Anti-Catholicism - A religion for some?

[Rand_Al_Thor]

CarrieMG:

Anti-Catholics are so because they are “children of rebellion.” Just as children rebelling against their parents have to prove how wrong their parents are, those broken from Holy Mother Church want to prove how wrong she is. It is the only way to justify their own decision. I have even had a protestant aquaintance tell me that he had to prove the Catholic Church was wrong because either his denomination was the true church or the Catholic Church was - there was no other that could be right. His faith then was truly based on the fact that the Catholic Church had to be wrong. He claims this is a teaching of his Church - Seventh-day Adventist.

Sadly, that is true. Seventh-day Adventists are none to fond of Catholics and aren’t afraid to have that be part of their religion. The Catholic Church recognizes SDA as having a legitimate Christian baptism and say that there are many doctrinal similarities, but it seems they just can’t return those good feelings. Sad.

 

[Kyenta]

We Catholics are so misunderstood by our earthly friends, but so loved by our Heavenly Ones.

I remember something that Pope John Paul II said and it went something like this (it was directed regarding the Jewish Community) :
“We have an obligation to listen to our Jewish Bretheren, we don’t have to agree, but we do have to listen.”

I think that says it all.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI!

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Freedom comes with a moral obligation. Read my signature - what the late Pope JP2 said about freedom.

Doing what is wrong and bad is not exercising freedom. Bashing, certainly, is wrong and bad in whatever angle you may look at it.

PAX

Franze:

Here in Spain Protestante Digital is very anti-catholic, and others like webislam bashes catholicism many times, for example to the members of Opus Dei.
However I don´t know many times what is the difference between bashing and freedom of expression.

 

[mark_a]

I read this once and copied it for reference. I think I got it from this forum. I did not write it. I do not know who wrote it:

**What is the difference between legitimate Catholic criticism and anti-Catholicism? Indeed, what are the features of any “anti-ism”? **

FIVE FEATURES
In general, there are usually five such elements.

The first is stereotyping: indulging in general statements that attribute negative qualities to the target group as a whole. “Catholics worship idols” and “Catholics don’t read the Bible.”

The second is denigration: the ascription of moral inferiority to a whole group, traceable in the last resort to an irreducibly evil nature. “Catholics aren’t Christian” and “Catholics can’t be saved.”

The third element is obsession, the idee fixe that the target group is both omnipresent and omni-causal — an invisible force that explains all misery, whether dying cattle or failing businesses. “The Vatican is pulling strings in capitals around the world.” “The Jesuits are the Vatican’s secret agents.”

The fourth point is demonization. Here the key themes include conspiracy and actual evil: thus, Catholics want to sully our racial purity, or subvert our sacred traditions or, above all, to achieve domination. “The pope is the anti-Christ” and “Rome is the Whore of Babylon.”

Finally comes elimination: the determination to seek an end to troubles by removing the alleged source of torment, be it by exclusion, extrusion, or annihilation.

EVALUATION
How then, can one tell the difference between legitimate criticism and “anti-ism”? One test is language. Does it seek to inflict maximal moral damage on the target?

A second test is the test of selectivity. If Catholicism is always the target of indignation or incrimination but not Protestantism’s bloody history or the persecution of Catholics by others, then we are in the presence of a double standard. This strengthens the presupposition of anti-Catholicism.

A third test is exclusivity. Are Catholics denied the same rights as non-Catholics? Is the playing field tilted against Catholics? Do Protestants defend their right of private interpretation of the Bible but deny the same for Catholics? Is Catholic exegesis automatically deemed inferior and therefore automatically opposed? If such discrimination exists then the indications of anti-Catholicism are strong.

GOING FORWARD
The real difficulty for Catholic apologists is not the inadequacy of the evidence but some seemingly insurmountable hurdles.

The first is invincible prejudice – those conceptions that have been formed in the absence of evidence which no evidence can overcome. The anti-Catholic just “knows” that Catholics are wrong and he accepts only that evidence that supports his presumptions.

Another difficult hurdle was identified by Belloc as “stupid skepticism,” the inability of your opponent to grasp concepts that may be novel to his thinking. As he put it: “The man who confuses infallibility with impeccability is less intelligent than the man who does not.”

These hurdles are not easily overcome. Many experienced Catholic apologists recognize the futility of engaging anti-Catholics. They simply move on to greener pastures comforted by the knowledge that the Holy Spirit will move hearts in his own time.

 

[Eden]

Thank you, mark a! This is a superb explication of “anti-Catholicism”. Thanks for having saved this and for now sharing it!

 

[bbas_64]

Thank you all for your reply.

If I understand you all then would this be anti:

"I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition, and that I will burn, hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive those infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of the women, and crush their infants’ heads against the walls, in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the homer, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope, or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus.

From the KOC Oath.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[MSJ]

OMG so much hate? I better keep away from catholic!

 

[Malachi4U]

Eden:

…What is the explanation for this misdirected emphasis?

SATAN!

 

[Eden]

bbas 64:

Thank you all for your reply.

If I understand you all then would this be anti:

"I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition, and that I will burn, hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive those infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of the women, and crush their infants’ heads against the walls, in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the homer, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope, or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus.

From the KOC Oath.

Peace to u,

Bill

So, you have nothing to say about anti-Catholicism I take it.

 

[Eden]

bbas 64:

Thank you all for your reply.

If I understand you all then would this be anti:

"I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition, and that I will burn, hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive those infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of the women, and crush their infants’ heads against the walls, in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the homer, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope, or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus.

From the KOC Oath.

Peace to u,

Bill

Take it easy on the Jack Chick, O.K.? Unless you meant that this is a good example of anti-Catholic inventions. Here is the beginning of one article that researches this fake oath.

Sometimes one finds himself completely outside the realm of “the possible” and in the strange realm of “where the heck did they come up with this stuff?” The Jesuit Oath is one such example. It is completely ludicrous, and to believe that people actually believe this stuff is simply staggering. The Oath has also been reincarnated in another popular version known as the “Knight of Columbus Oath”. However, we will deal strictly with the two versions of the Oath that are most commonly cited. The first is located in the Library of Congress, the second is located in the Congressional Record.

**For more: **

geocities.com/okc_catholic/articles/jesuit_oath.html

 

[Eden]

Here is why this particular anti-Catholic libel was started:

**“The Hon. Thomas S. Butler, the Republican nominee for Congress, was born and reared in the Society of Friends, and is proud of his Quaker ancestry. His opponent, Eugene C. Bonniwell, is a Roman Catholic.” **

**On August 28, 1912, the Chester Republican reprinted this editorial. Coincident with the two said editorials messengers in the employ of supporters of Thomas S. Butler traversed the district, having in their possession and circulating a blasphemous and infamous libel, a copy of which is hereto attached, pretended to be an oath of the Knights of Columbus, of which body the contestant [Bonniwell] is a member. So revolting are the terms of this document and so nauseating its pledges that the injury it did not merely to the contestant but also to the Knights of Columbus and to Catholics in general can hardly be measured in terms. **

**I charge that the circulation of this oath and the publication of the two editorials herein referred to were part of a conspiracy . . . for the purpose of arousing religious rancor and of defeating the Democratic nominee. The Constitution of the United States prohibits any religious test for office. The organization supporting Thomas S. Butler created such a test, blazed bigotry in the hearts and minds of the ignorant, and slandered and vilified a great body of honorable men. **

**I file no complaint because of adverse election returns. The Democracy of Pennsylvania is inured to adversity. Nor is this complaint registered because of defeat resultant upon faith or race. In these things I own a just pride and do not protest if, because of either, political honors are to be denied men. But when a calumnious, viperish attack upon either faith or race is launched, injecting religious bigotry into the political affairs of this Nation, then this protest is made in the certain confidence that all patriotic men, mindful of the religious as well as the political liberty that the forefathers designed should be our heritage, will rise and strike down the beneficiary of such a treacherous and dastardly movement. **For myself I make no appeal to your honorable body that I may be seated. . . . This I do maintain, that this man, receiving his election under these circumstances, adding the felonies of forged papers, perjured acknowledgements, and violated grand jury to the more wicked crime of religious slander, ought not to be tolerated in the House of Representatives.

 

[mark_a]

Eden:

Thank you, mark a! This is a superb explication of “anti-Catholicism”. Thanks for having saved this and for now sharing it!

**

**What is the difference between legitimate Catholic criticism and anti-Catholicism? Indeed, what are the features of any “anti-ism”? **

**
The spirit of it works for anti-anything-ism just by substituting a few words.

 

[bbas_64]

Eden:

So, you have nothing to say about anti-Catholicism I take it.

Good Day, Eden

I think that anti- any thing by definition, means against something

Websters:

A person who is opposed to something, such as a group, policy, proposal, or practice.

so, I guess that all non-Roman Catholic who are opposed to the policies or pactices of the Roman Catholic denomanation would rightly be called anti that group. IMHO

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Eden]

You can belong to a different group but still not be “against” someone of other beliefs. It is clear that anti-Semitism is not the same as being simply non-Jewish. There is a clear difference in intent. I do not agree with Jews that Jesus is not the Son of God but I respect them and their heritage. While someone may not believe that the Pope is the successor to Peter that does not make them anti-Catholic if they do not actively work or speak against the Church.