As requested

100-pure-papistLet’s first start with some education… because clearly, education is needed:

Papist is a (usually disparaging) term or an anti-Catholic slur, referring to the Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, practices, or adherents. The term was coined during the English Reformation to denote a person whose loyalties were to the Pope, rather than to the Church of England. Over time, however, the term came to mean one who supported Papal authority over all Christians; it thus entered widespread use, especially among Anglicans and Presbyterians. The word, dating from 1534, derives (through Middle French) from Latin papa, meaning “Pope”.

Wikipedia is more to the point in its See Also section where Anti-Catholic is listed as the first entry.

Webster’s calls it a disparaging term for Roman Catholic.

The Urban Dictionary holds nothing back as it defines the term simply as an anti-Catholic slur and lists an obscene example perhaps lifted straight from the comments at Wizbang… perhaps… 🙂

Speaking of which, let’s see how the word has been recently used in just a few (of a number of) comment threads here at Wizbang:


Jeez, Rick. So am I to take it that if I don’t kiss your Pope’s ass I don’t care about Military veterans?

Or is it that having the right position on veterans is somehow determined by whether I am a Papist or an anti Papist?

One thing’s for sure, you will go to ANY length to find an excuse to carry on about how people don’t love your Pope enough and how we are all going to Hell because we disagree with him on his economics and politics.

Thank God I’m not a Catholic. No strike that. Thank God that God is not a Catholic.


Has the Papist God on earth told you you aren’t allowed to use Google, or something?


I blame the stinkin’ Papists.

The focus here is on the term Papist but it wouldn’t take much to go back through Wizbang and find additional disparaging comments that use not the word.

And for those wondering, this post is in response to Scalia’s challenge on a post on which Rodney Graves decided I could no longer comment:

Yes, it [the term Papist] is derogatory and pejorative, but without an example, it’s an empty charge.

I suspect that it was used in reference to you, not to Catholics in general, and in the contexts in which I recall it was used, it was used to describe the poster’s belief that you worship the Pope and/or your church. You of course disagree with that characterization, but that does not mean that your opponents are anti-Catholic; it means they are anti-Rick.

To prove your point, you will need to cite an example where Catholics in general are called papists or any when any epithlet was used to describe Catholicism in general.

I think I’ve done that with this post and yet I’m no fool. This won’t be enough. The dodging, the maneuvering, the manipulation, the maligning excuses will continue because this sort of thing is part and parcel of the character of certain people. It’s who they are. It’s how they get their pathetic and pathological jollies.

The purpose of this post is to do nothing more than to reach out to the reasonable, the rational, those not so zealous in their ideology, who might be interested in extending the fair shake.

I would like to think know there are a few, more than a few, in the Wizbang community.

Hail George, worthy to Command
So Bernie and 0bama see no problems with Clinton security
  • Scalia


    First, thank you for replying to my request for quotations that you think prove anti-Catholic bigotry or a general condemnation of Catholicism from some participants on this blog. Since you made the allegation, it was incumbent on you to provide evidence of the same.

    Second, I’ll let Jim answer for himself since he is an active participant. Once he replies, I’ll add what I think of that quotation.

    MartinLandauCalrissian hasn’t commented here for about a month, so I’m not certain whether he’ll be back. The remark he made is in the middle of a side conversation you were having with Warner Todd Huston. Warner replied to you, “Like I said, apologists bending over backwartds to excuse the sort of stuff they wouldn’t accept if anyone else said it.” Here’s some of what followed:

    Rick: Except I quoted other Popes who in fact have said similar things…Popes Conservatives haven’t called Communists. [S]o again, baseless and rather ignorant claims. [A]nd again, pathetic.

    Warner: I’ve wretten plenty about your commie pope. Not rehashing it in comments sections.

    Rick: If you’ll fill me in on where I can go to read and be persuaded by your prose, I’d be much obliged.

    Martin: Has the Papist God on earth told you you aren’t allowed to use Google, or something?

    Rick: Hey, I’ll try to find the time to search for it if I must but figured that some of you so quick to engage in Catholic bigotry would have your ammunition at the ready. I figured wrong apparently.

    Martin: “Catholic bigotry”?? You make a great Islamist, Rickie.

    Rick: Dude… did you or did you not use the term Papist God? [O]wn your bigotry man… God knows thinking people can see it.

    Martin:: So, like every good zealot, criticism of your leader MSUT [sic] mean that the critic hates all Catholics? Yep, you make a good Islamist. Can we draw your god or will you behead us if we do?

    So, it appears that Martin used the term papist as I recalled it being used–in reference to pope worship. He specifically denied that he was attacking all Catholics; he was attacking, rightly or wrongly, the Pope and you. If Martin had used that term in reference to all Catholics, I would agree that it is an example of Catholic bigotry. Since he did not, I do not.

    That leaves Warner’s, “I blame the stinkin’ Papists.” We again need to review the dialog. Jim was correcting Warner over his misspelling of glomming.

    Warner: I can’t win with spelling this week. I didn’t even catch that! But good thing you have a relevant comment otherwise .

    Jim: Spell check is a tool of the devil.

    Warner: I blame the stinkin’ Papists.

    Jim: I blame booosh.

    The thread containing this dialog was initiated by Warner which includes, “If he didn’t [use socialist buzzwords] he’d not use them at all and would stick with that same terminology that Catholic teaching on economics has used for decades,” and he closes by saying, “I think we are seeing that this Pope is a communist before being a Catholic. And this is a disgusting thing that the Church needs to tamp down and quick.”

    Warner’s piece is an attack on the Pope, not on Catholics in general, and his closing sentence clearly differentiates what he thinks the Pope is and what Catholics in general are. Rick, you ardently defend the Pope by contextualizing his remarks. I think the same applies here. Warner is using the “offending” term narrowly, not generally. That narrow definition applies to the Pope and his apologists, not to Catholicism.

    Sorry, Rick. I’m looking at this objectively and have to say that your assertions have thus far failed.

    • I’m open to the notion that on this particular point, I’m hyper-sensitive. You’ve done a decent job of showing on the Martin and Warner citations that I need to be less prone to react in a knee-jerk way to the offensive term. Thanks for that.

      Jim has admitted, while he goes down other more predictable and characteristic rabbit holes, that he could see reason for my taking offense. I’ll take that small opening as a positive move.

      I think I can also better attempt to take Bruce’s advice and let this whole thing go and move on.

      Asking the man upstairs to help in that regard.

  • jim_m

    As for the quote from me, I would say that internally it is self evident that I draw a distinction between Catholics and Papists. Although I can see where Rick might think that I was conflating the two.

    The appropriate syllogism is that while all Papists are Catholic, not all Catholics are Papists.

    People like Rick, who appear to think that the sun rises and sets at the command of the Pope and that the Pope is to be worshiped, while Christ is only to be revered in the same sense the Mary is only to be revered(mind you he made that specific claim that Mary is only revered, in comparison to being worshiped, and then two days ago stated that Christ was to be revered), are not proper Catholics. Yes, the vast majority of Catholics respect and revere the Pope. That is fair considering the Pope’s position in the Church and the historical importance of that position. However, not all Catholics worship Francis as a god in the way that seems to. Nor do Catholics claim that there is no distinction between addressing them and addressing “Jesus Christ to His face” as Rick has done on two separate threads.

    The origin of the word Papist was a derogatory slur implying how some people appeared to worship the Pope. That is why this term is so apt to refer to Rick by.

    The last part of the quoted text: “Thank God I’m not a Catholic. No strike that. Thank God that God is not a Catholic.” was only ever to imply that God does not recognize the distinction of churches and denominations since He is interested in what goes on in our hearts and cares little for which house we sit in on Sunday mornings. Also, I am thrilled to not have to share a house of worship with a self-righteous a-hole like Rick who believes that when someone talks to him they are actually speaking to Jesus Christ, to His face”.

    Seriously, who believes that? Who is so arrogant as to go around claiming to others that they should be careful of how they talk to him because if they offend him then they are offending Jesus Christ? It has to be one of the most over the top, one of the most certifiably insane claims I have ever heard. It goes well beyond the moron who claimed that spelling should be changed to be phonetic and spelling should therefore vary depending on people’s accents.

  • jim_m

    Certainly, if Rick feels that papist is always an anti-Catholic term I will be glad to discuss it directly with him. Oh, but wait. He is too childish to do so. Perhaps it is because he thinks I might offend “Jesus Christ to His face” and Rick is selflessly trying to avoid Jesus having His feelings hurt.

    • Brucehenry

      Your syllogism where you use a slur to make a point reminds me of Robert Byrd’s observation about “white ni***rs.”

      But I’m done trying to defend Rick from Big Meanie Jim. If either one of these guys would fucking let it rest for five damn minutes we could all move on.

      Scalia, you make sense on this thread. Rick, give it a rest, you are not the rhetorical swordsman that Jim is, and you take everything too fucking personal. Jim, you’re still an asshole, but don’t look that bad since Rick won’t give it a rest.

      • jim_m

        I have said repeatedly that if he would just move on and give reasoned responses to my comments where I am making reasoned and fair questions about what he has written there would be no problem.

        But Rick’s problem is not with me alone as his article above demonstrates.

        • Brucehenry

          I would bet that a first time visitor to this blog, checking out the last few days’ entries, would move on, bored by this incestuous inside squabbling.

          • jim_m

            Most would stay if there were interesting articles being written. That is true with Scalia and Warner and most of Rodney’s posts ( the last two were too cryptic). Rick’s are less so and David’s last one was exceptionally good.

            The articles are what draw people in. People either comment or they don’t. Most blogs I frequent I don’t even look at the comment section.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so.

          • jim_m
          • Brucehenry

            Well that should work lol.

          • jim_m

            Actually, if you do a google search for papist you find a lot of Catholic sites. Hard to whine about it being so derogatory when they are using it to identify themselves.

          • Brucehenry

            No Jim. If a pickup truck with a “PROUD TO BE A REDNECK” bumper sticker cuts me off, and I scream “Stupid fucking redneck!” at him, I’m still gonna catch an ass-whuppin’.

            Same as rappers can say “My nigga” to their friends, but I shouldn’t. Ain’t polite.

            Same with papists.

          • jim_m

            Still, it lessens the strength of their point.

  • Paul Hooson

    I think the term “Papist” is a negative one, and most often used to express antiCatholic bias. I don’t feel it should be expressed as a term in reference to Roman Catholics.