AHC: Have Anti-Catholicism remain relevant in the US

How can historical tensions between Protestants and Catholics in the United States be sustained up to the 21st century?
 
Kennedy loses 1960, Nixon goes anti-Catholic to do so, Kennedy is assassinated in 1964 or 1968 perhaps by an anti-Catholic, and the US never has a Catholic as President.
 
Have the scandals of Catholic Priests molesting children happen earlier and make the public learn about it in a Watergate like event in the 60s or 70s.
 
Have the scandals of Catholic Priests molesting children happen earlier and make the public learn about it in a Watergate like event in the 60s or 70s.

I think that's about the only thing that would work, and "Watergate event" would probably have to be something as high-level as Watergate itself.

Which might be difficult, because I don't think federal jurisdiction over child-abuse cases was a thing until the last thirty years or so(open to correction on that). But maybe have some big-city Irish mayor somewhere squelch an investigation into an abusive priest. And then AFTER he enters the national arena(maybe as a senator or even veep candidate), his earlier cover-up is in danger of being revealed by the press and/or law enforcement, so party bigshots use illegal methods to stop it from coming out, and then THAT cover-up gets exposed, and you've got your scandal.

But even then, I don't think it would lead to the long-term survival of Know-Nothing anti-Catholicism, maybe just keep it on life support for a few more years. The backlash against the RCC would probably just get subsumed into general 1960s anti-authoritarianism, which most baby boomers are going to outgrow once they turn 30 anyway. And the true heirs to the Know-Nothings are gonna be in the Religious Right, who by the late 1970s will still be inclined to ally with Catholics on social-issues like abortion and gay rights.
 
Kennedy loses 1960, Nixon goes anti-Catholic to do so, Kennedy is assassinated in 1964 or 1968 perhaps by an anti-Catholic, and the US never has a Catholic as President.

I want to explain this further. My reasoning is not equating never having a Catholic President with no breaking of anti-Catholic bigotry. That is one pretty superficial layer. My reasoning is whipping up a storm of deep and tangled resentments in addition to that.

  • Kennedy loses 1960 means no Catholic President to allow bigotry to lessen earlier.
  • Nixon going anti-Catholic means Democrats equate a Catholic as losing based on his religion, leading to resentments within the party between Catholic and Protestants. And it means that the Nixon campaign's message seeps into the American consciousness. All the rumors against Kennedy (bootlegging, for example) came from the 1960 campaign. And that will last for decades, up to even today.
  • Kennedy being assassinated means that hope was built up and then dashed and destroyed, leading to hurt based deeply held resentment and trauma, which lashes out into anger.
  • The US never having a Catholic as President means there is no break through and that all that just festers.
 
who by the late 1970s will still be inclined to ally with Catholics on social-issues like abortion and gay rights.

Maybe a more conservative America, one where Roe v. Wade either doesn't make it to the Supreme Court or goes the other way, and one where the LGBT rights movement is a fringe movement, may make the OTL alliance between right-wing Protestants and Catholics not happen?
 
- No prohibition, leaving people thinking that prohibition could work and that "romanism" is getting in the way.

- Enough non-Dixie Democrats in Congress to prevent the Immigration Act of 1924 from passing, keeping immigration on people's minds.

- Would preventing the rise of Hitler help?
 
Top