Cardinal Dolan: NY Times Adds to Long History of Anti-Catholic Bigotry in the US

[McCall1981]

ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-dolan-ny-times-adds-to-long-history-of-anti-catholic-bigotry-in-th/

**Cardinal Dolan: NY Times Adds to Long History of Anti-Catholic Bigotry in the US **

The New York archbishop said in a July editorial the ad suggests that the justices’ Catholic faith makes it impossible for them ‘to protect the cherished Constitution they have sworn on a Bible to uphold.’

NEW YORK — A New York Times ad criticizing Catholic Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom case is part of a long history of anti-Catholic bigotry in the U.S., Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York said.
“In keeping with a long, shadowy, legacy of antipathy, justices who happen to be Catholics… are branded and bullied by a group who only succeed in providing the latest example of a prejudice that has haunted us for centuries,” Cardinal Dolan said in his July 3 column for Catholic New York.
The cardinal facetiously thanked the Freedom From Religion Foundation for giving him “yet another handout” for his talks on anti-Catholic bigotry in the United States.
The secularist foundation’s full-page ad, headlined “Dogma should not trump our civil liberties,” ran July 3 on page 10 in the Times’ front section.
The ad claimed that the “all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority” on the Supreme Court “puts religious wrongs over women’s rights.”
It claimed that the Supreme Court majority in the Hobby Lobby case was an “ultra-conservative, Roman Catholic majority” that sided with “zealous fundamentalists.”
The ad reacted to the Supreme Court’s June 30 5-4 ruling that the Obama administration violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in attempting to mandate that closely held corporations provide employees with insurance coverage for possible abortifacient drugs.
The legal cases concerned Hobby Lobby, a craft store giant owned by a Protestant family, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, which is owned by a Mennonite family. Both employers objected that they could not provide some of the required drugs without violating their religious beliefs.
The five justices who ruled in Hobby Lobby’s favor are Catholic; one remaining Catholic justice, Sonia Sotomayor, sided with the Obama administration, as did justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, who are Jewish.
On June 30, Huffington Post blog contributor Ronald A. Lindsay, head of the secular humanist Center for Inquiry, asked “Is it appropriate to have six Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court?”
Lindsay claimed that the majority in the Hobby Lobby case “may now be resurrecting concerns about the compatibility between being a Catholic and being a good citizen, or at least between being a good Catholic and an impartial judge.”
The National Organization for Women has also grouped many Catholic organizations, including the Little Sisters of the Poor, EWTN, the University of Notre Dame and several Catholic dioceses, as the “Dirty 100” because they are plaintiffs in cases challenging the federal mandate on religious freedom grounds.
Cardinal Dolan said the Freedom From Religion Foundation ad did not provide a “robust examination” of the decision in a way that attacked ideas and viewpoints.
Rather, its arguments attacked persons, “the weakest and most vicious of arguments.”
He said the ad “attacks the people on the court, and implies that their Catholic faith makes it impossible for them to protect the cherished Constitution they have sworn on a Bible to uphold.”
The cardinal said that the decision was not surprising, citing White House sources who said they knew the mandate would not pass constitutional muster.
“Scholars, journalists, and thoughtful commentators have elsewhere convincingly defended the unsurprising and long-predicted Supreme Court defense of ‘our first and most cherished freedom,’ religious liberty, from the hyperbolic over-reaction of the ideologues who claim that there is a ‘war on women’,” the cardinal said.
He also noted that Catholic Supreme Court justices have made “frequent votes” that are not in accord with Catholic teaching.
Cardinal Dolan described the Freedom From Religion Foundation as “notoriously anti-Catholic.” He said that the foundation would not take out an ad, and a newspaper would not publish an ad, questioning Jewish, Baptist or Mormon public figures on the grounds of their religious affiliation.
He claimed that the ad was part of a long line of bigotry against Catholics dating back centuries, to New England Puritans, to the anti-Catholic nativists and Know-Nothings of the 19th century, and the Ku Klux Klan and other groups which included Catholics among the objects of their hate in the 20th century.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which had filed an amicus brief against Hobby Lobby, claimed that the Hobby Lobby ruling allows employers “to decide what birth control an employee can use,” charging that this is not an “exercise of religion,” but “of tyranny.”
The foundation’s ad called for the repeal of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law passed by overwhelming majorities and signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton in response to Supreme Court decisions which weakened religious freedom protections.
Its ad follows similar attacks targeting the Hobby Lobby decision on the basis of the Catholic affiliation of the justices in the majority.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Not that the 3 women voting the same way says anything about women since all 3 female justices are predictably leftist, but 24 of 39 female federal judges all made decisions against the mandate in lower courts. That makes the grand total 24 of 42 female judges against the mandate, or 57.1%. I wonder if groups like NOW will go on a rampage against the “bigotry” of these female judges as they do the Church.

 

[phil19034]

Not that the 3 women voting the same way says anything about women since all 3 female justices are predictably leftist, but 24 of 39 female federal judges all made decisions against the mandate in lower courts. That makes the grand total 24 of 42 female judges against the mandate, or 57.1%. I wonder if groups like NOW will go on a rampage against the “bigotry” of these female judges as they do the Church.

NOW will only go against these women if they are Catholic…

I agree with the Cardinal 100%… this is an attack on Catholics.

It’s time for Catholics to stand up and figuratively fight back. Catholic women need to start being vocal and standing up for Church teaching on these subjects. Read Saint John Paul the Great: His Five Loves and learn about the Theology of the Body so you can fight this garbage. It’s going to be hard for men to fight this fight, which is why we need our Catholic women and other devout women of other religions fighting this.

I never felt like I would wind up a martyr for my Faith in the United States… but I fear that day might come.

 

[edwest2]

ncregister.com/daily-news/cardinal-dolan-ny-times-adds-to-long-history-of-anti-catholic-bigotry-in-th/

**Cardinal Dolan: NY Times Adds to Long History of Anti-Catholic Bigotry in the US **

NEW YORK — A New York Times ad criticizing Catholic Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom case is part of a long history of anti-Catholic bigotry in the U.S., Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York said.
“In keeping with a long, shadowy, legacy of antipathy, justices who happen to be Catholics… are branded and bullied by a group who only succeed in providing the latest example of a prejudice that has haunted us for centuries,” Cardinal Dolan said in his July 3 column for Catholic New York.
The cardinal facetiously thanked the Freedom From Religion Foundation for giving him “yet another handout” for his talks on anti-Catholic bigotry in the United States.
The secularist foundation’s full-page ad, headlined “Dogma should not trump our civil liberties,” ran July 3 on page 10 in the Times’ front section.
The ad claimed that the “all-male, all-Roman Catholic majority” on the Supreme Court “puts religious wrongs over women’s rights.”
It claimed that the Supreme Court majority in the Hobby Lobby case was an “ultra-conservative, Roman Catholic majority” that sided with “zealous fundamentalists.”
The ad reacted to the Supreme Court’s June 30 5-4 ruling that the Obama administration violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in attempting to mandate that closely held corporations provide employees with insurance coverage for possible abortifacient drugs.
The cardinal said that the decision was not surprising, citing White House sources who said they knew the mandate would not pass constitutional muster.
“Scholars, journalists, and thoughtful commentators have elsewhere convincingly defended the unsurprising and long-predicted Supreme Court defense of ‘our first and most cherished freedom,’ religious liberty, from the hyperbolic over-reaction of the ideologues who claim that there is a ‘war on women’,” the cardinal said.
He also noted that Catholic Supreme Court justices have made “frequent votes” that are not in accord with Catholic teaching.
Cardinal Dolan described the Freedom From Religion Foundation as “notoriously anti-Catholic.” He said that the foundation would not take out an ad, and a newspaper would not publish an ad, questioning Jewish, Baptist or Mormon public figures on the grounds of their religious affiliation.
He claimed that the ad was part of a long line of bigotry against Catholics dating back centuries, to New England Puritans, to the anti-Catholic nativists and Know-Nothings of the 19th century, and the Ku Klux Klan and other groups which included Catholics among the objects of their hate in the 20th century.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, which had filed an amicus brief against Hobby Lobby, claimed that the Hobby Lobby ruling allows employers “to decide what birth control an employee can use,” charging that this is not an “exercise of religion,” but “of tyranny.”
The foundation’s ad called for the repeal of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a 1993 law passed by overwhelming majorities and signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton in response to Supreme Court decisions which weakened religious freedom protections.
Its ad follows similar attacks targeting the Hobby Lobby decision on the basis of the Catholic affiliation of the justices in the majority.

Cardinal Dolan, in laying out the facts, must remind us as Christians, and non-Christians, that there is a right and wrong. That opinions are not facts, that slogans are not facts. I watched the latest assault on Christianity and human decency and morals, unfold in the late 1960s. All of the anti-Christian activity has been well documented and names of groups, organizations and individuals have been named. Some of these people have left behind books and other writings that unambiguously laid out the combined strategies of apparently, at the time, disconnected groups. As time passed, the connections became evident, and are documented as well.

The same radical feminism from that time period still exists today in a vicious way. They have created class warfare between men and women that mirrors classic Marxist class warfare principles. The patriarchy - all men with power, including the Church - must be overthrown and replaced with women. One of the founders of the National Organization for Women, Betty Friedan, called the family “a comfortable concentration camp.” Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem even denied a species relationship between men and women, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

I praise Cardinal Dolan for being one of the voices speaking the truth to his Catholic brothers and sisters and to all men of good will.

From the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Neither God or the Church will force anyone to love Him. Those who deny God or have different beliefs usually cannot be seen just by looking at people, unless they are wearing some particular symbol or sign.

But let us not, out of a sense of boredom, invent things with no good ends, or propose ideas that lead to no good ends. Too many “changes” over the last 40 years have been created by people and we are not better off. We are not happier. Too many of us are in bondage because we have been sold evil disguised as (false) freedom.

amazon.com/The-Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption/dp/1581824599

May God have mercy,
Ed

 

[PJH_74]

That opinions are not facts, that slogans are not facts.

Indeed

The same radical feminism from that time period still exists today in a vicious way. They have created class warfare between men and women that mirrors classic Marxist class warfare principles. The patriarchy - all men with power, including the Church - must be overthrown and replaced with women.

Please help me understand where the facts start and the opinion ends.

But let us not, out of a sense of boredom, invent things with no good ends, or propose ideas that lead to no good ends. Too many “changes” over the last 40 years have been created by people and we are not better off. We are not happier. Too many of us are in bondage because we have been sold evil disguised as (false) freedom.

I’d strongly suggest you try to understand the concept of majority privilege. Your world order and dominance in it being challenged doesn’t mean that the world is worse off or it is against God’s will. I would never argue that everything that has happened in the last 40 years has been good or great, but some historic in equities have finally started being addressed. These changes may make you uncomfortable, force you to share power, or acknowledge another group’s view point, but that does not make them intrinsically evil.

 

[Murmurs]

The same radical feminism from that time period still exists today in a vicious way. They have created class warfare between men and women that mirrors classic Marxist class warfare principles. The patriarchy - all men with power, including the Church - must be overthrown and replaced with women. One of the founders of the National Organization for Women, Betty Friedan, called the family “a comfortable concentration camp.” Feminist icon, Gloria Steinem even denied a species relationship between men and women, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

I think you’re right to praise Cardinal Dolan for his words - but at the same time the attack on feminism is…a little unfair (to say the least).

Because, basically - some developments of feminist thought aside which I’d imagine most people on this site disagree with (regarding sex, perhaps, being one)…we live in a world teeming with inequality - the point of feminism is to remove that inequality.

The world of course is changing, but have a quick think about politicians, CEOs, film directors, the police, comedians, IT professionals, professional mathematicians, etc…these are fields dominated by men (in my neck of the woods at least, by white men). The fact that a woman gets to be head of a large (if rather haphazard) company (Marissa Mayer at Yahoo, for instance), or a head of government (Angela Merkel in Germany, for instance), tends to still get reported because she’s a woman rather than that she’s particularly good at her job (though both of those two examples clearly are). In other words, finding a woman in these sorts of positions is still a remarkable phenomenon, though happily one which is becoming much more common.

My point is, to attack the basic principle of feminism (which is gender equality), and to claim that there is no systematic inequality keeping women and minorities out of these sorts of jobs, generally, is to claim that men (or white people, or whatever), are just naturally better. If there is no social structure favouring men, then it must stand to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in high-level specialised fields.

It’s perfectly fine to believe that (though maybe it’s a little discouraging). But, if one does, (and especially if one is a man), then one should own up to the fact that it is a self-serving point of view.

While we’re on the subject, introduced by someone else, we ought to clear up the feminists-hate-men-conspiracy nonsense. A woman being nasty to a guy, is a woman not liking him personally (or she’s just an unpleasant person). This is a shame, but women, like men, are allowed to dislike people. That isn’t misandry - it’s misTimdry. Or whoever he is. It’s not built into culture and codified into law, and Tim can be confident most women aren’t harbouring latent prejudices about him that could cost him a job or threaten his safety. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some isolated incidents where a mean woman hurts Tim on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem which results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

Of course, men have it bad too: held up to unreasonably expectations about their bodies and careers and their ability/desire to conform to traditional tropes of masculinity (there are posts in this forum from men worried about this). That is absolutely oppressive. There are radical feminists and deeply hurt women and women who just don’t have any diplomatic patience who absolutely hate men because of their gender (though for what it’s worth, I’ve never met any). That is an unpleasant place to be, especially when as a man you’re being blamed for the seemingly distant problems of people you’ve not met and towards whom you don’t feel any particular hostility.

The difference, though is that the RadFem community on Tumblr doesn’t currently hold the reins of power in every country in the world. Because even in nations with female heads of state/government, the political and economic power structures are still dominated by men. No, of course individuals don’t have the ability, or responsibility, to address this imbalance on their own, but refusing to acknowledge that power structure at all, is pretty much a slap in the face to people actively disadvantaged by it every day of their lives.

I can now hear a rhetorical antifeminist yelling “But my life wasn’t fair either. I’ve had to struggle for it”. Of course I recognise that. But that’s not how fairness works. If one presents total fairness as the goal – that at some point in the future everything will be “fair” for everyone – one slips into the realms of fantasy. Life already isn’t fair, because of coincidence and circumstance and DNA, and we all have to accept the hands we’re dealt at birth and live in that reality: and maybe make unions a little more effective and try to force the enactment of living wages and better-subsidised education and research into mental illness and a host of other things.

But we also need feminism, because life doesn’t have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement that only affect certain groups. That’s surely something we can fight against.

I think this went off-topic a bit. Sorry about that…

God Bless

 

[edwest2]

Indeed

Please help me understand where the facts start and the opinion ends.

I’d strongly suggest you try to understand the concept of majority privilege. Your world order and dominance in it being challenged doesn’t mean that the world is worse off or it is against God’s will. I would never argue that everything that has happened in the last 40 years has been good or great, but some historic in equities have finally started being addressed. These changes may make you uncomfortable, force you to share power, or acknowledge another group’s view point, but that does not make them intrinsically evil.

In order for me to comment, you’ll have to provide specific examples of inequities being addressed over the last 40 years.

Do not assume how I feel about things. Please ask me instead. I would like to understand your point of view.

Best,
Ed

 

[Cmc1972]

I think you’re right to praise Cardinal Dolan for his words - but at the same time the attack on feminism is…a little unfair (to say the least).

Because, basically - some developments of feminist thought aside which I’d imagine most people on this site disagree with (regarding sex, perhaps, being one)…we live in a world teeming with inequality - the point of feminism is to remove that inequality.

The world of course is changing, but have a quick think about politicians, CEOs, film directors, the police, comedians, IT professionals, professional mathematicians, etc…these are fields dominated by men (in my neck of the woods at least, by white men). The fact that a woman gets to be head of a large (if rather haphazard) company (Marissa Mayer at Yahoo, for instance), or a head of government (Angela Merkel in Germany, for instance), tends to still get reported because she’s a woman rather than that she’s particularly good at her job (though both of those two examples clearly are). In other words, finding a woman in these sorts of positions is still a remarkable phenomenon, though happily one which is becoming much more common.

My point is, to attack the basic principle of feminism (which is gender equality), and to claim that there is no systematic inequality keeping women and minorities out of these sorts of jobs, generally, is to claim that men (or white people, or whatever), are just naturally better. If there is no social structure favouring men, then it must stand to reason that men simply work harder and/or are more skilled in high-level specialised fields.

It’s perfectly fine to believe that (though maybe it’s a little discouraging). But, if one does, (and especially if one is a man), then one should own up to the fact that it is a self-serving point of view.

While we’re on the subject, introduced by someone else, we ought to clear up the feminists-hate-men-conspiracy nonsense. A woman being nasty to a guy, is a woman not liking him personally (or she’s just an unpleasant person). This is a shame, but women, like men, are allowed to dislike people. That isn’t misandry - it’s misTimdry. Or whoever he is. It’s not built into culture and codified into law, and Tim can be confident most women aren’t harbouring latent prejudices about him that could cost him a job or threaten his safety. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some isolated incidents where a mean woman hurts Tim on purpose. But it is not a systemic problem which results in the mass disenfranchisement of men.

Of course, men have it bad too: held up to unreasonably expectations about their bodies and careers and their ability/desire to conform to traditional tropes of masculinity (there are posts in this forum from men worried about this). That is absolutely oppressive. There are radical feminists and deeply hurt women and women who just don’t have any diplomatic patience who absolutely hate men because of their gender (though for what it’s worth, I’ve never met any). That is an unpleasant place to be, especially when as a man you’re being blamed for the seemingly distant problems of people you’ve not met and towards whom you don’t feel any particular hostility.

The difference, though is that the RadFem community on Tumblr doesn’t currently hold the reins of power in every country in the world. Because even in nations with female heads of state/government, the political and economic power structures are still dominated by men. No, of course individuals don’t have the ability, or responsibility, to address this imbalance on their own, but refusing to acknowledge that power structure at all, is pretty much a slap in the face to people actively disadvantaged by it every day of their lives.

I can now hear a rhetorical antifeminist yelling “But my life wasn’t fair either. I’ve had to struggle for it”. Of course I recognise that. But that’s not how fairness works. If one presents total fairness as the goal – that at some point in the future everything will be “fair” for everyone – one slips into the realms of fantasy. Life already isn’t fair, because of coincidence and circumstance and DNA, and we all have to accept the hands we’re dealt at birth and live in that reality: and maybe make unions a little more effective and try to force the enactment of living wages and better-subsidised education and research into mental illness and a host of other things.

But we also need feminism, because life doesn’t have to be additionally unfair because of imposed systems of disenfranchisement that only affect certain groups. That’s surely something we can fight against.

I think this went off-topic a bit. Sorry about that…

God Bless

Brilliant post.

Women in general are treated like **** and worse across the world and here.

We need to get away from labeling people lefties are righties or conservative or liberal.

We are all God’s children and deserve to be treated equally.

 

[edwest2]

"In the mid-70s and early 80s the radicals moved in and patriarchy theory was established. Slowly but surely they acquired more and more power in feminist organisations. It is a sad fact of life that often the people with the loudest rather than the most honourable voice get the power. The radicals drowned out the moderates within their ranks and used their authority to impose their dogma on feminism. With government funding and support from a misled, misinformed public, they lobbied our governments, media and business community to push their propaganda. Over the decades this has had a deleterious impact on education, virtually every branch of government service, our legal system, our economy, politics, the family and perhaps most importantly our culture.

“A movement that started out as a legitimate effort to advocate for women’s equality, has been transformed into a hate movement. Radical feminists justify their actions on the basis of their belief system in patriarchy and male oppression of women. Instead of finding a cooperative framework to advocate for women’s rights between the genders, men have been pitted against women. Modern feminism is now a movement that seeks to acquire power at the expense of men in a win/lose zero sum game. This is no longer about equality for them, it is about power. The “us against them” mentality is not only destructive, but also has no basis in reality. What impacts one gender will eventually impact the other. We see this in men’s education and their subsequent working life. Unemployment and poor academic performance among men is starting to have a negative impact on women’s lives. Women are struggling with their partners to pay off a mortgage primarily on one wage and in finding Mr Right.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[CarolNoel]

Brilliant post.

Women in general are treated like **** and worse across the world and here.

We need to get away from labeling people lefties are righties or conservative or liberal.

We are all God’s children and deserve to be treated equally.

Well, I am past being tired of hearing the word feminist. Maybe we can nix that label too, and while we are at it the word Ms. Sounds like a hissing snake when you say it.

 

[ProVobis]

If there is such anti-Catholic bigotry in the U.S. how did six Catholics happen to be appointed and confirmed to the SC by the Senate in the first place? And what about elected to the Senate? What about all the Catholics on MSNBC and Huffington Post?

It seems to me that Catholics are their own worst enemies if anything.

 

[Dawnia]

"In the mid-70s and early 80s the radicals moved in and patriarchy theory was established. Slowly but surely they acquired more and more power in feminist organisations. It is a sad fact of life that often the people with the loudest rather than the most honourable voice get the power. The radicals drowned out the moderates within their ranks and used their authority to impose their dogma on feminism. With government funding and support from a misled, misinformed public, they lobbied our governments, media and business community to push their propaganda. Over the decades this has had a deleterious impact on education, virtually every branch of government service, our legal system, our economy, politics, the family and perhaps most importantly our culture.

“A movement that started out as a legitimate effort to advocate for women’s equality, has been transformed into a hate movement. Radical feminists justify their actions on the basis of their belief system in patriarchy and male oppression of women. Instead of finding a cooperative framework to advocate for women’s rights between the genders, men have been pitted against women. Modern feminism is now a movement that seeks to acquire power at the expense of men in a win/lose zero sum game. This is no longer about equality for them, it is about power. The “us against them” mentality is not only destructive, but also has no basis in reality. What impacts one gender will eventually impact the other. We see this in men’s education and their subsequent working life. Unemployment and poor academic performance among men is starting to have a negative impact on women’s lives. Women are struggling with their partners to pay off a mortgage primarily on one wage and in finding Mr Right.”

Peace,
Ed

Feminists are the worst kind of haters when it comes to women who don’t agree with their obnoxious and vulgar ideas.

 

[powerofk]

If there is such anti-Catholic bigotry in the U.S. how did six Catholics happen to be appointed and confirmed to the SC by the Senate in the first place? And what about elected to the Senate? What about all the Catholics on MSNBC and Huffington Post?

It seems to me that Catholics are their own worst enemies if anything.

There actually is an huge undercurrent of anti-Catholic bigotry in the US; there has been since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock. However, due to anti-discrimination laws, one’s religion (along with race, sex/gender, marital status, national origin, disability - as long as a “reasonable accommodation” can be made) is not allowed to be taken into account for any reason regarding employment, housing, etc. As such, no questions about one’s religion are allowed to be asked. But - it doesn’t preclude others from criticizing Catholicism’s belief system.

 

[PJH_74]

Feminists are the worst kind of haters when it comes to women who don’t agree with their obnoxious and vulgar ideas.

Yeah, something obnoxious about someone wanting to assert themselves It’s vulgar to want to be judged by what you can accomplish and not the role you are expected to play.

 

[Dawnia]

Yeah, something obnoxious about someone wanting to assert themselves It’s vulgar to want to be judged by what you can accomplish and not the role you are expected to play.

Neither of which are exclusive to feminism or women for that matter.

 

[ProVobis]

There actually is an huge undercurrent of anti-Catholic bigotry in the US; there has been since the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock.

That part is true. (The same coincidentally can be said for Catholicism under Henry VIII as well.)

However Catholicism made great strides in both the UK and US since the mid 19th century and it seems at least until the mid 20th century.

 

[Memaw]

NOW will only go against these women if they are Catholic…

I agree with the Cardinal 100%… this is an attack on Catholics.

It’s time for Catholics to stand up and figuratively fight back. Catholic women need to start being vocal and standing up for Church teaching on these subjects. Read Saint John Paul the Great: His Five Loves and learn about the Theology of the Body so you can fight this garbage. It’s going to be hard for men to fight this fight, which is why we need our Catholic women and other devout women of other religions fighting this.

I never felt like I would wind up a martyr for my Faith in the United States… but I fear that day might come.

AMEN. But first we need to learn our true faith and not what the media and society has watered it down to. We need to listen to the CHURCH and not all the other “opinions” that have been coming down the pike for the last 50 years, both inside the Church and outside of it. So many X-Protestant ministers are coming into the Catholic Faith because they have followed the path of TRUTH. They make stronger Catholics then most of us ‘cradle’ Catholics. And far more knowledgeable! Thank God for them! God Bless, Memaw

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Yeah, something obnoxious about someone wanting to assert themselves It’s vulgar to want to be judged by what you can accomplish and not the role you are expected to play.

This has very little to do with modern feminism. I’ll agree that feminism as it was originally intended (women being allowed to hold jobs, etc) is fine. The ideals that modern feminists expound, however, expand far beyond “equality” and actively degrade men, as well as women who wish to “forsake” their potential career to be homemakers. Desiring to be judged based on what you can accomplish is fine, but that’s really not what modern feminists appear to be after. (note, this is not to be applied to all women or feminists, but rather the highly vocal sect that is pushing for these things. They’re what gets heard, so they’re what are most commonly associated with feminism.)

 

[Murmurs]

This has very little to do with modern feminism. I’ll agree that feminism as it was originally intended (women being allowed to hold jobs, etc) is fine. The ideals that modern feminists expound, however, expand far beyond “equality” and actively degrade men, as well as women who wish to “forsake” their potential career to be homemakers. Desiring to be judged based on what you can accomplish is fine, but that’s really not what modern feminists appear to be after. (note, this is not to be applied to all women or feminists, but rather the highly vocal sect that is pushing for these things. They’re what gets heard, so they’re what are most commonly associated with feminism.)

I’m not quite sure how the ‘active’ or ‘vocal’ feminist movement is (or is perceived) in the United States. However I am pretty sure that - some radical minorities aside (as with anything, the ones who are most extreme get the attention, even if they’re not the real expression of the wider movement) - feminists do not remotely want to degrade men (nor women who choose to be homemakers: the whole point is having the option either way). I don’t want to take this thread way off-topic (if there is lots of discussion I shall post something…somewhere here…tomorrow and link it through for anyone who is interested) - but feminism at its core is about equality for men as well.

Maybe I am naive. I consider myself a feminist (though not uncritical of some of what the movement seems now to be about) - but can you provide an example of men being actually degraded by the feminist movement?

 

[ProVobis]

However, due to anti-discrimination laws, one’s religion (along with race, sex/gender, marital status, national origin, disability - as long as a “reasonable accommodation” can be made) is not allowed to be taken into account for any reason regarding employment, housing, etc. As such, no questions about one’s religion are allowed to be asked. But - it doesn’t preclude others from criticizing Catholicism’s belief system.

If you take into account 40-45% of U.S. Catholics are hispanic, you can very well argue that these factors are present in many places in the US, some places more than others, of course. Then my argument of having Catholics battling Catholics is even more valid, no?