Talk:Americanism (heresy)

Ethnic lines

The Catholic Church was NOT divided along ethnic lines. In fact, that was a major complaint of Germans- the Irish dominated them. See "The Catholic Experience" by Andrew Greeley.

This article seems to contradict itself in saying that Catholicism was the majority, then that there was a Protestant majority.

No, I think what the writer means is that Catholicism was the largest single denomination at that time, but that the (combined) protestant churches made up a religious majority of US citizens.

For your information, there were more Protestants than Catholics at the time mentioned, but there were more Catholics than any single Protestant sect (such as Lutherans, Methodists, etc.)

♣ seems like a decent article. quickest and easiest way to un-bias it is to not say "it is a heresy" but "it is declared a heresy by the Catholi church" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.89.111.144 (talk) 00:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

As any credible historian would state, this article is clearly Modernist and anti-Catholic. Please revise or remove it. 141.161.59.60 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, this article has no verifiable sources and makes pretty strong claims. I tend to agree with the above commenter that it needs a thorough revision. Any 'credible historian' up to it? I'll have to do some research before I can help on it, though. --Miguel1626 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article should clarify that the Magesterium’s condemnation of “Americanism” is now obsolete: the principal of freedom of religion as a natural human right was adopted into Catholic dogma by the Second Vatican Council in its declaration Dignitatis Humanae, in 1965. The thought of John Courtney Murray SJ, an American theologian and historian, was instrumental to this change of tack. -a theologian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.37.7 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If John XXIII at the beginning of Vatican II, and Paul VI at its conclusion, stated that Vatican II would be and was a Non-dogmatic council, how did Dignitatis Humanae become adopted dogma?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.220.145 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV section - Dogmatic/Theological aspect

Since the US does not and has never supported absolute freedom of the press, we've got a red flag to start off. We've got another because what the Catholic Church holds to be individualism does not map to the same concepts that are most popular in the US under the same word. Great care should be taken care to distinguish between the two and here there has not been. Furthermore, The Syllabus of Errors is not a separate condemnation but a listing of previously condemned errors without argumentation and only with a reference to the actual condemnation. Relying on it is worse than discussing only the Cliff's Notes of Moby Dick as if there were no actual novel. At least with the Cliff's Notes version there's at least an effort to tell the whole story. TMLutas (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

The relevant section of Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae (full text)really would be helpful here:

From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some "Americanism." But if by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name. But if this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world.

By this, it's clear that Americanism was not viewed by the papacy as a term of heresy but could be viewed both positively and negatively depending on how it manifested. The actual faults that some shorthanded as americanism are pretty standard problems for Catholicism, the impulse to not actually preach the doctrines of the Catholic Church because they are uncomfortable, that private judgment not supersede Church teaching, etc. In other words, Americanism is not any particular unique heresy or even a collection of heresies and sometimes is not a heresy at all but rather a bad case of resurgence of old heresies that afflicted the Church in America as they had afflicted the Church elsewhere before and since. The article is really in trouble. TMLutas (talk) 03:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Vatican Council

Some critics of the Second Vatican Council have made the charge that the substantial role of liberal Americans during the Council contributed to the liberal Zeitgeist of that period, in a sense that approaches the 19th century Americanist doctrines. For instance, the constitution Dignitatis Humanae was written under the influence of John Courtney Murray, and much of the intellectual work on relations with non-Catholics, especially Protestants and Jews, was completed by American bishops working with the USCC/NCCB. There are also certain post-Vatican II organizations such as the Catholic Theological Society of America, the National Catholic Reporter and America magazine that have more or less been accused of Americanism. ADM (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Further Reading

I added another reference to the Further Reading section. Im surprised it wasnt up there already. Its by Fr. McAvoy.--76.31.242.174 (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Terrible English

Has anyone read the beginning of this article. I quote "Coined in the nineteenth century, in Roman Catholic use the term Americanism referred to a group of related heresies which were defined as the endorsement of the separation of church and state.". That's not English. Perhaps the author meant "Coined in the nineteenth century, in Roman Catholic doctrine, the use of the term Americanism referred to a group of related heresies which were defined as the endorsement of the separation of church and state.". Yes, doctrine is probably the wrong word. Perhaps ideology would be better (probably not). How about "Coined in the nineteenth century, in Roman Catholic teaching, the use of the term Americanism referred to a group of related heresies which were defined as the endorsement of the separation of church and state." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.233.83 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Probable copyright infringement

The text of the section "Suppression of Americanism" (and possibly other sections) appears to be very closely paraphrased from this book, published in 2014.

https://books.google.com/books?id=g3zhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT53

173.61.128.57 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at page history, it appears the close plagiarism is the other way around. Well, then.
  173.61.128.57 (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What is it?

I get it that Catholics usually care more about something being forbidden than about what it actually is, but the lede should list the essential tenets of it. Like Arianism, where the lede says, Arian theology holds that [..]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree; I read the article, and my understanding is that "Americanism" refers to separation of church and state. I can't imagine that being a heresy; does the Church teach that it must control the state? Luke10.27 (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

refers to separation of church and state That makes sense.

does the Church teach that it must control the state? I don't know if they actually teach it, but in practice, they always tried to do it whenever they could - from the conflicts with the antique Roman Emperors, via conflicts with the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages, to close collaboration with Fascist leaders in the 20th century. And when they succeed, those who disagree with them die soon.

I guess we need more explicit sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What nonsense! Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Catholicism to incorporate it into the article, as I'm not sure I wouldn't miss something, but wikisource:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Testem Benevolentiae seems to be at least partially about Americanism. Luke10.27 (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

It was more about cuddling up to the state, rather than keeping apart. But since the whole idea was a vague European fantasy that nobody was able to define, "essential tenets" are going to be elusive. There's more lower down, but we should have some better summary of the alleged views near the top. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)