If the U. S. Becomes 51% Catholic

At the time of the American Revolution there were about 18,000 Roman Catholics in all the colonies. Today, according to the hierarchy’s figures, they number 34 million. In less than 200 years the Roman church has grown from the smallest denomination in the country to the largest. Such a sensational increase in the dimensions of the Roman Catholic community suggests that this faith may, in the foreseeable future, become predominant in the United States and attain political and cultural control.

The process is signally aided by a curious theology which makes intelligent family limitation a sin for Roman Catholics. If the hierarchy should gain the ascendancy here, it would mean that a country once overwhelmingly Protestant in numbers and thoroughly Protestant in its genius had turned in another direction. Such a development would have consequences of the utmost importance to every Protestant, to every non-Catholic, and, for that matter, to the Roman Catholics themselves.

Will the United States ever become a Roman Catholic nation? Twelve years ago Harold E. Fey, now editor of The Christian Century, completed a series of articles for that journal under the title, “Can Catholicism Win America?” He concluded the series by answering “Yes.” Every trend which Dr. Fey noted has become more pronounced during the years since. Father James M. Gillis, then editor of The Catholic World, predicted in 1929 that America will be predominantly a Catholic country “before the present younger generation dies.” Two men, observing from opposite sides of the fence, foresaw the same result. It is practical wisdom to ask the nature of the denouement toward which we may be heading. It is in the area of freedom that this question concerns us, and within that area the particular locale of religious freedom concerns us most. What would Roman Catholic predominance mean at this point? We can find the answer in (1) What the Roman church itself teaches; (2) What the Roman church teaches the children in its schools; (3) The practice of the Roman church in lands where it has already gained predominance.

Catholics And Religious Freedom

No Catholic program in regard to religious freedom can be understood without some grasp of the theology which informs it. The fact is that the systematic curbing of other faiths, particularly Christian faiths, is indigenous to its entire position. The Roman church and any government to which it is legally joined are driven to such action by the church’s own inherent logic. The insistence on the identity of the true Church of Jesus Christ with the visible Roman church—an outrageous heresy from a Protestant point of view—is largely responsible. If this particular coterie of ecclesiastics has the truth and the whole truth, then all others, while they might have some of the truth, are also bound to have some error. But error cannot have the same rights as truth. Therefore, it is an act of moral responsibility on the part of those who have the truth to set some limits or inflict some disabilities on the spread of error.

This is the real basis of Roman Catholic suppression of Protestants as it has continued through the centuries to the present day. We see this clearly in the teaching of Father Francis J. Connell, generally regarded as the leading Catholic theologian in the United States. In his book Freedom of Worship, the Catholic Position, a work currently distributed by the Paulist Press, he makes clear that Roman Catholic curbs on Protestant freedom are always inherently present. The degree to which they are carried out, however, differs greatly from country to country. Father Connell says that, generally speaking, the decisive factor in the application of disabilities to Protestants would be the country’s attainment of a Catholic majority. Whether he means a straight 51 per cent of the church population, or a working majority politically, he does not make clear. He does insist, however, that in a country that is “distinctly Catholic … the civil rulers can consider themselves justified in restricting or preventing denominational activities hostile to the [Roman] Catholic religion.”

Father Connell then explains what he means by this. He says he does not mean that civil rulers should punish or persecute Protestants who will not become Catholics. “But they are justified in repressing written or spoken attacks on Catholicism, the use of the press or the mails to weaken the allegiance of Catholics toward their Church, and similar anti-Catholic efforts.” When one realizes that every sermon from a Protestant pulpit is, in a theological sense, “anti-Catholic activity,” the possibilities of this program begin to appear.

It is only fair to Father Connell to cite his own supplement to his program as outlined above:

Even in a predominantly Catholic country, circumstances may render it more advisable for the government to grant non-Catholics the same measure of freedom of worship as is enjoyed by Catholics. Such a course is justifiable when it is foreseen that a policy of complete toleration will procure greater good than will repressive measures against anti-Catholic activities.

This concession to Protestants is generous. It should be pointed out, though, that it rests upon no conviction or principle—only upon the observation that in a given situation the suppression of Protestants might create more fuss than it would be worth!

Roman Catholic thinking on religious freedom is clearly indicated in a rather spontaneous remark of José M. de Arielza, Spanish ambassador to the United States. When speaking before a Charles Carroll forum, he was questioned about the closing of the Protestant Union Theological Seminary in Madrid. He replied:

There exists in Spain today the natural desire to avoid that it become a Protestant missionary camp. If the Catholic Church believes it professes the true religion, why should it be subjected to adverse propaganda to rob it of its faith?

What Mr. Arielza is saying is simply: Why should the Roman church run the risk of competition when it has the power to eliminate it?

Attitude Toward Other Faiths

A succinct statement of the Roman Catholic attitude toward other faiths is found in an oft-quoted article in the Jesuit journal, Civilta Cattolica, published in Rome. This journal is a quality publication which enjoys high prestige and authority among church scholars, and is also known to be close to the Pope. The statement in the issue of April 1948 reads:

The Roman Catholic Church, convinced through its divine prerogatives, of being the only true church, must demand the right of freedom for herself alone, because such a right can only be possessed by truth, never by error. As for other religions, the Church will certainly never draw the sword, but she will require that by legitimate means they shall not be allowed to propagate false doctrine. Consequently, in a state where the majority of the people are Catholic, the Church will require that legal existence be denied to error, and that if religious minorities actually exist, they shall have only a de facto existence without opportunity to spread their beliefs.… In some countries, Catholics will be obliged to ask full religious freedom for all, resigned at being forced to cohabitate where they alone should rightfully be allowed to live. But in doing this the Church does not renounce her thesis which remains the most imperative of her laws, but merely adapts herself to de facto conditions which must be taken into account in practical affairs.… The Church cannot blush for her own want of tolerance as she asserts it in principle and applies it in practice.

The tenor of this teaching is clear. Religious freedom is not a value for the Roman Catholic hierarchy, except in one context only. It is a value to them only when they are in danger of losing it for themselves. The reason the Pope never includes clerically oppressed Protestants in his appointed days of prayer for the oppressed is that in his view such oppression is necessary and proper. Since those being denied their freedom in this instance are not Catholic, there is, in fact, no denial.

There is one source of information on this subject which is so close at hand it is commonly overlooked. Yet it has a significance all its own. In the long run the teaching of Roman Catholic theologians or even the encyclicals of popes may not count for so much as what is taught the children. We know that 4 million Roman Catholic children are now being trained at the elementary and high school level in a carefully insulated denominational enclave. What goes on within its walls? What is the hierarchy teaching these millions of future Americans on the subject of religious freedom?

An article of limited dimensions can do no more than spot check representative parochial school textbooks. The quotations offered here are typical of many that prove highly disturbing to Protestant peace of mind. In Christian Principles and National Problems, by Ostheimer and Delaney, published by William H. Sadlier, under imprimatur of Cardinal Spellman, we read:

The doctrine of the Church … is that the State must profess and promote not any religion, but the one true form of worship founded by Christ and continuing today in the Catholic Church alone. Such a public profession … will of necessity bring the State into some relation with Catholicism, the only complete expression of God’s revealed truth. As an ideal, then, Church and State should be united in their efforts” (p. 98). “The non-Catholic and the non-baptized should be permitted to carry on their own form of worship as long as there would be no danger of scandal or perversion to the faithful. In a country where the majority are Catholics, the practice of Protestantism or paganism by an inconspicuous minority would be neither a source of scandal nor perversion to the adherents of the true Faith” (p. 99).

This chapter then follows with a condemnation of the principle of Church-State separation, agreeing with Pope Leo XIII that the status of the church in the American scheme of things is not the most desirable in the eyes of the church and is not to be accepted as ideal.

What is disturbing to Protestants is not the arrogance of this, but its implied threat to their freedom of worship. The teaching is vague only in regard to the point at which sanctions would be applied to Protestants. The attainment of a majority would not warrant the commencement of repressive measures, provided the Protestant minority were small and “inconspicuous.” How large the majority would actually have to be, and how conspicuous the Protestants would have to become, is not stated. Nevertheless, to suggest that 4 million children be taught the idea that, at any point whatever, their church should start oppressing other churches is in itself monstrous. Have Protestants any reason to doubt that what is taught the children of one generation will be done by their leaders in the next, provided the opportunity offers?

We see a similar point of view in Living Our Faith by Flynn, Loretto and Simeon, published by W. H. Sadlier, imprimatur of Cardinal Spellman. (Both of these books are widely used in Roman Catholic schools.) We read:

The question of union or separation of Church and State has perplexed men since the Protestant Revolt. The ideal situation exists when there is perfect union and accord between Church and State, with each supreme in its own field.… In a Catholic country, when a dispute arises [between Church and State] and settlement is unattainable, the rights of the Church should prevail, since it possesses the higher authority.”

The text points out that citizens of the United States are apt to think that separation of Church and State is a good thing. The church holds, however, that “(separation) is still a compromise and … the lesser of two evils.” The church would do better, the pupils are told, “if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of public authority” (p. 247). This obviously means establishment.

Living Our Faith further points out to the children the fact that “non-Catholic methods of worshiping God must be branded counterfeit” and the plain inference is that the state should assist in the branding (p. 112).

At the college level, consider the popular text by Ryan and Boland, Catholic Principles of Politics, published by Macmillan, imprimatur of Cardinal Spellman.

Suppose … that the Constitutional obstacles to prosecution of non-Catholics have been legitimately removed and they themselves have become numerically insignificant: What then would be the proper course of action for a Catholic State? Apparently, the latter State could logically tolerate only such religious activities as were confined to the members of the dissenting group. It could not permit them to carry on general propaganda nor accord their organization certain privileges that had formerly been extended to all religious corporations, for example, exemption from taxation.

This is the kind of mental climate in which millions of Roman Catholic children and young people are being reared. Why should we doubt that it may have its desired effect tomorrow?

Still another useful source of information as to Roman Catholic intentions lies in the hierarchy’s actual performance in lands where this denomination predominates. The governments of many nations have concordats or special agreements with the Vatican. All of these agreements give certain privileges to the Roman Catholic church and visit certain disabilities on other churches. They vary considerably, yet all have these two major facets. The concordat with Spain is regarded by the Vatican as the ideal agreement with a political power. We may regard its provisions as typical of those which the church would like in all nations.

This instrument, signed August 1953, specifically grants the Roman Catholic church a religious monopoly in Spain. The government agrees to provide its support from tax funds—stipends for priests at all levels, grants for seminaries, church universities and church construction, and “for the general practice of the [Roman Catholic] religion.” Clergy are immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution before a civil judge unless permission is given by the ruling prelate. The state undertakes to subsidize all missionary activities of the Roman church, to care for its monasteries and to support its social and welfare institutions.

Marriage comes under the dictates of canon law. The Roman version of Christianity is made compulsory teaching in all schools, whether operated by the church or the state. All teachers of religion are appointed and controlled by the church. Education is placed under control of the hierarchy. Schools of other denominations are prohibited. Priests are given a monopoly on all religious broadcasting. They are also given a monopoly on the chaplaincy of the armed forces, of the police force, of all penal institutions, hospitals and orphanages.

The public practice of any other faith than Roman Catholicism will occasion the arrest and punishment of the guilty party.

These provisions would seem to represent the goal of Roman Catholic policy. It is a goal achieved in whole or in part in all lands having a Vatican concordat.

The Argument From Difference

The American hierarchy, who understand how shocking their church’s teaching and practice would be to freedom-loving Americans, have endeavored to cushion the shock with an ingenious argument. They offer the plea of “difference.” The plea has two points of emphasis-first: these other countries are “different” from the United States and therefore we should expect to find ideas on religious freedom different, also. This is the argument in one of the famed Knights of Columbus ads designed in an effort to get new members for their church. The ad reads: “The status of the Catholic Church in such a land [Colombia] would obviously be different than in the United States where there are many faiths all entitled to the same rights.”

What the Knights seem to mean is that when Catholics are in considerable majority, this creates a “different” situation and it then becomes proper for them to oppress others. It is highly doubtful, however, whether Protestants find brutality, jail and death any easier to take because they are few in number. Nor are they any happier about the closing of their schools and the destruction of their churches because they are a minority. (All of these things have happened to them in Colombia, the land of the concordat.) From a Protestant point of view, the doctrine that a Roman Catholic majority makes a country “different” where religious freedom is concerned is false and dangerous. Such freedom is even more important to a minority than to a majority.

The second approach to the plea of “difference” is that the United States is different. Because of this “difference” it is argued that the consistent pattern of clerical oppression in other lands could never obtain here. This is the approach taken by the Jesuit, Father Gustave Weigel, and his collaborators in his book, The Catholic Church, U.S.A. Protestants were much interested in a debate on this matter within the Roman church some years ago. The Spanish hierarchy on May 28, 1948, had issued a statement taking Franco to task for not being rough enough on the Protestants. They hotly denounced Protestant proselytism as illegal activity and urged the government to enforce the laws forbidding public Protestant services.

The American Indiana Catholic and Record took exception to these statements and questioned their propriety. It suggested that the Spanish hierarchy was behind the times. The Spanish hierarchy replied with vigor, citing the very pronouncements of Civilta Cattolica quoted in this article. They also cited the encyclicals of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII denouncing the idea that the state should grant complete religious freedom. The controversy mounted to the point where a Vatican pronouncement was necessary. The Vatican settled it by stating that an address on the subject by Cardinal Ottaviani was “unexceptionable”—that is, correct. Cardinal Ottaviani, as Secretary of the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, was the Pope’s closest confidant. In his address he had simply reasserted the Civilta Cattolica position that the church would advocate freedom in certain circumstances only to use it as a means of ultimately overthrowing freedom.

Father John Courtney Murray, one of this country’s most effective Catholic spokesmen, has stated publicly that he did not accept the Cardinal’s statement as the final word. He has, however, had no more to say on the subject. This rejection by Father Murray is a courageous act, but it only points up the futility of his position. Neither he nor his colleagues have any voice on such matters. One voice settles them. It cannot be forgotten that the position of the Roman church on any such question is just as monolithic as the pope wants it to be. There is, and can be, no “American position” among the hierarchy on religious freedom, or on any other matter where the popes have spoken. We may rejoice at some occasional “American sounding” statement of a member of the hierarchy on the subject of religious freedom. Unfortunately he can speak for no one—not even himself.

What Can We Expect?

We are now prepared to give reasonable answer to the question: what can we expect if and when the Roman Catholic hierarchy gains ascendancy in the United States? Those who are inclined to belittle this summation as “speculation” may well ponder the fact that in a number of instances we see the program well on its way.

The first step—and one on which notable progress has been made—would be the elimination of all restrictions as contained in present law on the use of tax funds for the support of parochial schools. This would likely be done not so much by change or repeal of laws as by ignoring or circumventing them in practice. An insistence by the Jesuit college presidents that Catholic institutions share Federal aid on an “across the board” basis, and the proposals by Cardinal McIntyre for full tax support to Catholic elementary and high schools via a “pupil certificate” plan, are examples of the approach.

At the same time there would be stepped-up grants for Roman Catholic welfare activities—hospitals, orphanages, homes, relief work, etc.—together with complete domination of all united fund and community chest projects. Functions which we have traditionally thought of as public in character would be turned over to church operation, though financing would still come from tax funds. (Bishop Sheen has recently suggested that the foreign aid program in its social and medical aspects would be turned over to the church.)

A further step might well be that of direct state stipends to priests. There is precedent for this in Italy, Spain and colonial Portugal. Such a step would, of course, have to await a formal designation of the Roman church as America’s official church. The teaching of Roman Catholic dogma in all public schools, and in all church schools as well, would be required by law, the teaching to be done by priests, nuns or lay persons approved by the church. There is precedent for this in many concordat countries, particularly in Latin America.

Authorities duly constituted by the hierarchy would exercise censorship over the press, books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and television programs. Precedent is forming in the large measure of de facto censorship which the Roman church already exercises in this country through its Legion of Decency and National Organization for Decent Literature. We see the full precedent in Spain where the concordat formally gives the church this authority. No criticism of any policy or action of the Roman church could then be offered in print or on the air.

Restrictions On Protestants

The worship of Protestants would probably not be banned. They would worship on a carefully restricted basis, however, with no large public services or evangelistic services permitted. The building of churches by Protestants would be limited, and they might have considerable difficulty in securing permits to replace outmoded facilities. New church buildings could not indicate by any style or marking the purpose of the structure. Protestant church signs would be prohibited. Protestant children, after observing certain formalities, could be excused from the teaching of Roman dogma in public schools, but they would not be permitted to have religious instruction of their own denomination. Nor could Protestants operate dominational schools of their own except in instances where they would agree to have Catholic doctrine taught by teachers approved by that church. While Catholic dominated lands differ in some of these items, specific precedent exists for all.

There would be no Protestant orphanages, or homes, perhaps even no Protestant hospitals. Protestant theological seminaries might be closed. Only Roman Catholic marriages would be recognized in civil law; those of other denominations would be ignored legally as they are now ecclesiastically. Protestant funerals would be prohibited as public displays of false religion. Protestant services would be closely confined to their own church buildings. There is long and prolific precedent for all these forms of oppression.

Conversions to Protestantism would be barred, and reports of “proselytism” might result in closure of the offending church. (Father Eugene K. Culhane, managing editor of America, after visiting Colombia, said there would be no religious trouble there at all if Protestants would only obey the law and stop making converts.) Protestants could not publish a paper or insert ads in the press. They might be discriminated against in the civil service and in general employment. Only Roman Catholic priests would minister to the spiritual needs of the armed services and to members of the legislature and to all public institutions. Again, there is ample precedent for every item.

Roman Catholicism would be named the country’s official religion. The duty of government to defend and uphold it would be duly recognized. There would be, in time, a concordat with the Vatican providing, initially, for an exchange of ambassadors and other gestures of official recognition of the Roman church. The concordat would be renegotiated from time to time with continually greater concessions on the part of the United States as the country became “more Christian” and as it was found possible to model the American concordat more closely to the model of “Christian Spain.”

The long tolerant tradition of the United States would likely modify the threat of anti-Protestant violence. There would probably be little or none of this so long as Protestants worshiped quietly in their own homes and churches, off the beaten path. But the full weight of official policy and promotion would be thrown against them; vast sums of money, much of it contributed by themselves, would be devoted to their reduction and eventual destruction. There is precedent for this in every land where the Roman church is strongly joined with the state.

Protestants would be treated with snide amusement and official contempt. They would be reduced to second-class citizens and treated as damned souls. Their young would be cajoled and bribed to leave their traditional faith. They would be steadily, systematically whittled away. They would be left at length a devout but inconsequential minority, just as Protestants are in Spain today.

After 51 per cent——that!

END

C. Stanley Lowell, formerly active in Methodist temperance work, since 1956 has served Protestants and Other Americans United, an organization corrective of sectarian encroachments on the American policy of separation of Church and State.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.