The Catholic Thing
Popery and Populism Print E-mail
By Brad Miner   
Monday, 10 September 2012

Editor’s Note: Thanks to all our readers who have been so generous in responding to our current fund drive. In addition to the many donations we typically receive from all over the United States and Canada, contributions have come in from Switzerland, Spain, Norway, England, and Ireland – as well as Mexico, Costa Rica, Argentina, Australia, and New Zealand. If you were wondering about the kind of reach, and passionate following, we have at The Catholic Thing, you almost need to look no further. And no wonder. Just look at today. Our Senior Editor Brad Miner provides you with a little American Catholic history that you’ve probably never seen before. Brad is a native of Ohio and a convert, and always brings a fresh perspective to the way the Church has operated in this country. Speaking of Ohio, today we continue George Marlin’s series on the Catholic vote in key swing states with an installment on the crucial Buckeye State. George surveys the history and concludes that, in a state with a heavy Catholic population, a mere 5 percent shift in the Catholic vote could tip the election. We’re doing our part to keep you informed and inspired at this site. Please, help us in this vital work by making your contribution to The Catholic Thing today. – Robert Royal

I was recently working in the periodical room at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, and came across an article titled “A Plea for Liberty of Conscience” in the July 1868 edition of The Catholic World – in its day one of New York’s leading periodicals. As you’d suppose, the article is about anti-Catholic prejudice in Civil War-era America, although the unnamed author mostly focuses on the barriers and difficulties faced by converts and would-be converts.

He writes that “there are probably fifty thousand converts within the fold of the Catholic Church . . . and a great many more who would gladly become Catholics if there were no sacrifices to be made in order to do so . . .” But a person who entered the Church:

found himself treated as an individual who had abjured Christianity, engaged in a conspiracy against his country and the human race, or as if he had been detected in perjury or forging notes [i.e., counterfeiting].
Then again, the situation was not much better for cradle Catholics:
Their religion is attacked and ridiculed, without regard to the proprieties of polite intercourse, as if a Catholic were out of the category of persons whose convictions and sentiments are entitled to respect.

Jump ahead about a century: I wonder how many readers remember The First Family, a record album by a comedian named Vaughn Meader, in which he did a more-than-passable imitation of President John F. Kennedy’s voice (about which JFK quipped: “He sounds like Bobby [Kennedy]”).

At one point, the “president” is asked if he, a Catholic, thinks a Jew could be elected to the highest office in the land. Meader intones:

“I, ah, see no reason why, at some point in the future, a member of the, ah, Jewish faith could not become President of the United States. [PAUSE] Of course, as a Catholic, I could never vote for him . . .”

I mention this because the author of the 1868 Catholic World article, after giving a varied, sometimes startling account of anti-Catholic prejudice in America, after a stirring invocation of Catholic patriotism, and after an eloquent plea for religious freedom and broadmindedness, says that, of course, there are limits to tolerance: 

That which strikes at the order and peace of the natural relations binding us together in society cannot be tolerated on the pretext of liberty of conscience or opinion. Therefore, Mormonism has no rights under our [American] laws, and ought not to be tolerated, and Mohammedanism could not be tolerated.
Liberty for me, but not for thee.

It’s interesting that his argument rests on the assumption (no doubt well-founded) that anti-Catholics have misunderstood Catholicism; have seen it, in effect, as a seditious foreign cult. On the contrary, he insists that a “consistent Catholic will be a good citizen and respect the laws,” whereas Mormons and Muslims cannot. Ironic today, in a year when many Catholics will vote to elect a Mormon to the presidency.

Which reminds me of another 1960s joke. When I was a Protestant kid in Ohio and JFK was just inaugurated, some of my classmates (I among them) would take half dollars – the ones with Ben Franklin’s image on the obverse – and with our moms’ red nail polish paint a zucchetto on Ben’s skull. The Kennedy Quarter, we called it (assuming inflation was around the corner).

And then there was this one:

“Did you hear that Ike broke his leg?”

“No! How?”

“He tripped over the pope’s bags as he was leaving the White House!”


I may seem to have come from a nest of nativists, but things have changed noticeably in the Buckeye state over the last half-century, which you see vividly this year as political attacks on Catholics are seen as attacks on all Christians.

What’s really interesting about our nineteenth-century editorialist is his belief (again, well-founded) that a new spirit of Catholic unity in America was a part of what was agitating the Protestant majority (the “English race,” he calls them): that Catholics were not just viewed as a malodorous, ragtag mob with odd accents and dirty faces but as a growing force, socially and politically. And that a leader – a John Cardinal McCloskey or, most previously, an Archbishop John J. Hughes – could manipulate this papist horde towards ends inimical to Establishment interests.

But as the saying goes: That was then.

George Marlin has written a series for us, Catholics and the 2012 Election: A State-by-State Guide (see the ad above and to the right on this page), in which he considers the impact of the “Catholic vote” historically and in the upcoming presidential election. Nobody knows more about all this than the author of The American Catholic Voter: Two Hundred Years of Political Impact, yet even Mr. Marlin can’t say to what extent “Catholic” votes cast in November will reflect authentic Church teaching.

My fear: the new anti-Catholic force in America is . . . Catholics. As another Sixties-era humorist put it: We have met the enemy and he is us.

Brad Miner, a graduate of Ohio University, is senior editor of The Catholic Thing, senior fellow of the Faith & Reason Institute, and a board member of Aid to the Church In Need USA. He is the author of six books and is a former Literary Editor of National Review. The Compleat Gentleman, read by Christopher Lane, is available on audio.
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (7)Add Comment
written by Gian, September 10, 2012
"That which strikes at the order and peace of the natural relations binding us together in society cannot be tolerated on the pretext of liberty of conscience or opinion. Therefore, Mormonism has no rights under our [American] laws, and ought not to be tolerated, and Mohammedanism could not be tolerated.

Liberty for me, but not for thee. "

So the argument, that was given, is not worthy of refutation? IS there no difference between Catholicism and Mohammedanism? IS there nothing in the fact that Western world has been at war with Mohammedan world for more than a thousand years?. Is it entirely immaterial that Mormons disagreed with the fundamental tenets of the Western World and practiced un-Christian polygamy?

Are you today willing to tolerate witchcraft, voodoo, and animal sacrifices in some American temple?
written by Jack,CT, September 10, 2012
I always felt Romney was a Christian!Never could
understand feeling differently about a Church named
"The Church of Jesus Christ".You see we as Catholics
have been victums to the "cult" label.I guess what i am
saying is a little research into ones "Faith" would
aleviate there fears.
written by Michael Paterson-Seymour, September 10, 2012
Interesting to compare the reservations of the writer in the Catholic World – “That which strikes at the order and peace of the natural relations binding us together in society cannot be tolerated on the pretext of liberty of conscience or opinion,” with the rather hesitant language of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, some ninety years earlier – “No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, even his religious ones [mêmes religieuses] provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.”

The European Convention on Human Rights follows in the same tradition – “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Dignitatis Humanae, too, would appear to have these previous models in mind, in declaring that religious freedom “is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.” It elaborates this, as follows, “These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.”

It would appear that the legislator’s margin of appreciation is considerable.
written by Grump, September 10, 2012
Despite the general decline of religion in America, it remains highly doubtful whether an atheist or agnostic could be elected President any time soon. According to a recent Pew poll, two-thirds of adults (67%) say it is important for the president to have strong religious beliefs. This number is down since 2008 (72%); an encouraging trend, it says here. Only about half identify Obama as Christian.

Given that Americans have had no problem voting morons into the White House, they also seem willing to elect Mormons, too, according to the Pew study.
written by PJ, September 10, 2012

Mormonism is utterly foreign to Christian orthodoxy, be it Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or Oriental. Its beliefs are strange and repugnant even to our Abrahamic brothers, the Jews and Muslims. Catholicism has more in common with Judaism and Islam than it does with Mormonism.
written by debby, September 10, 2012
A couple of months ago I had to take my dog to the groomer. Rob has groomed Jack for 5 years now, and, although he is a flamboyant gay man and myself a "flamboyant Catholic", we get along in many ways. He knows I pray for his dignity as a man to be healed, and we understand although we don't often agree with each other.....he is verbose about his political views (BIG Hilary fan) and always engages me in "What do you think, I mean, as a 'devout Catholic' " kinds of topics (abortion, war, poverty, et al). Months ago (when Santorum and 100 others were still in the running -if they ever really were) he asked me who I would be voting for....
my response, "Not a Mormon. I just can't."
Well, a few months have past, the scene is changed, I have NO CHOICE that agrees with my full conscience, so I will pull the lever for the best I can. I can tell you Rob will be voting along side me. His remark - "Debby, I mean, WHAT is happening in our country? Did you ever think you would see the day when an outspoken gay man and a devout Catholic would vote for a Mormon?"
The days are strange indeed.
But then again, Mitt may be a Good Samaritan. All I know is the other guy in the race is NOT. (well, ok, a good Philistine? I know Samaritans were almost Jews and Mormons are NOT Christians....)
written by jason taylor, September 10, 2012
Mormons have their headquarters in Utah, not in Rome nor in Mecca. Assuming Mormons to be a political force in themselves as Catholics once were to a greater degree, and Muslims still are it is relevant that they are centered in the same country which a Mormon leader would represent. In defending the interests of Mormonism a Mormon President would also be defending the interests of the US and vice-versa and would have little temptation to choose the interests of a foreign power over those of their homeland as indeed do Muslims today and Catholics in the past. Their religious and their political homeland are the same.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


Other Articles By This Author