Atheists Step Up 'It's Time to Quit the Catholic Church' Campaign

[Abba]

Why should it offer a discount?

On account of their anti-Catholic agenda. I think Father Groeschel a couple of years ago asked that we stop buying it. If he did not explicitly state it and not that he wouldn’t; he made the point that it would not be a bad idea to boycott them. This would have been on his Sunday live show. Of course, it’s best to keep informed of their attacks to fight back.

My understanding is that The New York Times is not simply anti-catholic but their real agenda is to promote homosexuality and same sex-marriage and so they attack the Catholic Church.

Here is a nice informative article regarding this matter: cnsnews.com/blog/patrick-j-buchanan/anti-catholicism-and-new-york-times

For more info, just Google The New York Times and anti-Catholicism.

Btw, I meant to type Gs on the other post.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

On account of their anti-Catholic agenda.

Do you see anti-Catholicism in the basketball scores or in the restaurant reviews?

I think Father Groeschel a couple of years ago asked that we stop buying it. If he did not explicitly stated and not that he wouldn’t; he made the point that it would not be a bad idea to boycott them. This would have been on his Sunday live show.

He is certainly entitled to his own opinion.

My understanding is that The New York Times is not simply anti-catholic but their real agenda is to promote homosexuality and same sex-marrigage and so they attack the Catholic Church.

Your understanding? Your remark makes it sound as though you don’t ever read the Times. Do you not read the Times? I subscribe to it, and I can tell what is anti-Catholic and what isn’t. They do not “promote” those things. The Times is, BTW, the best newspaper in the United States. My own opinion.

 

[Lochias]

This is what happens in many parts of the world. It is different in countries where religion is strong, such as the US or Saudi Arabia, and where religion is established, such as in the UK. Then religion does tend to intrude on the lives of unbelievers, asking us to pray, to acknowledge god(s) in oaths, to pay taxes for religious education (in the UK or Saudi Arabia), or to support religious chaplaincies etc. I think people should be free to live their own lives, religious or not, and while I enjoy discussing belief, there is no benefit to me if someone becomes an unbeliever.

Great, but we’re talking about Catholicism in the U.S. These particular unbelievers are unabashed hypocrites.

 

[Abba]

Do you see anti-Catholicism in the basketball scores or in the restaurant reviews?

No.

Your understanding? Your remark makes it sound as though you don’t ever read the Times. Do you not read the Times? I subscribe to it, and I can tell what is anti-Catholic and what isn’t. They do not “promote” those things. The Times is, BTW, the best newspaper in the United States. My own opinion.

Yes, and you as well are entitled to your opinion.

I use to read the Times everyday and the Wall Street Journal, I don’t anymore. I use to subscribe to Forbes and Newsweek too. Now, I use a variety of sources to keep informed. I still pick up the Journal and the Times every once in a while. I use to have the Times in a pedestal but the pedestal eroded and collapsed. There are human beings with human interests behind all these media venues and I like always being alert to this fact when I read.

My personal opinion is that they do promote those things and this comes through irregardless of their efforts to present a situation concerning the Catholic Church as unbiased professional journalism.

catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=818

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

There are human beings with human interests behind all these media venues and I like always being alert to this fact when I read.

My position, too.

My personal opinion is that they do promote those things and this comes through irregardless of their efforts to present a situation concerning the Catholic Church as unbiased professional journalism.

On the Opinion pages, rather than in the news, but it comes down to your and my having differing views of the Times.

 

[sw85]

I agree. Extremism in either direction is incompatible with Catholicism.

I’m going a bit farther than mere condemnations of extremism (and I object to the dualistic understanding of pseudoconservatism and modern liberalism – they are more alike than this conception gives on).

In order to be a faithful Catholic, you must deviate so much from liberalism that you are no longer recognizably liberal. Deviation from conservatism is also required, but the degree of correction is not so strong as to warrant a strict negation of what is lamentably termed “conservatism” nowadays. For instance, a “conservative” may reasonably exhibit concern for the poor and a desire to reorganize society so as to give them special preference. We call such people “blue-collar conservatives” or “populists.” That’s because economics are not especially criterial to conservatism. It is mainly a social philosophy, and it can be adapted to most any economic belief system. By contrast, you cannot call yourself a liberal (in the meaningful, modern sense of the word) if you subscribe to a brand of liberalism from which, for instance, sexual liberalism has been amputated. Most liberals will argue this themselves.

In other words, what is central and critical to liberalism is incompatible with what is central and critical to Catholicism. The same is not true of pseudoconservatism.

 

[unafraid]

I’m going a bit farther than mere condemnations of extremism (and I object to the dualistic understanding of pseudoconservatism and modern liberalism – they are more alike than this conception gives on).

In order to be a faithful Catholic, you must deviate so much from liberalism that you are no longer recognizably liberal. Deviation from conservatism is also required, but the degree of correction is not so strong as to warrant a strict negation of what is lamentably termed “conservatism” nowadays. For instance, a “conservative” may reasonably exhibit concern for the poor and a desire to reorganize society so as to give them special preference. We call such people “blue-collar conservatives” or “populists.” That’s because economics are not especially criterial to conservatism. It is mainly a social philosophy, and it can be adapted to most any economic belief system. By contrast, you cannot call yourself a liberal (in the meaningful, modern sense of the word) if you subscribe to a brand of liberalism from which, for instance, sexual liberalism has been amputated. Most liberals will argue this themselves.

In other words, what is central and critical to liberalism is incompatible with what is central and critical to Catholicism. The same is not true of pseudoconservatism.

This entire hypothetical debate illustrates the perilous high-wire-act of bridging the chasm between religion and politics. Unfortunately, we live in times that make that difficult crossing an inevitable moral imperative.

As for me, I’ll trust the Magisterium to determine who can, and cannot, be considered a member of the Roman Catholic Church. The only thing I can speak to is the fact that the person sitting in the pew next to me at Mass on Sundays is most assuredly sitting beside a flawed sinner (myself) seeking mercy…regardless of my voting record.

 

[Just_Lurking]

So are people here really opposed to the atheists’ efforts to get cafeteria Catholics to leave the Church? I thought that’s what everyone here at CAF wanted as well.

 

[unafraid]

So are people here really opposed to the atheists’ efforts to get cafeteria Catholics to leave the Church? I thought that’s what everyone here at CAF wanted as well.

You are mistaken. These Cafeteria Catholics are our sacramental brothers and sisters in the faith, therefore, our strong yearning, and prayers, are for them to return to the fold (family).

What everyone here on CAF wants is for healing and unity. Heretics and apostates choose to ostracize themselves, and even then, we pray for their reconversions. Some of our Church’s greatest evangelists are lapsed Catholics who have seen the light, repented, ammended their lives, and come home to the “True Faith”.

And, as for the efforts of the “New Atheists”, we stand in opposition to any and all of them in toto, regardless of any other factors. Of that, you can be certain.

 

[Cinette]

*Have recently purchased the book “Rage Against God” - how atheism led me to faith - by Peter Hitchens - have not yet had time to read it. He is the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens. Should be a good read.

May God bless the Atheists and may the Holy Spirit lead them to faith.

Cinette
*

 

[Dale_M]

According to a press release from the Catholic League, the offensive advertisement appears in today’s New York Times
standardnewswire.com/news/486947076.html

The Freedom From Religion Foundation website states that the ad appears on page 10, front section. It also mentions that the New York Times required that the title of the ad be changed from ‘It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church,’ to ‘It’s Time to Consider Quitting the Catholic Church.’

The website quotes their co-president, Dan Barker, who called the required change “disappointing” and that it was "a sign of the Catholic Church’s inordinate power to intimidate and muzzle criticism.”

I’m sure everyone here is aware of the tremendous influence the Catholic Church has with the New York Times.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You are mistaken.

Thanks for the correction. I’ve been reading too many “The cafeteria is closed: No soup for you!” threads.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I agree. Extremism in either direction is incompatible with Catholicism.

:clapping:

This.

 

[sw85]

So are people here really opposed to the atheists’ efforts to get cafeteria Catholics to leave the Church? I thought that’s what everyone here at CAF wanted as well.

That’s kind of a loaded question and it doesn’t lend itself to an easy answer. Obviously we would prefer they stay in the Church, but we want them to stay in the Church as obedient Catholics. They aren’t doing themselves any favor by lying about what they believe, rebelling against the Church’s magisterium, and desecrating the precious body and blood of Christ. Those of them who don’t repent of their errors will probably suffer the worst fates of anyone, because their rebellion is more perfect than those who are more ignorant of the Church’s teachings.

For myself, I would say I want them to be honest about what they believe and why they believe it (most aren’t), and mold their life accordingly. After all, lying is a sin, too, so they’re going to sin whether or not they remain active in the life of the Church. So yes, I think in the long run it will be better for everyone if cafeteria Catholics apostasized. Or, rather, formalized their heretofore only functional apostasy. But even this is a suboptimal choice. Clearly there need to be major changes to the way society is ordered in order not to produce these kinds of dilemmas in the first place.

 

[Tigg]

So are people here really opposed to the atheists’ efforts to get cafeteria Catholics to leave the Church? I thought that’s what everyone here at CAF wanted as well.

The dissidents have sent a clear message that they remain in the church only to affect change. They are not content to leave us and Church doctrine alone, and altho we pray incessantly for their conversion, we also pray that God will silence HIS enemies.

 

[Lochias]

According to a press release from the Catholic League, the offensive advertisement appears in today’s New York Times
standardnewswire.com/news/486947076.html

The Freedom From Religion Foundation website states that the ad appears on page 10, front section. It also mentions that the New York Times required that the title of the ad be changed from ‘It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church,’ to ‘It’s Time to Consider Quitting the Catholic Church.’

The website quotes their co-president, Dan Barker, who called the required change “disappointing” and that it was "a sign of the Catholic Church’s inordinate power to intimidate and muzzle criticism.”

I’m sure everyone here is aware of the tremendous influence the Catholic Church has with the New York Times.

Indeed. Heck, I can’t get enough of their foundation’s name…“Freedom From Religion.” What exactly is it that they’re trying to be “free” from? Are there priests and nuns with guns to their heads as we speak? Do they avoid walking the streets at night for fear of the Catholic Church?

 

[90Domer]

And they dare to say atheism is not a religion?

Really? From this angle they don’t look any different from any other religious fanatic - except the god they worship is themselves.

 

[Rebelecka]

Getting my info from newadvent.com
creativeminorityreport.com/2012/03/nyt-ad-quit-catholic-church.html

Perhaps those who are “nominal” (in name only is the common deffinition) Catholics should leave the church if they do not believe the Church’s teachings. Maybe there would only be a remmanet left–hasn’t this happened throughout the ages to both Jews and Christians?
Why are you aiding and abetting a church that has repeatedly and publicly announced a crusade to ban contraception, abortion and sterilization, If you do not agree with church teaching are you really a Catholic?
and to deny the right of all women everywhere, Catholic or not, to decide whether and when to become mothers? None of the women I know have any trouble getting these things…Catholic or not
Is it an offense against Jehovah Witnesses that health care coverage will include blood transfusions? They are allowed to refuse blood transfusions, just as practicing Catholics will not use contraception, abortion & sterilization
Be aware that this HHS mandate is to require that contraception, abortifacients and sterilizations is required to be offered via insurance even by Catholic Insurance companies and by all catholic agencies that are not part of worship and/or owned by the Church proper (such as Cathoic Charities, EWTN, catholic universities, catholic hospitals, etc.).
A wonderful priest I once knew (decesed, may God receive and bless him) said, “Be Catholic or begone!” (he was a bit crusty!)

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

Can’t they use this 53.000 dollars to support the poor and needy?

 

[TevereNauta]

Indeed. Heck, I can’t get enough of their foundation’s name…“Freedom From Religion.” What exactly is it that they’re trying to be “free” from? Are there priests and nuns with guns to their heads as we speak? Do they avoid walking the streets at night for fear of the Catholic Church?

Gives a whole other meaning to ‘Shotgun Wedding’, doesn’t it?

To be fair, most atheists, the ones I have met and some who are my friends, simply want to live and let live. They have NO interest in what other people believe so as long as those people don’t try to force their beliefs on them. Indeed, the most open-minded of them make for excellent conversationalists.

Dawkins and his cadre, however, and the Freedom from Religion folks, are a whole other kettle of fish. They are obviously angry, and have it out for Christians in general, and the Church specifically. I won’t speculate on what their specific ‘issues’ are what what their baggage is, but I’d bet they have both aplenty. We have trolls on the internet, and trolls in real life too. They too, shall pass.

On the bright side their borderline fanaticism has done more to foster Ecumenism than any number of meetings and councils. And that, I think, is a very good thing.