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

[ProdglArchitect]

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?

This site chronicles several instances of feminism being militantly anti-man. True, the site does have an agenda, but its articles are generally accompanied by sources. In addition to this, pretty much any google search over modern feminism comes up with several links discussing the common anti-male state of the movement. The websites behind several feminist groups, as well as major leaders in the culture, have gone on record with highly anti-male sentiments. I recall one instance in which a woman stated that men’s only purpose was as a sperm donor, and beyond that they should have nothing to do with child rearing. (This is a common sentiment among the handful of feminists that I’ve had the displeasure of interacting with) I’m sorry that I don’t have more substantial links, but I’m at work and don’t really have time to do adequate searching.

I’m all for classic feminism, women are just as valuable as men, and deserve a fair shot in the workplace should they chose to enter into it. I do not agree with the vilification of motherhood, or the call for the reduction of the role of men in society.

 

[phil19034]

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?

I find it telling that every time an ethnic group that is predominantly Catholic immigrates into the US, there is discrimination against them. 1st the Irish, then Polish and Italians, now the Hispanics.

You don’t see the same kind of discrimination against Asians (except during WWII)

It’s an anti-Catholic undertone. Even if some people don’t know it.

BTW - I appoligize if I sound hateful or spiteful today, some of the articles I’ve read today have me riled up.

God Bless

 

[Dawnia]

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?

Here is an interesting article from a British feminist that talks about modern feminism and men.

 

[Murmurs]

This site chronicles several instances of feminism being militantly anti-man. True, the site does have an agenda, but its articles are generally accompanied by sources. In addition to this, pretty much any google search over modern feminism comes up with several links discussing the common anti-male state of the movement. The websites behind several feminist groups, as well as major leaders in the culture, have gone on record with highly anti-male sentiments. I recall one instance in which a woman stated that men’s only purpose was as a sperm donor, and beyond that they should have nothing to do with child rearing. (This is a common sentiment among the handful of feminists that I’ve had the displeasure of interacting with) I’m sorry that I don’t have more substantial links, but I’m at work and don’t really have time to do adequate searching.

I’m all for classic feminism, women are just as valuable as men, and deserve a fair shot in the workplace should they chose to enter into it. I do not agree with the vilification of motherhood, or the call for the reduction of the role of men in society.

Well that made interesting and enlightening reading! I’m aware of some of those quotations already.

Given that more than one of those people quoted (and others who might have been brought in too) went on to marry…kind of undermines the feminists = misandrists myth. Of course the radical feminist movement of the 1970s and '80s came up with nonsense like that: the point was to make noise and be noticed (similarly the denigration of marriage and extolling the virtues of lesbian relationships.

I’m very sorry that the close encounters you’ve had with active feminists have been so negative. We are not all like that. Plenty of us like pink things, monogamy, heterosexuality, etc etc etc. The point is, I want other women to have the choice too.

Anyway, ‘feminism’ is a stupendously large umbrella that covers (to coin a phrase) a multitude of sins.

Identifying a society in which men are inherently advantaged (as I said before, lots of individual men, and women, have it extremely rough, but this isn’t the same thing) over women - which, for convenience sake, is termed ‘patriarchy’ - and campaigning, suggesting, calling for means to address these societal imbalances, does not make a feminist a man-hater or man-denegrator. Feminists are fighting a system, not men.

Just as, for instance, I am sure no one here would tar all Muslims with the brush of fundamentalist terrorism because a tiny minority do advocate that sort of thing - please don’t do the same for the broader feminist movement.

I’ll try to remember to write something outrageous than can be pulled apart by people and post it on here tomorrow

God bless.

 

[ProVobis]

I find it telling that every time an ethnic group that is predominantly Catholic immigrates into the US, there is discrimination against them. 1st the Irish, then Polish and Italians, now the Hispanics.

Very much so. And it’s usually the Anglophone Catholics who despise the installation of Polish Masses, Spanish Masses, and the like within their parishes.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well that made interesting and enlightening reading! I’m aware of some of those quotations already.

Given that more than one of those people quoted (and others who might have been brought in too) went on to marry…kind of undermines the feminists = misandrists myth. Of course the radical feminist movement of the 1970s and '80s came up with nonsense like that: the point was to make noise and be noticed (similarly the denigration of marriage and extolling the virtues of lesbian relationships.

Unfortunately, it is the most vocal majority that tends to get recognized in our culture, and who’s ideals seem to receive the most support from the mainstream public. The radical feminists of the 70’s and 80’s have continued to influence feminism of today, and most of hte ideals that were developed in that time period are in still being expressed today, and with even greater fervor…

I’m very sorry that the close encounters you’ve had with active feminists have been so negative. We are not all like that. Plenty of us like pink things, monogamy, heterosexuality, etc etc etc. The point is, I want other women to have the choice too.

I know not all feminists are like that, and I recognize that there are still a number of disparities that need to be addressed. That said, I don’t believe the issues are as wide spread or severe as the vocal group and the media that supports them would indicate.

Identifying a society in which men are inherently advantaged (as I said before, lots of individual men, and women, have it extremely rough, but this isn’t the same thing) over women - which, for convenience sake, is termed ‘patriarchy’ - and campaigning, suggesting, calling for means to address these societal imbalances, does not make a feminist a man-hater or man-denegrator. Feminists are fighting a system, not men.

Certain feminists are fighting a system (which I don’t believe to be as broken as you would seem to indicate, but that discussion is far too involved for this thread), but many others are actively fighting men, seeking to diminish their role in society to an almost servile role, especially within the family. (The affects of the mindset of the man being unimportant to the family are readily apparent in the significant number of television shows and movies in which the men are presented as borderline incompetent, completely lacking in authority in the family, and who are give little to no respect by their children. They seem to exist in a purely antagonist role to set them against the perfect guidance and competence of the mother. Again, this is not every show or movie, but enough for it to be noticeable.)

Just as, for instance, I am sure no one here would tar all Muslims with the brush of fundamentalist terrorism because a tiny minority do advocate that sort of thing - please don’t do the same for the broader feminist movement.

I am not generalizing, I am speaking about a specific classification of feminist. That they are not the entirety of the feminist population does not negate that they are feminists, nor does it make referencing them using the term feminist inappropriate or a misrepresentation. Perhaps militant feminist would be a better qualifier for me to use.

I’ll try to remember to write something outrageous than can be pulled apart by people and post it on here tomorrow

God bless.

Have fun ^^

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’ve never understood the feminist thing. I agree originally, they had a good argument, getting us the right to education, voting, work outside of the home. But to me, these are issues of equality. We do have a lot of benefits courtesy of the work of earlier “feminists.” If I had lived in 1900, I would probably have supported these kinds of movements, who knows. But in my lifetime, I have never felt oppressed as a woman. I have always been free to do whatever I want. I am really suspicious of this need for empowerment. Can’t relate to it at all. I don’t feel weak. Am not on the left anymore (or at least right now), but even when I was I had a problem with this phenomenon. I used to say “I am a humanist” whenever feminism came up just to sidestep it. Even then I couldn’t figure out why women are seemingly so afraid to assume they have value just as an individual. Worry about who you are and your potential in the eyes of God, not your biology.

 

[manualman]

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.

Excellent comment worthy of additional comment. Anti-Catholicism was overt and rampant in this country until about WWII when it really started to wane. Not coincidentally, the WASPs in power up until that time had already started drastically declining in fertility rates while catholics were still having big families. We were rapidly overtaking them.

When it became apparent that outright suppression of catholics wasn’t going to work anymore, the strategy shifted to suborning catholics into something they could shape, something malleable. No coincidence that the first catholic president was a fellow who notoriously cheated on his wife, probably relied on his dad’s mob connections to win the election at all and publicly stated that his faith came second to his political duties. A pattern was created. Catholics willing to lower their faith to at most third priority in life became acceptable in American public life and the legacy WASP system went into action to welcome THOSE sorts of catholics into the halls of power.

So yes, we do tend to be our own worst enemies. But we’ve had rather some help in that regard from the historic forces of American anti-Catholicism. They got clever when they realized they were contracepting themselves out of power and threw their influence into creating a powerful faction of cafeteria catholics.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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

The problem is, many of the radical feminists are in positions of power, such as political positions or prominent journalists. Whether or not they are a minority among women at large, they are openly anti-male in many of their protocols, and liberally fling venomous words against those who do not embrace their doctrines as bigots or hate-mongers.

 

[MarcoPolo]

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?

Impostor Catholics are often paraded in all these positions under the guise of being actual faithful Catholics. You do not see even remotely the number of faithful Catholics given the platforms you mention versus anti-Catholic Catholics. I would not call pro-abortion, pro gay “marriage”, pro-contraception, anti-male clergy, etc… “Catholics” much of a representation of Catholics. Yet who gets these political positions but those very “Catholics.”

Pelosi. Kerry. Giuliani. Biden. Cuomo. Matthews. Etc…

Were they appointed to these positions because they are “Catholic.” No, the pattern is to appoint impostors who can be used to “discredit” the Church and misrepresent what a true Christian is called to believe. Thus, it is specious to try to argue that the mere appointment of so-called “Catholics” is evidence that anti-Catholic bigotry does not exist. Quite the contrary, impostors are advanced in the name of Catholicism to combat Catholicism.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Since Catholics frequently criticize Pelosi and other Catholic government officials for not voting/acting as true Catholics first – calling even for their excommunications for failing to do so – then I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for the FFRF to speculate that the five Catholic Supreme Court justices may have done just that in this case.

Catholics, Jews and Protestants sometimes have significantly different views on the morality of contraception. When one religious view has a super-majority on the court, I think the potential for non-representative decisions on that issue is real.

 

[abucs]

Since Catholics frequently criticize Pelosi and other Catholic government officials for not voting/acting as true Catholics first – calling even for their excommunications for failing to do so – then I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for the FFRF to speculate that the five Catholic Supreme Court justices may have done just that in this case.

Catholics, Jews and Protestants sometimes have significantly different views on the morality of contraception. When one religious view has a super-majority on the court, I think the potential for non-representative decisions on that issue is real.

In the same way the background and assumptions of the 4 dissenting judges can be questioned with regards to the way they voted.

 

[cornbread_r2]

In the same way the background and assumptions of the 4 dissenting judges can be questioned with regards to the way they voted.

As far as I know, only Catholics are obligated to hold one, dogmatically-defined view of contraception.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Since Catholics frequently criticize Pelosi and other Catholic government officials for not voting/acting as true Catholics first – calling even for their excommunications for failing to do so – then I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for the FFRF to speculate that the five Catholic Supreme Court justices may have done just that in this case…

That might have credence if it were not legally obvious that forcing a religious entity to pay for non-medical contraceptives contrary to their faiths is basic to the religious freedom restoration act. Additionally, the likes of Pelosi have appealed to misandry because the court did not vote how she wanted. She does not do this for the 9 male justices that voted for Row v Wade. In other words she has a pattern of appealing to bias wgen convenient. The evidence belies what you say is a fair claim of “speculation” on her part.

Also, Catholics don’t have a majority view. Most of the Catholic justices are Catholic in name only. Is is silly to suggest they have a history of voting “Catholic” or that any reasonable view of the history of current Catholic political figures have unfairly supported the Church. A better argument could be made that they consistently oppose the Church.

 

[MarcoPolo]

As far as I know, only Catholics are obligated to hold one, dogmatically-defined view of contraception.

That’s irrelevant for a number of reasons including that many non-Catholic groups are opposed to the mandate including Jews and other Christians and because legal arguments by those opposed to the mandate, which proponents seem unable to counter, are ignored in favor of nonsensical appeals to bigotry on the court.

 

[ProVobis]

Impostor Catholics are often paraded in all these positions under the guise of being actual faithful Catholics. You do not see even remotely the number of faithful Catholics given the platforms you mention versus anti-Catholic Catholics. I would not call pro-abortion, pro gay “marriage”, pro-contraception, anti-male clergy, etc… “Catholics” much of a representation of Catholics. Yet who gets these political positions but those very “Catholics.”

Pelosi. Kerry. Giuliani. Biden. Cuomo. Matthews. Etc…

Were they appointed to these positions because they are “Catholic.” No, the pattern is to appoint impostors who can be used to “discredit” the Church and misrepresent what a true Christian is called to believe. Thus, it is specious to try to argue that the mere appointment of so-called “Catholics” is evidence that anti-Catholic bigotry does not exist. Quite the contrary, impostors are advanced in the name of Catholicism to combat Catholicism.

So perhaps there should be a better way of counting Catholics? It seems that one would want to extend membership to as many as possible but when realizing a huge chunk don’t agree with you, you revoke their membership? Don’t take this the wrong way but is this what you’re saying? The Church counts and recognizes anyone who has been baptized a Catholic as a Catholic. AFAIK no one in the Church is going to or wants to reduce that 1.2 billion number just because they think they don’t comply with the Church’s teachings. You do make good points, however.

 

[MarcoPolo]

when realizing a huge chunk don’t agree with you, you revoke their membership?

Not me. When they obstinately don’t agree with Christ’s Church. In this case, when they consistently promote mortal sins they are excommunicated Latae sententiae. So, for example, when such “Catholic” politicians willfully fight tooth and nail for abortion “rights” and chastise the Church for defending the unborn, they revoke their own “membership.” See canons 751 and 1364, for example. It’s silly to describe such public figures as biased in favor of the Church simply because they usurp the label “Catholic.”

 

[ProVobis]

Not me. When they obstinately don’t agree with Christ’s Church. In this case, when they consistently promote mortal sins they are excommunicated Latae sententiae. So, for example, when such “Catholic” politicians willfully fight tooth and nail for abortion “rights” and chastise the Church for defending the unborn, they revoke their own “membership.” See canons 751 and 1364, for example. It’s silly to describe such public figures as biased in favor of the Church simply because they usurp the label “Catholic.”

I totally agree. But even those excommunicated still have to follow Canon (Catholic) Law and are still considered and counted as Catholics, albeit CINO.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As far as I know, only Catholics are obligated to hold one, dogmatically-defined view of contraception.

This isn’t substantively about contraception - it is about coercion that violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It is about forcing someone to purchase something they don’t want. In effect, it breaks “the long compromise worked out between the state and religious groups – do what you want within very broad limits, but don’t expect the state to promote it” or others to pay for it.

The issue is very well explained in this article from which the bolded quote above was also taken:

In this context, “Do what you want, as long as you don’t try to force me to do it, too” works very well, which is why this verbal formula has had such a long life. But when you introduce positive rights into the picture, this abruptly stops working. You have a negative right not to have your religious practice interfered with, and say your church forbids the purchase or use of certain forms of birth control. If I have a negative right not to have my purchase of birth control interfered with, we can reach a perhaps uneasy truce where you don’t buy it and I do. But if I have a positive right to have birth control purchased for me, then suddenly our rights are directly opposed: You have a right not to buy birth control, and I have a right to have it bought for me, by you.

bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-07/who-s-the-real-hobby-lobby-bully

Do you honestly think that individuals who have a “right” to behave sexually as they choose also have a right to force others to pay the cost for them to do so?

This ruling does not infringe on the rights of women to use birth control, but it does insist that women who use birth control do not have a right to force others to pay for it. An eminently reasonable legal decision that has nothing to do with being Catholic, just having a refined sense of justice.

Another good perspective…

tofspot.blogspot.ca/2014/07/a-hobby-in-lobby.html

As TOF points out, if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be comparable to requiring that “people who do not care for model trains … pay for the equipment used by those who do.”

 

[manualman]

Since Catholics frequently criticize Pelosi and other Catholic government officials for not voting/acting as true Catholics first – calling even for their excommunications for failing to do so – then I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for the FFRF to speculate that the five Catholic Supreme Court justices may have done just that in this case.

This might be a valid criticism if the Supreme Court had suddenly declared contraception to be unconstitutional. But it’s so far over the top as to be absurd when the decision was, essentially, a finding that the government doesn’t have the right to compel people who don’t believe in it to pay for it for people who do.

This isn’t some arbitrary and frivolous doctrine like the JW’s prohibition on blood transfusions. This aspect of catholic teaching is directly supported by the objective facts of modern fertility statistics. Did you realize that not ONE nation on earth in which contraception is widely available, cheap and socially respectable has an above replacement fertility rate? Not ONE? It’s one thing to make something that so radically alters human civilization legal and enable people to go buy it if they want it. It’s quite another thing to demand that those who philosophically object to it to pay for it for others. Especially when most crucial life-saving medicines and treatments still require copays under the SAME law!

Freedom is when you can do what you understand to be good and refrain from doing what you understand to be evil. Tyranny is when somebody else forces you to do evil things or things primarily for the benefit of somebody else. Based on that, which side is Obama on and which side is the SC on in this case?