Talk:Anti-clericalism/Archives/2009/May

Decline

In the last decades, anti-clericalism is in decadency.The article forgets this fact.Agre22 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Didn't quite understand that. Are you saying that anti-clericalism is declining? Student7 (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that anti-clericalism is necessarily in decline. The legislature of Conecticut recently had a bill before it which would have removed from pastors their control of their parishes and from Bishops their control of their dioceses. New Hamshire recently considered a gay marriage law which would have tried to use the force of law to compell the Church to act against its principles. A "human rights commission" in Canada recently fined the Knights of Columbus because they wouldn't rent their hall for a gay marriage. In Philip Jenkins' The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice he writes about quite a substantial amount of contemporary anti-clericalism in the U.S. It was only in the late 1990s that Mexico removed many of its anti-clerical laws. In the media, depictions of clerics, especially Catholic, and what they stand for are almost as a rule negative. France (and other countries) still have institutionalized anti-clericalism, as witnessed by the criticism and call for reform of their current system of laicite by its own President as well as the Pope. These are just a few examples. It may have changed forms, but I don't know that an assertion in the article that anti-clericalism is waning could be supported. Certainly there would be ample reliable sources to assert that it has waxed, or remained constant, over the last half century. Mamalujo (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of good material in the answer above. Don't know if it belongs here or in one of the Anti-Catholicism articles.

The thought that immediately comes to mind is the exaggerated importance that the media has placed on reports of sexual abuse, while ignoring greater abuse in public schools, and truly huge abuse in families, foster homes, etc.

But is it Anti-Catholic or Anti-Clerical?

As always, a WP:RELY reference is required. (I have a "minder" who follows me around to keep my discussions from being WP:SOAPBOX!  :) Find out in a day what he thinks of this. Read it while you can!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One article that jumps out at me is List of sexually active popes‎. While this contains a police blotter of the infamous popes of the middle ages, it also includes Saint Peter and a bunch of popes who were all legitimately married at the time. The article title is simply tabloid. There is an effort made every six months or so to get rid of it, but there is always enough anti-whatever to ensure its survival. Except for the Borgias and cronies (there was an earlier messy period as well, better known for violence than sex) half of it shouldn't be there and it should be named differently. Neither is possible given the current state of Wikipedia (and the country). There the article is, in all its brillance for all to see. Now what? Student7 (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Second article on popes under the guise of "explaning a term":Saeculum obscurum. This term is carefully translated in "List of ..pope" as "pornocracy" though that is a translation of a German (Protestant) term which was applied. Student7 (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)