T
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
TheresaLS
Guest
Some say it is the last acceptable bigotry. Sad but true!
T
tgm21234
Guest
The left wing media has always had an obsession with trashing the catholic church.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Protestants should take notice of this and worry greatly about it. I have long believed that, since mainline Protestantism ceased being the de facto “state religion” in the U.S., the only thing that keeps Protestantism from being ground into the dust by the increasingly secular culture is the Catholic Church. It’s big and, despite the dissenti within it, influential to a great number, and it’s well organized. It also knows what it believes, and has intellectual underpinnings greatly outweighing those of secular humanism.
I have, on occasion, discussed this with Protestants of discernment and they are usually surprised to hear it for the first time, but almost always agree with the proposition when you explain it. I have even had Protestant ministers agree that it’s true. It’s sobering, and Protestants would be well advised to consider it carefully. So should Catholics. Catholicism is one of the most significant barriers to a truly horrific and aggressive worldview.
I have, on occasion, discussed this with Protestants of discernment and they are usually surprised to hear it for the first time, but almost always agree with the proposition when you explain it. I have even had Protestant ministers agree that it’s true. It’s sobering, and Protestants would be well advised to consider it carefully. So should Catholics. Catholicism is one of the most significant barriers to a truly horrific and aggressive worldview.
B
Benadam
Guest
I can’t agree more. Among the countless threads and posts referencing signs of the times what ridge just posted resonates deepest Peace,
M
Mark77
Guest
Most people have always hated Jesus and His followers, nothing new here!
**“and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mt 10:22).
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” (Jn 15:18).
The time to worry is when the hypocrites like you!!!**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
**“and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mt 10:22).
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” (Jn 15:18).
The time to worry is when the hypocrites like you!!!**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
J
joannazenobia
Guest
Like that other quote “many are invited, few are chosen”.Most people have always hated Jesus and His followers, nothing new here!
**“and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” (Mt 10:22).
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.” (Jn 15:18).
The time to worry is when the hypocrites like you!!!**
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
mark
I actually feel sorry for the nonbelievers. Its almost like that move Matrix. We were chosen to see the truth no one else does, and so many never will. They will be trapped in that Matrix forever.
J
jeff417
Guest
Imagine the surprise, and/or dismay of the unbelievers when their immortal soul leaves their bodies and they are confronted with the truth.
Never cease to pray for them!
God Bless
Never cease to pray for them!
God Bless
C
credoinunum
Guest
From the article: ‘These deranged comments—all voiced in America’s premier newspapers—demonstrate that anti-Catholicism is the most virulent expression of bigotry in the U.S.’
First: I find it very interesting that these are the first words of the article. I don’t see people burning down Catholic Churches in the United States, or denying the right of Catholics to express their faith in the public sphere or banning the reception of the sacraments. That would strike me as real virulent bigoty.
Second: "Last Friday on the Washington Post blog, “On Faith,” English atheist Richard Dawkins said the Catholic Church was “surely up there among the leaders” as “the greatest force for evil in the world.” Whenever Catholics see the word blog and the name Richard Dawkins in the same sentence…we should really just tune it out. At some point, listening to his hateful ramblings is just foolish and only encourages him.
Third: These are editorials…individual columnists that people who read the paper seem to generally agree with writing their opinions. There are papers that would publish more RCC friendly editorials, but the article fails to cite anything like that.
I think we asCatholics need to get past the “persecuted minority” mindset and stop getting defensive every time someone disagrees with us. It is ALWAYS going to be this way (even if we magically went back to the 13th Century…and even then…it wasn’t so great).
First: I find it very interesting that these are the first words of the article. I don’t see people burning down Catholic Churches in the United States, or denying the right of Catholics to express their faith in the public sphere or banning the reception of the sacraments. That would strike me as real virulent bigoty.
Second: "Last Friday on the Washington Post blog, “On Faith,” English atheist Richard Dawkins said the Catholic Church was “surely up there among the leaders” as “the greatest force for evil in the world.” Whenever Catholics see the word blog and the name Richard Dawkins in the same sentence…we should really just tune it out. At some point, listening to his hateful ramblings is just foolish and only encourages him.
Third: These are editorials…individual columnists that people who read the paper seem to generally agree with writing their opinions. There are papers that would publish more RCC friendly editorials, but the article fails to cite anything like that.
I think we asCatholics need to get past the “persecuted minority” mindset and stop getting defensive every time someone disagrees with us. It is ALWAYS going to be this way (even if we magically went back to the 13th Century…and even then…it wasn’t so great).
B
BRZ
Guest
Burning down Catholic Churches would be too obvious. One thing you fail to notice is that evil is far more intelligent and manipulative then that. You don’t need to burn down churches to hurt the church. Attacking our very beliefs, our symbols, our saints and those who are living who are role models is a far better strategy.
We should never be okay with people attacking our faith. It is one thing to disagree and completely a different thing to spread slanderous and disgusting view points which attack the very essence of what we believe. Did you read the article? I understand that there are those who are very much against the church but it doesn’t give them the right to say those things. Calling us cannibals for eating the Eucharist or saying our church is a breeding ground for pedophilia. Maybe you are not insulted by these but I sure am. How could I not be? It is disgusting.
Understanding that people are always going to criticize and/or persecute us is something we know, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stand up to such injustice.
We should never be okay with people attacking our faith. It is one thing to disagree and completely a different thing to spread slanderous and disgusting view points which attack the very essence of what we believe. Did you read the article? I understand that there are those who are very much against the church but it doesn’t give them the right to say those things. Calling us cannibals for eating the Eucharist or saying our church is a breeding ground for pedophilia. Maybe you are not insulted by these but I sure am. How could I not be? It is disgusting.
Understanding that people are always going to criticize and/or persecute us is something we know, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stand up to such injustice.
C
credoinunum
Guest
First: people have been, and always will be, attacking our faith. I’ve heard Richard Dawkins speak. He has made a cottage industry for himself of attacking God and people of faith. I’m not insulted because I know the faith I profess and the God I believe in. I find angry slurs distasteful on both sides. I read every word of the article, and actually read the entirety of Maureen Dowd’s article as well. Free will, the first amendment and net neutrality give Richard Dawkins the right to say whatever he wants, just as free will and faith give us the right not to listen.Burning down Catholic Churches would be too obvious. One thing you fail to notice is that evil is far more intelligent and manipulative then that. You don’t need to burn down churches to hurt the church. Attacking our very beliefs, our symbols, our saints and those who are living who are role models is a far better strategy.
We should never be okay with people attacking our faith. It is one thing to disagree and completely a different thing to spread slanderous and disgusting view points which attack the very essence of what we believe. Did you read the article? I understand that there are those who are very much against the church but it doesn’t give them the right to say those things. Calling us cannibals for eating the Eucharist or saying our church is a breeding ground for pedophilia. Maybe you are not insulted by these but I sure am. How could I not be? It is disgusting.
Understanding that people are always going to criticize and/or persecute us is something we know, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t stand up to such injustice.
Second: the most effective social movements of the last 100 years have been antethetical to your final statement. Rather than reacting with anger, firing back our own slogans and apologetics at the other, we should turn to God, react with love and forgiveness. Similarly, we show our love of God and neighbor to the world. Once they see that we care, what will they have to criticize?
S
Soutane
Guest
Oh my Jesus forgive us our sins and save us from the fires of hell,lead ALL souls to heaven,ESPECIALLY THOSE IN MOST NEED OF THY MERCY.Imagine the surprise, and/or dismay of the unbelievers when their immortal soul leaves their bodies and they are confronted with the truth.
Never cease to pray for them!
God Bless
B
BRZ
Guest
I never said anything about fighting with anger, where did I say that? I said I was insulted by the things being said, I don’t believe in using violence but standing up for our beliefs does not mean using violence. Perhaps you misunderstood me. Also, there is such a thing as righteous anger and we have the perfect example of it in the bible itself with Jesus at the temple. So being angry, righteously so, is not wrong. We should defend our faith always, that does not mean with violence but with showing the truth, prayer and positive action.First: people have been, and always will be, attacking our faith. I’ve heard Richard Dawkins speak. He has made a cottage industry for himself of attacking God and people of faith. I’m not insulted because I know the faith I profess and the God I believe in. I find angry slurs distasteful on both sides. I read every word of the article, and actually read the entirety of Maureen Dowd’s article as well. Free will, the first amendment and net neutrality give Richard Dawkins the right to say whatever he wants, just as free will and faith give us the right not to listen.
Second: the most effective social movements of the last 100 years have been antethetical to your final statement. Rather than reacting with anger, firing back our own slogans and apologetics at the other, we should turn to God, react with love and forgiveness. Similarly, we show our love of God and neighbor to the world. Once they see that we care, what will they have to criticize?
S
Soutane
Guest
I agree with you entirely.We have EVERY right to be angry and to express that anger.Not fighting back against bullies(which is EXACTLY what they are)merely,encourages them.Jesus did NOT turn the other cheek while the House of His Father was being befouled.Jesus was no wimp and nor should we be.I never said anything about fighting with anger, where did I say that? I said I was insulted by the things being said, I don’t believe in using violence but standing up for our beliefs does not mean using violence. Perhaps you misunderstood me. Also, there is such a thing as righteous anger and we have the perfect example of it in the bible itself with Jesus at the temple. So being angry, righteously so, is not wrong. We should defend our faith always, that does not mean with violence but with showing the truth, prayer and positive action.
F
FAB
Guest
The point of the article is being missed.
The US Catholic bishops when it was written were about to come out against the health care bill. There are those who will defend this current adminstration to any ends and part of that defense is to neutalize any opposition.
It doesn’t matter to this columnist that her writting are so extremely in error, it only matters that they support their “savior”
Peace,
FAB
The US Catholic bishops when it was written were about to come out against the health care bill. There are those who will defend this current adminstration to any ends and part of that defense is to neutalize any opposition.
It doesn’t matter to this columnist that her writting are so extremely in error, it only matters that they support their “savior”
Peace,
FAB
M
Mandy31
Guest
I try to keep my memberships to Crisis and Our Sunday Visitor. I get a lot of informationThe left wing media has always had an obsession with trashing the catholic church.
from these magazines. They keep me up to date on anti-Catholicism. I also like your views on Catholic Answers. I have not written for some time as I’ve had spinal problems. Can’t sit too long but since I feel better I will post more often,
Mandy31
L
Lujack
Guest
Only two of those quotes (Dawkins and Dowd) are really offensive, and Dawkins is much more so. Carroll’s comments disagree with the Church, but they aren’t anti-Catholic, or deranged, and the Los Angeles Times editorial is similarly not anti-Catholic. It also doesn’t show any growth in anti-Catholicism, because the sample size is far too small. All it shows is that Dowd and Dawkins are shooting off, but about Catholics. Meh. You’d need a Gallup Poll or something to show that anti-Catholicism is on the rise.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Anti-Catholicism has taken on a wholly new tone recently. Sixty years ago, Paul Blanshard railled against a rising Catholic power and Mrs. Roosevelt in more genteel tones echoed his opinion. . But they did not attack her viciously. They echoed English anti-Catholicism, which at its worst was more muted in tone that it was on the continent. That was because the Establishment was still Protestant. Plus the Catholic population was still cohensive and loyal to the Church. Now the Establishment has become agnostic, or relativist, and the Church is divided. So criticism is less constrained . Nominal Catholics such as Carroll and Dowd are given platforms to denounce the Church’s sinfull opposition against the Establishment’s dictates.Only two of those quotes (Dawkins and Dowd) are really offensive, and Dawkins is much more so. Carroll’s comments disagree with the Church, but they aren’t anti-Catholic, or deranged, and the Los Angeles Times editorial is similarly not anti-Catholic. It also doesn’t show any growth in anti-Catholicism, because the sample size is far too small. All it shows is that Dowd and Dawkins are shooting off, but about Catholics. Meh. You’d need a Gallup Poll or something to show that anti-Catholicism is on the rise.
L
Lujack
Guest
Carroll was wrong, but what did he say that was anti-Catholic? Or does disagreement with an action taken by the Church equal anti-Catholicism?Anti-Catholicism has taken on a wholly new tone recently. Sixty years ago, Paul Blanshard railled against a rising Catholic power and Mrs. Roosevelt in more genteel tones echoed his opinion. . But they did not attack her viciously. They echoed English anti-Catholicism, which at its worst was more muted in tone that it was on the continent. That was because the Establishment was still Protestant. Plus the Catholic population was still cohensive and loyal to the Church. Now the Establishment has become agnostic, or relativist, and the Church is divided. So criticism is less constrained . Nominal Catholics such as Carroll and Dowd are given platforms to denounce the Church’s sinfull opposition against the Establishment’s dictates.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.