Anti-Catholic

[kalt]

If I understand you, you’re saying that if one is so prejudiced towards the Church that she will not listen to Catholics themselves then one, in your view, is anti-Catholic? If that’s the case, then I agree with you; I’ve posted on CARM. My contention is that the prejudice could be born due to ignorance or even misplaced charity. Just because one says that the Church worships the saints, it could be that one doesn’t know any better.

Yes, that’s it. Simply believing that Catholics worship Mary doesn’t make someone anti-Catholic - or it isn’t proof that someone is, anyway. But when someone is told the truth about the Church and prefers to continue to believe that the Church is something that it isn’t, that is proof that someone is anti-Catholic. This probably describes many of the non-Catholic Christians who have posted here over the years. But that probably isn’t surprising, really. They come here to tell us not to ask us. They honestly believe that they know what the Church really is, and regardless of the truth, they prefer the lies. They’re so against the Church that they can’t see the truth when it’s presented to them.

For many, it might be easier to see this “anti” if you replace Semite for Catholic.

There are many who think that Catholics are dupes who don’t know any better than to follow the anti-Christ (whichever pope is in the chair - anyone who becomes pope becomes the anti-Christ).

Simply disagreeing on doctrine isn’t being anti-anything. It’s dishonest to say, after accusing Catholics of worshiping Mary, that you (universal) aren’t anti-Catholic but simply disagree on doctrine.

As far as not knowing any better, I think that’s OK so long as the person isn’t calling the pope the anti-Christ or saying that the CC should be abolished, and so long as they aren’t trying to get Catholics to abandon their faith. the idea that they aren’t responsible for their beliefs because they got them from someone else goes only so far. And especially so in the US where the truth is so easily found. And the persisting in the anti-Catholic mindset is even less defensible for anyone who posts here, where their accusations have been answered honestly, fully, and with official Catholic documents. It can be argued that ignorance is the US among those who can read is indefensible. Ignorance may be the reason you think something, but it can’t be the reason you are anti-anything. Going to “the source” has never been easier. There really is no excuse.

The Nazi party was full of people who were following someone else’s theories and orders.

And, fwiw, I see this with anti-Islam posters on this board, too, and many of them are Catholic.

 

[JRKH]

See **This Article **for an example of something “Anti-Catholic”

Comics such as these, published by Jack Chick and others, are horrible distortions of the faith and there seems to be nothing anyone can do to completely stop them, nor can any amount of Christian Love seem to penetrate their hardened hearts.

This kind of thing represents an extreme of “Anti-catholic” and feeds this to other Christians who may not go to this extreme but are, none the less, adversely effected by it.

Peace
James

 

[BrianH]

I am quick to let someone know if I feel they are being anti-Catholic. When someone uses an ‘anti-Catholic’ website as a source and calls it fact, rejecting all Catholic explanations, that’s being ‘anti-Catholic’ in my opinion.

There are times I present scriptures and an explanation of interpretation supporting some Catholic beliefs. When someone cannot even agree that they can see how the belief is scriptural, even if they do not agree with the interpretation, that, again, is being ‘anti-Catholic’.

When misconceptions are explained and one continues an offense using the misconception and not recognizing the explanation, whatsoever, what would you call it?

When I saw this thread, I thought of you so I am glad you weighed in. I do not think that is considered anti-Catholic. I would not consider it anti-Protestant if the roles were reversed.
Anti-Catholic is an extremely emotional bomb. It should be used very very carefully. Its really no different than using the word racist, anti-American, or any other term that is going to invoke strong emotion.
When someone disagrees with your rationale or reason, it does not make them “anti” it makes them someone who disagrees.
It is quite possible that that they just do not agree with your explaination. When you state that they do not “recognize” your explaination, I would suggest that comes across as so sure of yourself to the point of being judgemental when others simply do not agree with you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When I saw this thread, I thought of you so I am glad you weighed in. I do not think that is considered anti-Catholic. I would not consider it anti-Protestant if the roles were reversed.
Anti-Catholic is an extremely emotional bomb. It should be used very very carefully. Its really no different than using the word racist, anti-American, or any other term that is going to invoke strong emotion.
When someone disagrees with your rationale or reason, it does not make them “anti” it makes them someone who disagrees.
It is quite possible that that they just do not agree with your explaination. When you state that they do not “recognize” your explaination, I would suggest that comes across as so sure of yourself to the point of being judgemental when others simply do not agree with you.

Brian,

You’ve seen a lot of my posts. I use a scriptural basis and try very hard to articulate how the scriptures are interpreted to show a belief is scriptural. When one cannot say they can see how the belief comes from an interpretation, even though they may disagree with the interpretation, and repeats the belief is not scriptural, there seems to be an anti sentiment underneath.

To give an example. I provide example of infant baptism using scriptures. I am then told, the Bible does not specifically state infants were baptised, therefore the belief is a contradiction to scriptures. I reply and say, the Bible does not specifically state infants are to be excluded from baptism and therefore cannot be a ‘contradiction’ to scriptures. The reply still maintains that the Catholic belief of infant baptism is a contradiction to scriptures. If it’s not specifically written, one way or the other, why is it the Catholic belief is a contradiction? Is it too hard for one to state, ok I do not agree but I can see how you might get that belief from an interpretation of scriptures? Instead one would rather continuing challenging Catholicism with no definitive proof to support their own view. That really has appearances of being anti-Catholic, in my opinion.

 

[BrianH]

The example you gave would be just as anti-Orthodox, anti-Methodist, anti-Lutheran etc though.
But its really not any of those. People carry around frameworks for attempting to interpret this book. Guess what…its a HARD book to interpret. Catholic. Orthodox. Methodist. Or Jehovah Witness. I mean look at the Jews. Most Jews simply do not see what Christians see. No one really agrees in totality when it comes to interpreting scripture, evaluating Tradition or anything like that enough to not recognize that we are dealing with seriously complicated issues. My basic belief is that this whole thing is very complicated. People who are very sure of themselves do not see it that way. In fact, one thing I have noticed is that the more sure someone is of their view, the easier they believe it is to interpret. Oh and EVERYONE interprets. We may decide to rely on different authorities, the Magisterium, myself, a powerful Pastor etc, but we all interpret or choose through our interpretation to follow the interpretation of someone else
When those frameworks, hermenutical schemes or whatever we call them result in a particular interpretation, I just do not see it as “anti” in the sense the word is used.
On a real level, no one can defend themselves from an “anti” charge. I have tried. Lord I have tried. It comes across as a bumbling rationale and excuses. I am particularly aware of its sting because in my secular job I have to make decisions. If someone does not agree, I can be called “anti-woman”, “anti-K State (seriously)”, anti-black. You name it.
I wonder if you have been around people who hurl language in a real setting that challenges your professional status? Maybe that is why I am cautious about it.
Maybe…I have just been around long enough to know it is a conversation killer that devalues REAL anti-Catholicism.
Go to fighting fundamentals, Cygnus study, CARM, to find people that are anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. CAF is very very light on true “anti” type posters.
We have real Anti people in this world.
I worry that we inadvertenly lessen its impact when we overuse it…just my thoughts

 

[stbruderklaus]

I hold on here, because I have found those who I sincerely respect, and enjoy conversing with. I don’t hang out on vitriolic Lutheran boards, either… they are just unpleasant. Frankly, I don’t have much time to be spending on boards, anyway.

As you point out, human associations are messy things-- our sin and pride often make for nasty exchanges. However, I think our common witness to Christ as Christians impells us to works of unity and charity, even if that fulness of unity continues to elude us. Heck, if the Reformation schism is 500 years old and difficult to repair, there’s another schism nearly a 1000 years old with the East that still hasn’t been healed. We aren’t called to despair of the work set before us, regardless of how daunting it may seem. I’ll continue to keep the Pope and our diocesan arch-bishop in my prayers, along with my Roman Catholic friends, whether they do the same for me or not.

I’ll hang around a while longer, and hope for good and charitable dialogue. I have no intent of being “anti-catholic,” especially since we confess to be catholics according to our Lutheran confessions.

You know, what might be a more interesting discussion, would be exploring the term “anti-Roman.” Just thinking out loud.

Grace and peace.

It is just human nature to defend your beliefs when they feel they are being attacked. I have been around CAF for a few years, not posting until a year or so ago and except for a few Catholics I don’t see what your speaking of.

Yes of late there have been more Lutherans and of course the Church denies that Lutherans have the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, otherwise we would all be one.

If you want anti Catholic hatred there is a Lutheran forum that is just as some posters have stated. They call the Pope the antichrist and make fun of our faith. They even turn against other Lutherans who have a more catholic viewpoint on the sacraments and how the liturgy is celebrated.

Once in a while a Catholic will post, but rarely do you see any posters except Lutherans.

I think CAF is one of the fairest and most charitable forums I have seen. There are many from other faiths that come here to learn and many who just come to cause the posters to feel angry and those are the posts that are probably seen as anti protestant.

We have some lovely Lutheran posters here and they state their opinions in a very charitable manner and are treated with great respect. The same goes for others who are not Catholic. I am a convert and have been dismayed by the hatred from my former brothers and sisters who are posting on their boards very anti catholic threads.

If a person is going to enter into a Catholic or protestant forum they should expect there can be heated debate that is natural. As imperfect people sometimes someone will go beyond what is acceptable. I have gotten to the point of rarely going on a very anti catholic board, and if I do I stay for a few minutes. If you are so troubled it is best as you said that you don’t post here often, that you don’t visit this forum, as I found that visiting the above mentioned forum upsets me. For your own spiritual well being find a forum where you feel comfortable, it is not worth it if CAF is so offensive to you. I say this with only the best intentions, not because your not welcome, I just know if something offends me greatly it is best to stay away from it.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[kalt]

I hold on here, because I have found those who I sincerely respect, and enjoy conversing with. I don’t hang out on vitriolic Lutheran boards, either… they are just unpleasant. Frankly, I don’t have much time to be spending on boards, anyway.

As you point out, human associations are messy things-- our sin and pride often make for nasty exchanges. However, I think our common witness to Christ as Christians impells us to works of unity and charity, even if that fulness of unity continues to elude us. Heck, if the Reformation schism is 500 years old and difficult to repair, there’s another schism nearly a 1000 years old with the East that still hasn’t been healed. We aren’t called to despair of the work set before us, regardless of how daunting it may seem. I’ll continue to keep the Pope and our diocesan arch-bishop in my prayers, along with my Roman Catholic friends, whether they do the same for me or not.

I’ll hang around a while longer, and hope for good and charitable dialogue. I have no intent of being “anti-catholic,” especially since we confess to be catholics according to our Lutheran confessions.

You know, what might be a more interesting discussion, would be exploring the term “anti-Roman.” Just thinking out loud.

Grace and peace.

What do you mean by anti-Roman?

 

[stbruderklaus]

For many of us who recite the creeds as our statement of faith, but who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, we understand catholicity a little differently than our Roman Catholic counterparts do. For example, when we recite that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we believe that we are a part of it by the grace of God imparted through our baptism.

However, without engaging in a protracted debate about what Christians mean when they use the term “catholic,” we could probably be fairly united in our definition of what is distinctively Roman (i.e., that which is distinct to the Roman Catholic Church, and not a part of the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.)

That’s all I was suggesting. The term might be more precise, and less heated.

Cheers.

What do you mean by anti-Roman?

 

[shondrea]

is a little confused

So would the more appropriate term be anti ROMAN Catholic? Or just against the …I…I don’t know much of anything about confessional Lutheranism in comparison to RCC, except many believe the Pope to be the anti-Christ, so forgive me when I say I don’t quite understand?

 

[stbruderklaus]

No apology necessary-- if our respective theologians can’t seem to understand each other’s use of terms and confuse each other, why should we be any better?

It’s worth noting that Lutherans have different opinions about the issue of the relationship between the papacy and anti-Christ. The idea does surface in our confessional writings, but it does so in a very particular context. Suffice to say, that when the bishop of Rome was doing good, Lutherans did not consider him anti-Christ or anti-Christian; but, when he was doing things that seemed anti-Christian, the polemics of the day didn’t hesitate to toss that label around.

No doubt you’ll find a range of opinions among Lutherans regarding the papacy in general, and regarding particular popes specifically, much the way you’ll find differences among Roman Catholics regarding Luther and Lutherans. However, the central confessions for Lutherans remain the Augsburg Confession and the three great Creeds. They are online if you ever want to peruse them.

As for what is distinctively Roman, or peculiar to the Roman Catholic Church, I think there could be an interesting discussion about that topic… particularly to find out if there is a different sub-group of folks that are just wrapped around the axle about all things distinctively Roman, versus those that have an issue with being “anti-catholic.” For example, in certain parts of the world, and even in our own country, Lutherans look particularly similar to their Roman Catholic counterparts, and often draw the ire of people who are quite “anti-catholic” without distinction between what is catholic in a Lutheran sense, versus what is catholic in a Roman sense.

Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting. Cheers.

is a little confused

So would the more appropriate term be anti ROMAN Catholic? Or just against the …I…I don’t know much of anything about confessional Lutheranism in comparison to RCC, except many believe the Pope to be the anti-Christ, so forgive me when I say I don’t quite understand?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s worth noting that Lutherans have different opinions about the issue of the relationship between the papacy and anti-Christ. The idea does surface in our confessional writings, but it does so in a very particular context. Suffice to say, that when the bishop of Rome was doing good, Lutherans did not consider him anti-Christ or anti-Christian; but, when he was doing things that seemed anti-Christian, the polemics of the day didn’t hesitate to toss that label around.

But it’s being ‘tossed around’ on some Lutheran forums today.

This new denial of the Catholic Church being the first Church is very confusing. Martin Luther found objections to practices during his life. He did not deny the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ. Now, we are using the term ‘Catholic’ wrong, or Lutherans have given new meaning to the term. The was only one universal Church in the beginning and it existed through the first thousand years. I believe the great schism occured in 1054. It was in the 1500s that Protestantism was began through the dispute between Martin Luther and the Catholic Church.

Now, for Roman Catholic or Catholic, Catholics, with the exception of Orthodox, believe in the Papacy, which is located in Rome. There is no difference within the Catholic Church. If you search the internet, you will find people claiming to be ‘Catholic’, again we have people ‘borrowing’ the term. They are not a part of the one holy Catholic Church, that has been around for the last 2000+ years.

 

[shondrea]

Gah, so much to learn! I’m not good at wrapping my head around abstract ideas!

I’ve always thought that Roman Catholics and Lutherans were on fairly good terms with each other. I suppose it’s back to the topic of the thread- just what IS anti? I mean, if a confessional Lutheran is anti-roman, does that mean they oppose the beliefes of Roman Catholics, oppose Roman Catholics theselves or just the position of Rome?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Gah, so much to learn! I’m not good at wrapping my head around abstract ideas!

I’ve always thought that Roman Catholics and Lutherans were on fairly good terms with each other. I suppose it’s back to the topic of the thread- just what IS anti? I mean, if a confessional Lutheran is anti-roman, does that mean they oppose the beliefes of Roman Catholics, oppose Roman Catholics theselves or just the position of Rome?

There are disputes between the two Church’s beliefs, some of which I believe are attributed to semantics. Then we have instances of rejections of certain beliefs between the two.

There is no difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic, as all Catholics, with the exception of the Orthodox, are led by Rome, or the Vatican to be more precise.

The ‘new’ difference between catholics and Catholics is sort of semantics and some ‘anti-Catholic’ in that it is being used with a small ‘c’ to deny the Catholic Church’s true history. Some Protestants claim they are ‘catholic’ in the sense of being a part of the universal Church. The name Catholic was applied to the early Church and the term is documented from writings of St. Ignatius around 107 to 110AD. Church history and secular history acknowledges the Catholic Church’s existence, under the name Catholic Church, since the time of St. Ignatius’ writings. The term ‘Catholic’ comes from the Greek ‘kata holos’, which is used in scriptures.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution(55) of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(56) Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.(57)

**Acts 9:31

(IGNT+) αιG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED ουνG3767 THEN εκκλησιαιG1577 ASSEMBLIES καθG2596 THROUGHOUT οληςG3650 WHOLE τηςG3588 THE ιουδαιαςG2449 OF JUDEA καιG2532 AND γαλιλαιαςG1056 GALILEE καιG2532 AND σαμαρειαςG4540 SAMARIA ειχονG2192 [G5707] HAD ειρηνηνG1515 PEACE, οικοδομουμεναιG3618 [G5746] BEING BUILT UP καιG2532 AND πορευομεναιG4198 [G5740] GOING ON τωG3588 IN THE φοβωG5401 FEAR τουG3588 OF THE κυριουG2962 LORD, καιG2532 AND τηG3588 IN THE παρακλησειG3874 COMFORT τουG3588 OF THE αγιουG40 HOLY πνευματοςG4151 SPIRIT επληθυνοντοG4129 [G5712] WERE INCREASED.

G2596
κατά
kata
kat-ah’
A primary particle; (preposition) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive, dative or accusative] with which it is joined): - about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to, touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [dai-] ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from . . . to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), . . . by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution or intensity.

G3650
ὅλος
holos
hol’-os
A primary word; “whole” or “all”, that is, complete (in extent, amount, time or degree), especially (neuter) as noun or adverb: - all, altogether, every whit, + throughout, whole.

kata holos
kat-ah’ hol’-os
Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.**

 

[stbruderklaus]

To be fair, most Lutherans and Roman Catholics ARE on very good terms. In fact, I have a running theory, that the increasing familiarity and cordiality Lutherans are sharing with Roman Catholics, is leading to an increased shrillness among mean-spirited Lutheran and Roman Catholic apologists who are more interested in keeping the fires stoked than any genuine reconciliation. People who live off of war, often have a hard time living in peace… but they sure do like electronic forums to congregate in.

And, I would note, I am neither “anti-catholic” nor “anti-Roman.” I do think there is error in Roman Catholic theology, and that much of that error is distinctly Roman rather than authentically catholic… but that might need its own thread to tease out properly. The fact that I disagree with some of the distinctive claims of the Roman Catholic Church, does not mean that I disagree with all the catholic doctrines that Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc., hold in common with Rome. One of the oldest definitions of what the Fathers said was authentically “catholic,” is that which is held by everyone, everywhere-- that which is truly universal in the Church. In the first 400 years of the Church, it was confessed in the great Creeds; throughout the first millenium, in the great Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.

Of course, once schism errupted and split the Christian world in half around 1054, the debate was on as to what was authentically catholic, and what was innovation. Those questions got even more complicated during the 16th century Reformation, when the western church experienced even further schism. But in our day, as all the pieces of Christendom begin to engage each other charitably, seeking unity in the common expressions of Christianity from the first 1000 years of the undivided Church, much progress is being made. My hope is that it continues. The world is growing darker, and we must be drawing together.

Grace and peace.

Gah, so much to learn! I’m not good at wrapping my head around abstract ideas!

I’ve always thought that Roman Catholics and Lutherans were on fairly good terms with each other. I suppose it’s back to the topic of the thread- just what IS anti? I mean, if a confessional Lutheran is anti-roman, does that mean they oppose the beliefes of Roman Catholics, oppose Roman Catholics theselves or just the position of Rome?

 

[shondrea]

Thank you very much for both your answers! I think I still need to work out in my heart that someone being “anti” something does not equal someone going around screaming how we’re all going to hell XD (bad experiences)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

To be fair, most Lutherans and Roman Catholics ARE on very good terms. In fact, I have a running theory, that the increasing familiarity and cordiality Lutherans are sharing with Roman Catholics, is leading to an increased shrillness among mean-spirited Lutheran and Roman Catholic apologists who are more interested in keeping the fires stoked than any genuine reconciliation. People who live off of war, often have a hard time living in peace… but they sure do like electronic forums to congregate in.

And, I would note, I am neither “anti-catholic” nor “anti-Roman.” I do think there is error in Roman Catholic theology, and that much of that error is distinctly Roman rather than authentically catholic… but that might need its own thread to tease out properly. The fact that I disagree with some of the distinctive claims of the Roman Catholic Church, does not mean that I disagree with all the catholic doctrines that Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, etc., hold in common with Rome. One of the oldest definitions of what the Fathers said was authentically “catholic,” is that which is held by everyone, everywhere-- that which is truly universal in the Church. In the first 400 years of the Church, it was confessed in the great Creeds; throughout the first millenium, in the great Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church.

Thinking there is error in the Roman Catholic theology is an ‘apologist’ statement in itself, and it’s posted on an electronic forum. This is where the reformation came into play, that is ‘thinking there is error in the Roman Catholic theology’. The biggest difference between the reformation and apologetics of today is, Martin Luther’s dispute was over a single practice. Since the split, those objections have grown beyond Martin Luther’s original objection. Since the reformation, Protestantism itself has split off in different directions, with differences between themselves.

Of course, once schism errupted and split the Christian world in half around 1054, the debate was on as to what was authentically catholic, and what was innovation. Those questions got even more complicated during the 16th century Reformation, when the western church experienced even further schism. But in our day, as all the pieces of Christendom begin to engage each other charitably, seeking unity in the common expressions of Christianity from the first 1000 years of the undivided Church, much progress is being made. My hope is that it continues. The world is growing darker, and we must be drawing together.

Grace and peace.

As you say, ‘seeking unity in the common expressions of Christianity from the first thousand years of the undivided Church’, it seems to be in conflict with itself. If objections were found with the Roman Catholic Church, why was it necessary to begin a ‘new’ Church? The Orthodox Church was there, and with open arms.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you very much for both your answers! I think I still need to work out in my heart that someone being “anti” something does not equal someone going around screaming how we’re all going to hell XD (bad experiences)

The sad thing is, you’ll find the ‘hell screamers’ come in all faiths. We are all human and none are perfect.

 

[tonyh12]

What i have noticed since “converting” (not really convertion as i was already Christened RC but didn’t understand it all a year ago - quite a learning curve!) is a change (not as smiley a bit standoffish i think) in a few (not all!) people who i thought were “friends” in the Baptist Church this is a bit upsetting but as the Lords Prayer says ‘Forgive Us Our Trespasses As We Forgive Those Who Trespass Against Us’, true friendship goes beyond any denomination , i pray for peace amongst all Christians , i think i’m right in saying (please correct me if i’m wrong) i have learnt that the Catholic Church recognises any one Baptised in The Name Of The Father And The Son And The Holy Spirit (including those in denominations as Children Of God)

 

[kalt]

For many of us who recite the creeds as our statement of faith, but who are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, we understand catholicity a little differently than our Roman Catholic counterparts do. For example, when we recite that we believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we believe that we are a part of it by the grace of God imparted through our baptism.

However, without engaging in a protracted debate about what Christians mean when they use the term “catholic,” we could probably be fairly united in our definition of what is distinctively Roman (i.e., that which is distinct to the Roman Catholic Church, and not a part of the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.)

That’s all I was suggesting. The term might be more precise, and less heated.

Cheers.

There are several rites that are part of the Catholic Church. Why single out the Roman Rite? I think that the reason most ant-Catholics list as the most important for being against the Church is the pope. Why would you, then, single out one rite when it’s probably the pope that bugs them more than what rite any Catholic follows?

 

[Greg27]

I think it would depend on what you mean by anti-Catholic. Catholics are obliged to accept and believe that the teachings of the church, including on matters of ethics, are infallible, i.e. they are free from any sort of error, and also Catholics are obliged to put the teachings of the church into practice in their lives. So for example, the church teaches artificial contraception is not permitted in any circumstances, no matter how good it might seem subjectively, and likewise the good Catholic is expected to put this into practice (i.e. a married Catholic is not allowed to use artificial methods of contraception for any reason, no matter how good it may seem). To disobey this teaching is to risk sinning, possibly gravely.

Catholics also have an obligation to respect the teaching of their church and not publically dissent, which can be scandalous in certain circumstances (according to moral theology). The Church has gone so far as to insert a provision in Canon Law to punish dissent and has also sacked theologians like Charles Curran or Hans Kung who dissented from church teachings, and also teachers at Catholic schools usually have to sign contracts which have terms forbidding teachers to dissent or disagree or question the church’s teachings. Similarly it is now common practice for teachers of Catholic theology to have to sign a statement or indicate assent to a fairly long statement which includes assent to the church’s teachings on moral matters.

It is also Catholic teaching that the natural law, which is universal in nature, binds all people irrespective of their culture or religion, and the natural law forbids things like abortion, contraception, fornication, masturbation, homsexuality, etc.

Catholics thus often fiercely defend the teachings of the church and do so with a degree of hostility and aggression towards opponents within or outside of the church. Attacking opponents as anti-Catholic (i.e. having an irrational hatred of the church and things Catholic) is sometimes a part of this. Sometimes this is true, and indeed some extremists from Protestant backgrounds show a very strange and irrational hatred of the church, as do some ex-Catholics and atheists. However I think the demonising of opponents and the questioning of bona fides of their opponents sometimes goes too far and the arguments become exchanges of abuse.

I think the church and its members are entitled to the usual protections of law and civil rights we all take for granted in a democratic system, including freedom of religious belief and worship, freedom of conscience, rights to life, liberty and property, etc. Such protections should also extend to freedom from hate-speech and defamatory statements which are merely aimed to vilify, demonise and forment hatred and prejudice towards Catholics. But Catholics should in my view accept such protections apply universally, including to their opponents, and Catholics should always refrain from vilification and demonisation of other people who disagree with Catholic beliefs and doctrines. I see this is often forgotten in debates Catholics have over life issues (i.e. abortion, euthanasia, etc) and over how the issue of internal dissent on the part of theologians and laity should be handled in their own church. The demand to immediately excommunicate or refuse the sacraments to people who appear to not tow the line on certain matters is often demanded by conservative Catholics in America and elsewhere but it actually seems to do little to deal with the real social or moral problems the Church is trying to address in its teaching, such as curbing the rates of abortion, making society care more for the poor and vulnerable, and promote human flourishing by making society respect and recognise the fundamental worth and dignity of each person (especially the sick, disabled, elderly, and unborn).

I feel hate-filled polemics, which I so often see from conservative or fundamentalist Christians, does little to help achieve progress on contested issues, improve anyone’s lot, or improve the mission of the church. This in my view is especially clear on the horrible hate-speech you often see from fundamentalists towards homosexual people. Christians of all stripes would do good to move on from being ‘anti-X’ (to put whatever issue it is in X) and try to live lives of justice and charity, including to non-Christians, the poor and needy, unmarried or poor women contemplating abortion, gay people, etc.