicism<\/b>\u00a0anti-cellulite anti-censorship anti-cholesterol\u00a0anti-Christian anti-Christianity anti-church<\/b>\u00a0anti-cigarette anti-city anti-classical anti-cling anti-clotting anti-cold anti-collision anti-colonial anti-colonialism anti-colonialist anti-commercial anti-commercialism anti-communism anti-communist anti-conglomerate anti-conservation anti-conservationist anti-consumer anti-conventional anti-corporate anti-corrosion anti-corrosive anti-corruption anti-counterfeiting anti-crack anti-creative anti-crime anti-cruelty\u00a0anti-cult\u00a0<\/b>anti-cultural<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, has the dictionary defined these terms broadly as solely a political or social or \u201cbigoted\u201d thing? Of course not. We saw how it defined in several ways above. Arguably, the closest example is\u00a0Anti-Semite<\/i>. The dictionary notes:<\/p>\n 2 a : opposing or hostile to in opinion, sympathy, or practice<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The closest we can get to Frank\u2019s solely \u201cpolitical \/ social agitation, violence,\u201d etc. definition, is the word \u201cpractice\u201d above, and even there it does not necessarily\u00a0have<\/i>\u00a0to mean physical violence or discrimination and suchlike. Even if we grant that it\u00a0does<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0could possibly<\/i>\u00a0mean that, the definition is not exclusive, so that one can also use the word in reference to \u201copposing\u201d or \u201chostile\u201d in \u201copinion\u201d or \u201csympathy.\u201d That\u2019s really all that is sufficient to prove my use and definition. It\u2019s a slam dunk. The dictionary included\u00a0Anti-Catholic<\/i>\u00a0along with all the other \u201canti\u201d terms: precisely as I have been maintaining for years.<\/p>\n Unfortunately\u00a0anti-Catholic<\/i>\u00a0is not listed on its own, but the above information is quite valuable enough.<\/p>\n The online\u00a0Free Dictionary Thesaurus<\/i>\u00a0<\/a>provides a simple definition:<\/p>\n Noun 1. anti-Catholicism \u2013 a religious orientation opposed to Catholicism<\/p>\n [\u201crelated words\u201d]\u00a0religious orientation<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 an attitude toward\u00a0religion or religious practices<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n Mark Noll (evangelical historian): \u201cProtestant anti-Romanism was a staple of the American theological world . . .\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I would suggest to you that \u201canti-Romanism\u201d is a different word than \u201canti-Catholic\u201d. Saying they are synonyms is on-par with saying \u201canti-welfare\u201d is a synonym with \u201cracist\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t follow at all, and the following logical analysis explains why:<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0Romanism<\/i>\u00a0as a synonym of\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0is like\u00a0anti-welfare<\/i>\u00a0as a synonym of\u00a0racist<\/i>\u00a0(so you say my logic amounts to, as a\u00a0reductio ad absurdum<\/i>). A. First of all, Noll\u00a0himself\u00a0<\/i>uses them synonymously in the context of the passage cited (I have added more context than my original citation in the above-mentioned paper contained):<\/p>\n Protestant anti-Romanism was a staple of the American theological world. It\u00a0<\/span>was fueled especially by the background of Catholic-Protestant strife in the\u00a0<\/span>English Reformation. That antagonism was enshrined for English-speaking readers\u00a0<\/span>everywhere in the pages of John Foxe\u2019s\u00a0Book of Martyrs<\/i>, which added Catholic\u00a0<\/span>persecution of Protestants to the long line of sufferings endured by true\u00a0<\/span>servants of Christ . . . [a lecture with a long title is cited, including \u201cRomish Church . . . the Church of Rome is that mystical Babylon . . .\u201d] . . . anti-Catholic literature was a well-entrenched theological genre. Ray Allen Billington\u2019s study [The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, A Study of the Origins of American Nativism<\/i>, 1952] of the six antebellum decades included a bibiography of nearly forty pages devoted exclusively to anti-Catholic periodicals, books, and pamphlets.\u00a0<\/span>(\u201cThe History of an Encounter: Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals,\u201d in Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, editors:\u00a0Evangelicals and Catholics: Toward a Common Mission<\/i>, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995, 87)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Noll does this, because this is how anti-Catholics\u00a0themselves<\/i>\u00a0generally use the two terms. Note also that, while stating that anti-Catholicism in 19th-century America was almost always political, too, it didn\u2019t necessarily\u00a0have<\/i>\u00a0to be; there was a theological component prior to any political action:<\/span><\/p>\n [C]onservative Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge, brought down great wrath upon his head for defending the validity of Catholic baptism, even though that defense fully maintained Protestant arguments about the deviance of Rome.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>(p. 88)<\/span> \u201cAlmost always\u201d political, but that leaves a window for a purely theological anti-Catholicism, based on what Noll describes as \u201chistorical theological animus.\u201d Therefore, he strongly proves my point that such a thing can and does exists apart from political action (thus can be called\u00a0anti-Catholicism<\/i>\u00a0without\u00a0necessary<\/i>\u00a0political implication). Those things\u00a0often accompany<\/i>\u00a0the purely theological anti-Catholicism, but they are not\u00a0intrinsic\u00a0<\/i>to same. That has been my argument for many years now.<\/span><\/p>\n B. Synonymous use of\u00a0Romanism<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Catholicism<\/i>\u00a0is clearly common in anti-Catholic circles, both historically and presently. To document this would be an exercise in self-evident inanity. But I will nevertheless provide a few examples below.<\/p>\n C. As a current-day example, see., e.g.,\u00a0James White<\/b>, perhaps the most influential anti-Catholic Protestant apologist today. I documented his use of certain terms in my paper, \u201cThe Strange Saga of James White\u2019s On-Again, Off-Again Use of the Pejorative Terms \u201cRomanism\u201d and \u201cRomanist\u201d.\u201d\u00a0The question here is: does he use these terms interchangeably with\u00a0Roman Catholic<\/i>\u00a0(his usual term) or\u00a0Catholic<\/i>? Of course he\u00a0does<\/i>\u00a0(as I noted in the above paper):<\/p>\n He used the terms\u00a0Romanism<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0Romanist(s)<\/i>\u00a0incessantly in his book\u00a0The Fatal Flaw\u00a0<\/i>(Southbridge, MA: Crowne Publications, 1990) , almost as his description of choice for Catholicism. I found 29 instances of it (and I\u2019m sure some slipped me by): on pp. xi, xiii, 4, 10, 13, 17, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 41, 45, 47, 69, 71, 86, 120, 125, 132, 133, 154, 156, 157, 159, 181, 191 (2), and 193.\u00a0Roman<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0Roman Catholic(ism)<\/i>\u00a0also appear quite frequently.<\/span><\/p>\n White dropped his guard momentarily and fell into the abominable use of the word\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0(by itself) at least seven times: pp. 18, 42, 70, 71, 75, 211, and 215, and even (egads!)\u00a0Catholicism<\/i>\u00a0at least once (p. 70).<\/span><\/p>\n On page 71 of the same work he uses\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Romanism<\/i>\u00a0as synonyms in the space of three sentences (after having also used\u00a0Catholic\u00a0<\/i>in the preceding paragraph (his own italics and bolding; red coloring mine):<\/p>\n . . . we will demonstrate the\u00a0fatal flaw<\/i>\u00a0of\u00a0Romanism<\/span>: here a way of\u00a0propitiation, of satisfaction for sins<\/i>, is presented\u00a0which is other than the final and completed work of Christ on Calvary<\/b>. But there is another way in which this flaw can be demonstrated. it is to be found in the\u00a0Catholic<\/span>\u00a0doctrine on indulgences and purgatory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, anti-Catholic Protestant James White\u2019s reasoning is as silly as mine\u00a0supposedly<\/i>\u00a0is (since he used synonyms in the same way that my agreeable ecumenical Protestant source did); it\u2019s as silly as saying (what was it?) that\u00a0anti-welfare<\/i>\u00a0is a synonym of\u00a0racist<\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n D. Furthermore, your anti-Catholic friend\u00a0Steve Hays<\/b>\u00a0does exactly the same, too:<\/span><\/p>\n i) In his paper,\u00a0Schism or Romanism?,\u00a0<\/a>he uses that term in the title, and then proceeds to use\u00a0Catholic<\/i>\u00a0for his synonym, five times in the paper.<\/p>\n
\nVariant(s): or ant- or anth-
\nFunction: prefix<\/p>\n
\n2 a : opposing or hostile to in opinion, sympathy, or practice\u00a0b : opposing in effect or activity
\n3 : serving to prevent, cure, or alleviate
\n4 : combating or defending against<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n2. To be against welfare is to somehow be against black people.
\n3. But most people on welfare are not black.
\n4. And it is quite possible to be against welfare and not against black people; to believe that there are other ways to help the poor (of whatever race) besides welfare, etc.
\n5. Therefore the comparison is ridiculous and a\u00a0non sequitur<\/i>.
\n6. You say that my making\u00a0Romanism<\/i>\u00a0and\u00a0Catholicism<\/i>\u00a0synonyms is as ridiculous as\u00a0that\u00a0<\/i>comparison.
\n7. But is it really that illogical and ridiculous? No, of course not, on several grounds:<\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>[E]vangelical anti-Catholicism was given new life by the rising current of Catholic immigration into the United States. Protestant writing against Catholicism retained the historical theological animus, but it was almost always a political expression as well.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>(p. 90)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n