A recent thread, now closed, on the Catholic Answers Forums caught the eye of Protestant apologist James White. One of the Catholic posters said:
"I have a lot of missionaries who come to ‘save me’ from Romanism."
Puzzled, James White responds on his blog:
“Please note: Roman Catholics can refer to ‘Romanism’ all they want. Scott Hahn has done a tape series called ‘Romanism in Romans,’ for example. No one will blink an eye. But, if I use the term ‘Romanism,’ Dave Armstrong will write a 24 page article about it.”
Not to mention that the subtitle of Karl Keating’s first book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians."
So. Does James White have a valid point? Are Catholics guilty of a double standard?
No, not really.
In both the quotation of the person White quotes and in the subtitle to Karl’s book, the word Romanism is used in acknowledgment of the manner in which Catholicism is perceived by anti-Catholics. Indeed, Karl’s subtitle makes this acknowledgment explicit with the scare quotes. The Catholic poster is using the word in the same fashion but without the scare quotes.
In the case of Scott Hahn’s tape set, it can be argued that the word Romanism is used in the exact same fashion: As a play on words that is intended to demonstrate that those anti-Catholic Protestants who think the letter to the Romans is exclusively Protestant in its theology would be surprised by how much "Romanism" the apostle Paul spouts. Given Dr. Hahn’s affection for puns, as demonstrated in his many books, it is unsurprising that he would choose to give his tape set on Romans such a title.
The word Romanism can also be used by Catholics in another way: It can sometimes be used as an inside joke between Catholics who know that it is often used in a derogatory fashion by anti-Catholics. Much as some African Americans have adopted for each other (sometimes even as a term of affection!) a certain word that is highly-offensive when non-African Americans use it to refer to African Americans, so some Catholics occasionally use words such as Romanist and Romanism to affectionately tease each other.
But the fact that some Catholics occasionally use otherwise anti-Catholic words to refer to themselves or to their religion does not give license to non-Catholics to presume that the words are any less offensive or anti-Catholic when non-Catholics use such words to refer to Catholics and/or Catholicism. Just as it is common sense that a white person using the "n-word" for a black person is committing a gravely-insulting racial slur, so it should be a no-brainer that a non-Catholic using the word Romanism as a substitute for the word Catholicism is adopting a religious slur.
Language can be a very tricky thing. A sign of the mature use of language is the recognition that certain words or phrases are sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate and that the duty of a polite person is to learn the distinctions and observe them — however puzzling he may personally find such distinctions to be.
I think you are mistaken. If the “n word” were truly all that offensive, it wouldn’t be used by blacks to refer to themselves. The same is true of “Romanism” or “Papist.” If Catholics were offended by the word, they would never use it.
It is the Yankee Doodle effect.
“But, if I use the term ‘Romanism,’ Dave Armstrong will write a 24 page article about it.”
Now, now, Mr. White, if it wasn’t for Dave, I wouldn’t even know who you were. He keeps your name in the forefront. What is it they used to say in Hollywood? ‘As long as they spell your name correctly, it doesn’t matter what they say’.
What a silly point for White to try to claim. Anyone with ANY cultural awareness knows that many groups use labels within the group that if used by outsiders would be offensive. The identical word…. Anyway, I’m glad Dave Armstrong is on our side.
James White’s “puzzlement” is — this is a word I do NOT use lightly — thoroughly disingenuous. Everyone knows “Romanism” is a word redolent with anti-Catholic hostility and suspicion, and would only be used by Catholics in an ironic or qualified sense, to refer to their faith as perceived and distrusted by anti-Catholics. Please, Mr. White, give us a break.
Obviously Catholics find it somewhat offensive. Yet the claim that it is a viciously mean word is refuted by the fact that RCs use it themselves, as evidenced by the cases cited.
I sense there is a “she doth protest too much” scenario at work here.
Amy Wellborn recently hosted a long discussion on the use of the term “papist”: http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/06/are_you_a_papis.html.
I think a lot of us took the attitude that it doesn’t matter so much what you call us as the tone you use when you call us it. (Sort of like, “When you call me that, smile!”)
Obviously Catholics find it somewhat offensive. Yet the claim that it is a viciously mean word is refuted by the fact that RCs use it themselves, as evidenced by the cases cited.
Steve, this would be true if the cases cited were of people calling themselves that unfacetiously. In both cases, the titles seem to be a jab at White and ilk. I don’t think you’ll find anyone seriously identifying themselves as Romanists.
Though I’ve never heard anyone used the word myself outside of the blogosphere, so I can’t say it’s ever been much of an issue one way or another for me.
So…when we D&D players made jokes to each other back in the eighties about how everyone said we were demon worshippers, we really weren’t offended by being called lackeys of ultimate evil. Oh, no.
And when your namesake Steve Jackson the game designer had his business raided by the FBI and his business equipment and computers confiscated, because they thought his Hacker game was providing real hacking info, and he joked about it afterward and sold funny T-shirts about it…that meant he was actually happy about having his civil rights violated for a crime he didn’t commit.
I’m sure this will be news to him.
Sometimes people make jokes because they are offended. Because they are angry and sad and hurt, because they need to complain and commiserate, and because there’s no point crying and screaming about it all the time.
If you don’t understand this, sir, you really don’t understand the nature of humor.
I didn’t say people were happy about being called Romanists, Papists, etc. just that the claims of being “deeply offended” are a little exagerated. Sounds like an attempt to become an accredited victim class.
When I was a RC I didn’t like the term, but it wasn’t particularly hurtful either.
What part of not being rude is so hard for anti-Catholics to understand? Stop trying to justify it.
Steve Jackson, I honestly thought you were joking in your first post. I thought your citation of the “N” word was meant as a reductio ad absurdum of James White’s disingenuous “puzzlement,” because it’s obviously patently offensive, yet some blacks do use it in a semi-ironic and defiant way loosely analogous to how Catholics might use “Romanism” or “papist.”
If you don’t believe the “N” word is offensive, try using it with your black friends. I know I wouldn’t use it with mine. And while “Romanism” isn’t nearly as offensive as that, it’s also a word no non-Catholic without an anti-Catholic axe to grind would use, and that no Catholic would use except in an ironic and qualified sense.
And, what about Catholic apologists refering to JWs etc. as “cults”? Do you think they appreciate it?
Or the references to protestants in Latin America as “sects”, or the claim that protestants don’t belong to churches but “ecclesiastical communities”?
Having said that, SJ, I would probably agree that while the term is clearly prejudicial in nature and I would take exception to its use, to claim to be “deeply offended” by its use would certainly be an exaggeration.
Just to be clear, who used that language when?
Calling Catholics papists or Romanists isn’t at all like calling D&D players demon worshippers or lackeys of ultimate evil — that is, unless they really *were* worshipping demons or being lackeys of ultimate evils. Face it, folks, we really *do* follow the pope, who *is* the bishop of Rome. Calling us “Romans” or “Romanists” isn’t much different from calling the Eastern Orthodox “Greeks.” I’d get much more concerned about our opponents taking our arguments seriously and not fighting straw men.
Members of the Unification Church bristle at being called “Moonies,” and adherents of the religion founded by Mohammed object to being called “Mohammedans,” but, frankly, they should get over it. (No, calling them Mohammedans doesn’t mean we think they worship Mohammedan, any more than calling members of the German Evangelical Church “Lutherans” means we think they worship Martin Luther. I understand too that Mohammedans would object to my characterization of Islam as “founded by Mohammed,” as they would say that it was revealed and founded by God. Whatever.) So I should think we can deal with being called “Romanists.” (Frankly, I’m fonder of “papist.”)
Besides, there is a reason folks like White prefer not to call us “Catholics”: they don’t want to concede that our Church as the mark of catholicity. We can argue against them on that point, but let’s not insist that when they argue they use terminology that implicitly adopts our side of the argument.
Steve Jackson-
Haven’t you ever seen Kentucky Fried Movie? The “N” word is not recommended for use by the melanin deficient.
Papist and Romanist are both used by protestants as if they were the opposite of “Christian” and in that sense they offend me. Their humorous use by Catholics is not surprising and does not mean it is o.k. to use them as a veiled smear.
How about a t-shirt that reads “I’m the papist your preacher warned you about!”.
For the closest parallel I can think of, imagine if Catholics started calling Protestants “WASP-o’s” despite their objections.
This would be rude.
Seamus,
The fact that Catholics follow the pope of Rome (and ought to be proud of it) doesn’t make “Romanist” or “papist” neutral, legitimate terminology, any more than the fact that black people have dark skin (and may well be proud of it) makes “darkie” neutral, legitimate language, or the fact that Hindus wear bindis makes “dot-head” fair language, etc.
The terms “Romanist” and “papist” are somebody else’s words for us, not our own words for ourselves. More importantly, “Romanist” in particular is a term with origins in hostile and prejudicial usage, a term coined in anti-Catholic settings and used among anti-Catholics with anti-Catholic intent. (“Papist” may or may not have been originally neutral, but it’s certainly had prejudicial connotations for over a century.)
Connotation is important, and connotation rooted in original usage doubly so. They are prejudicial language and are used prejudicially by people with prejudices, or by people in one way or another interacting with such prejudices. (The same applies to “Muhammedan,” which you wrongly suggest that Muslims should “get over” their objections to.)
The fact that James White does not want to concede catholicity in any form to the Catholic Church is no excuse for not extending to us the courtesy of our chosen and universally accepted self-designation.
I have no trouble calling Jehovah’s Witnesses by their chosen self-designation, even though I don’t believe they are in fact witnesses of Jehovah. I have no trouble calling Episcopalians and Presybterians by their own self-designations, even though I don’t believe that the Episcopalians have a valid episcopacy or that the Presbyterians have what the NT means by presbyters.
Is James White less secure about his claims on catholicity than I am on my church’s claims about Jehovah, the episcopacy, and the prebytery? Or is he just ruder than I am? (Or both?)
Here, some homework: See how many times you can find phrases like “usually offensive” or “used disparagingly” in links from the following urls:
Some online dictionary definitions of “Romanist”
Some online dictionary definitions of “papist”
SDG, your last comments were right on. I was going to say much the same thing about connontation. I would also like to add something that I don’t believe has been said. When a group is attacked with hurtful words, one mechanism for defense that some members of the group will use is to reclaim that word and make it their own. Members of such a group have every right to continue to be offended. They also have every right to use the word(s) in a way which makes them feel more comfortable.
SDG, your last comments were right on. I was going to say much the same thing about connontation. I would also like to add something that I don’t believe has been said. When a group is attacked with hurtful words, one mechanism for defense that some members of the group will use is to reclaim that word and make it their own. Members of such a group have every right to continue to be offended. They also have every right to use the word(s) in a way which makes them feel more comfortable.
I have been a Catholic for almost 54 years. “Romanism” and “Papist” are NOT words Catholics use except as Michelle explained. While I am sure that anecdotal exceptions may be quoted, to claim otherwise is to abandon the truth.
I am reminded of the formerly widely-quoted exchange between a non-Catholic and Mr. Dooley, a fictional Chicago saloon-keeper created by author Finley Peter Dunne (1867-1936):
“Are you a Romanist?”
“A what?”
“I mean are you a Roman Catholic?”
“No, thank God, I’m a Chicago Catholic.”
Steve Jackson: I appreciate what you say about the use of the term “cult.” I do not approve of the use of this term in is common, colloquial sense and thus I do not apply it to JWs, Mormons, and similar groups.
When it comes to “sect,” however, it is simply a fact that Protestant groups *are* sects.
Further, given the necessity of having a validly ordained bishop for one to have a church in the full and proper sense of the term, Protestant communities also cannot be called churches in the proper sense, despite their ecclesial orientation. Hence: “ecclesial communities.”
“When a group is attacked with hurtful words, one mechanism for defense that some members of the group will use is to reclaim that word and make it their own. Members of such a group have every right to continue to be offended. They also have every right to use the word(s) in a way which makes them feel more comfortable.”
Precisely. And I’m beyond incredulous that certain people don’t see the obvious difference and context in which the terms are or were used by Catholics. A great example of this is Dr. Philip Blosser’s excellent blog.
“I sense there is a ‘she doth protest too much’ scenario at work here.”
I disagree with that, Steve.
Having read many of the Dave Armstrong/James White tête-à-têtes, & the comments both men have made on their individual blogs, I’ve found Mr White’s use of the term “Romanist” to be purposefully inciting. He knows full well that the term is derogatory.
Look, I’m as much a sinner as anyone else, but I endeavour to be polite & genteel when conversing with non-Catholics. I’d even never think of using a term they might consider derogatory. I even very much dislike the term “Prot” some folks use. (It just sounds like a really dirty word to me.) Doesn’t it make sense to refer to others in the way they’d refer to themselves? Seems to me it shows respect for the other person. As a Christian, who believes that all humans are made in the image & likeness of God, I feel obligated to do so. IMO, Mr White should do so, too; espeically since it’s been pointed out to him that it’s found offensive by RCs. The choice he makes not to certainly seems to me to be purposeful &, therefore, meant to offend. If he means no offense, he should show that & stop using the term.
I occasionally read White’s website and similar blogs. Likewise, I have read books written by R.C. Sproul. When I do, I find myself getting progressively more annoyed by the constant references to “Rome”, such as when they write “Rome says..”, “Rome teaches…” or “Rome cannot change”, etc.
I personally find this trope to be an annoying habit that absolutely undercuts their attempt at persuasion. When I read such tropes, I instinctly have the feeling that I’ve been retrojected back 400 years to the heart of the Thirty Years War. After that, everything they write comes across as archaic and irrelevant. The weilding of terms like “Papist”, “Rome” or “Romanist” seems to give their writings the same historical currency as someone writing about the “phlogiston theory” of chemistry would have.
I’ve often wondered why this trope is employed. Catholics don’t refer to our church or teachings as “Rome.” We say “the Church teaches…” or “the Catholic church teaches….” etc. One of the basic rules of argument is that you never argue over a trivial point you can lose. The name of an opponent is such a thing, which is why lawyers conventionally use fairly neutral terms for their opponents.
Obviously, the reason White and Sproul fall into this trope is their need to deny catholicity to the “enemy”, but it sure makes them sound like people emerging from a timewarp.
And, yes, Catholics who use the term “Papist” are exercising the traditional perogative of the minority, which is to satirize the majority’s attitudes.
Jimmy,
But many people do find the term “sect” offensive, even if accurate. The term “cult” is also accurate (from the latin for worship) but it has taken on a bad connotation.
Many Catholics also use the term “fundamentalism” in the same derogatory way that the secular news media does (which implicitly links Moslem terrorists to conservative protestants) when in fact a “fundamentalist” is a dispensationalists of the non-charismatic variety. And, as Gene pointed out, they use the term “prots” or even “fundies.” In fact, some of the nastiest things are said by conservative catholics with respect to traditionalist catholics.
Again, I’m not in favor of offending people and I don’t use the term “Romanist,” etc., but all this should be put in perspective.
Why is calling a ROMAN Catholic a ROMANist offensive but calling me a “protesting” Christian, or in Sippo speak a “prot”, is not offensive?
Why is calling a ROMAN Catholic a ROMANist offensive but calling me a “protesting” Christian, or in Sippo speak a “prot”, is not offensive?
Jeremiah, who said it wasn’t offensive to Protestants for Catholics to do that? But the point of Michelle’s post is the use of the word “Romanism,” not the Catholic use of terms offensive to Protestants.
Another example,
I’m an American of Irish heritage. My father once said “You can’t call a Mick a Mick, unless you are a Mick.”
I’m too incompetent and lazy to look it up, but did Jesus or the apostles use derogatory terms of the Jews who opposed them and other people?
Yeah I think so. Hypocrites, brood of vipers, mean stuff like that. But about this Romanism stuff, what’s the big deal? Isn’t it just used to describe the particular theology of Rome?
If anyone is thinking of taking offence at the term, just remember the Beatitudes and count it as a blessing.
I wouldn’t take offence; I wouldn’t even offer a retort(would’ve once though). But I’m very difficult to offend and would be water off a duck’s back.
On the other hand, if someone insulted another rather than me, weeell………..
“Many Catholics also use the term ‘fundamentalism’ in the same derogatory way that the secular news media does (which implicitly links Moslem terrorists to conservative protestants) when in fact a ‘fundamentalist’ is a dispensationalists of the non-charismatic variety. And, as Gene pointed out, they use the term ‘prots’ or even ‘fundies.’ In fact, some of the nastiest things are said by conservative catholics with respect to traditionalist catholics.”
You’re correct Steve, it’s uncharitable. And I don’t seem to recall Michelle or any other Catholic here trying to justify it. It goes back to the whole “two wrongs don’t make a right” deal.
“But about this Romanism stuff, what’s the big deal? Isn’t it just used to describe the particular theology of Rome?”
No, it’s a pejorative used to denigrate Catholicism. And I don’t want to speak for any, but I would imagine Eastern rite Catholics are particularly offended by the term.
Whats with all the Protestants trying to justify the use of the term Romanist? You should be ashamed. James White was in the wrong, too, and should apologize. The reasons for the usage of these examples of Catholics referring to themselves as “Romanist” have been succintly described above in the blog post. If a Protestant used that word to address me, I would 1) be offended; 2) feel angry at the Protestant who addressed me that way.
So is the use of the term Romanist acceptable, much less beneficial (for Protestant or Catholic)? Certainly not. It seems certain people, such as Steve, are trying to justify the word by showing examples of word usages where others may be offended- in particular, the word “sect” and “cult”. The first immediate problem is that, again, two wrongs do not make a right. Secondly, these words are more or less scientific terms. Romanist is a word used completely at denegrating a Catholic person, since its inception. These words [sect and cult] should be used carefully so as to avoid derogatory usage. But still, in terms of degree, Romanist is a much worse word.
I trust that you Protestants will not bring shame to yourselves even more by trying to justify the use of the word “Romanist” further.
My two cents: let ’em say it.
All this anger over the word “Romanist” is misplaced. When non-Catholics call us names it only helps our side more, not to mention the fact that the names they call us are so absurdly whimsical. I mean, “romanist”, “papist”, and my all-time favorite: “popery”–these are bad-insult gems that should never be forgotten; kinda like “homophobe” or “the jerk store called and they ran out of you”.
“. . . I find myself getting progressively more annoyed by the constant references to ‘Rome’, such as when they write ‘Rome says..’, ‘Rome teaches…’ or ‘Rome cannot change’, etc. . . . Catholics don’t refer to our church or teachings as ‘Rome.’ We say ‘the Church teaches…’ or ‘the Catholic church teaches….’ etc.”
Except when we’re saying things like “Roma locuta est; causa finita est.” Gimme a break. I can think of 539 things to get more worked up over than the metonymic use of the word “Rome.”
Actually, what’s the best religious slur to use against protestant heretics? I’ve seen some get offended by the term “prots,” and I know they don’t like it when we call their denominations “sects,” but is that truly optimal?
in fact a “fundamentalist” is a dispensationalists of the non-charismatic variety.
Actually, a “fundamentalist” is someone who adheres to the “five fundamentals” put forward by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1910. All candidates for ordination were required to affirm:
Anyone who subscribes to all five fundamentals is rightly called a “Fundamentalist.” The term originated among Fundamentalists themselves, and was not a slur. (Nor should it be used as one.)
(Catholics, btw, cannot be fundamentalists because we do not accept the “penal substitution” model of atonement. Several soteriological models are acceptable to Catholics, but not that one.)
“(Catholics, btw, cannot be fundamentalists because we do not accept the ‘penal substitution’ model of atonement. Several soteriological models are acceptable to Catholics, but not that one.)”
This is a claim made by many arm-chair apologists, but I disagree. It is perfectly orthodox for a Catholic to say that “Christ offered up Himself a sacrifice to satisfy Divine justice and to reconcile us to God.”
It is not, however, required. It is perfectly orthodox for a Catholic to say, “Christ’s sacrifice was not to satisfy Divine justice.”
Doctrine has not been defined in the arena of atonement to that precision.
“I have no trouble calling Episcopalians and Presybterians by their own self-designations…”
I self-designate myself as an “evangelical catholic”.