Catholic Disillusioned by Confederate Flag Defense by Pro-Life Catholic Radio Folks

[randomuser]

Our Faith also classifies patriotism as a virtue and we are to love our nation.

And in a democratic-Republic we are called explicitly to “mix politics and religion”.

Wait, what? No, we’re not - not when there’s a ‘separation of church and state,’ we are most certainly not called to ‘mix politics and religion.’

Furthermore, no American Catholic is under any obligation to honor (literally or figuratively) the LOSER flag when the only flag on the altar in most Catholic churches is the U.S. flag.

**Are there any Catholic churches anywhere in the country that have the LOSER flag in their sanctuary? I don’t think so. **

 

[DebChris]

Patrick Madrid “started out” at Catholic Answers.

As did Matt Pinto.

And a lot of other leaders in the evangelization field.

In his defense of Catholic teaching over mere solo scriptura, I like how Patrick Madrid shows how easy it is to misinterpret even a single sentence.

The news media reported that one of the Dylan Roof’s goals was to “start a race war.” Pictures were posted of the criminal with the Confederate flag, and anger flared. Stores began to remove the “offensive object” from shelves. Reruns of The Dukes of Hazards, which is nothing but a silly show were removed from the airwaves. Both Blacks and Whites with a different point of view began to defend “the loser” flag.

I did research, and as stated in my first post learned things that I had not known before including the symbolism of the St. Andrew’s Cross. As I think about this thread, what I don’t what to do is add to any sense of victimization or self-pity. I have listened to Morgan Freeman and agree with him when it comes to how best to fight racism. We begin to look at each other as individuals, or as Martin Luther King put it see the character of the person instead of the color of his skin.

We do not erase history, or stereotype a region of a nation. I often talk to people who actually lived under the Jim Crow laws, laws that were also in effect above the Mason-Dixon line. Nobody wants to go back to those days. Don’t be afraid to step outside, to read outside your comfort zone. Yes, I have read Twelve Years A Slave. I have also read Mandela’s Long Walk to Freedom. One of my favorite author’s is Wilbur Smith, a South African. In one of his books, the American was the villain.

One day I walked behind a young man with two young ladies who refused to cross the street with them. The bus depot was “across the street” and he wanted to protect them from those people. How do we learn about each other if we are afraid of each other? I ride the bus all the time. When my now grown grandson was four he asked why everybody in his class was brown and he was the only one that was apricot. That’s how race should be addressed, with complete innocence, without regard to who may be listening for the answer.

I know a little bit about censorship, what it is like to go through books and mark out passages that a government does not want students to be taught. Is that what you really want in this country as well? I have seen how people from the Indian subcontinent are treated. If you don’t want to listen to a certain program, then don’t listen. Don’t ask for any sympathy for not wanting to hear a different point of view, or fear of being offended. When I returned from overseas, the first credible threat was issued by the Jihadists against Americans. Educators are always the first to be threatened.

If you want to continue to fight to protect the right to life, you can fight against the eugenic practices of Planned Parenthood. Ask questions about why its clinics are in poorer areas while fertility clinics are in more affluent areas.

 

[ChaosGamma]

Wait, what? No, we’re not - not when there’s a ‘separation of church and state,’ we are most certainly not called to ‘mix politics and religion.’

Separation of church and state is a pretty lie, but it’s still a lie. It’s also condemned by the Church (St. Pius X, Vehementer), but, that’s another thing.

The fact is you can’t separate politics and religion.

“It is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it” - Leo XIII

As a practical matter, this would mean that, somehow, you’re supposed come up with a position on an issue without letting your religious beliefs inform your decision. Which would entail at least practical apostasy.

Furthermore, no American Catholic is under any obligation to honor (literally or figuratively)

We can at least agree here…

the LOSER flag when the only flag on the altar in most Catholic churches is the U.S. flag.

**Are there any Catholic churches anywhere in the country that have the LOSER flag in their sanctuary? I don’t think so. **

…but you seem a little hung up on the “loser” thing. I know that in the modern, materialistic world, success=right, but Catholics ought to reject such low thinking. I would argue that the flag of any godless secular republic has no place in a Catholic church. But then, I still pine for the return of the king over the water… God save Bonnie Prince Charlie!

Also, the whole slavery/Civil War thing really illustrates the failures of democracy and liberalism. The European monarchies and the Empire of Brazil managed to abolish slavery without a bloody conflict, much less a bloody conflict that violated the founding principles of the nation.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m not Republican, never have been, and the only “Catholic radio” I listen to is WAOB (We Are One Body), which seems to consist almost exclusively of local bishops and brothers saying prayers, rebroadcasting homilies by other bishops, past Popes, and the current Pope, an occasional presentation on a saint, and local families saying Rosaries, the Divine Mercy chaplet, and St. Brigid’s prayers.

Must say I prefer that kind of “Catholic radio” to whatever stations air all this commentary on politics.

The idea of Jesus being Republican or Democrat is laughable, given that he was born into a very politically charged atmosphere/ area and managed to avoid aligning with any of the groups then too.

I have always been and will continue to be a free speech advocate though, which means I usually end up having to stick up for whoever is making the “unpopular” speech this week. I had a friend who went into that line of work exclusively and is very well known in the field and he defends many people whom he personally does not agree with at all but he is concerned with the legal principles at stake, as am I.

 

[NonTimendum]

Wait, what? No, we’re not - not when there’s a ‘separation of church and state,’ we are most certainly not called to ‘mix politics and religion.’

Furthermore, no American Catholic is under any obligation to honor (literally or figuratively) the LOSER flag when the only flag on the altar in most Catholic churches is the U.S. flag.

**Are there any Catholic churches anywhere in the country that have the LOSER flag in their sanctuary? I don’t think so. **

Separation of church and state is a heresy.

Why do you feel so much hatred for young men who lived through such hardship? Is it jealousy?

Would there be a problem if there was?

 

[Claire091166]

To posters who compare ‘leaving’ ‘Catholic radio’ to losing faith, give me a break. You are right to feel disillusioned by this. People are, sorry to say, stupid.

Come the end times, ones opinions on the Confederate flag and the civil war won’t save one’s soul. It’s sad people give so much time to it.

Amen, Amen!!!

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Wait, what? No, we’re not - not when there’s a ‘separation of church and state,’ we are most certainly not called to ‘mix politics and religion.’

Furthermore, no American Catholic is under any obligation to honor (literally or figuratively) the LOSER flag when the only flag on the altar in most Catholic churches is the U.S. flag.

**Are there any Catholic churches anywhere in the country that have the LOSER flag in their sanctuary? I don’t think so. **

You realize that “separation of church and state” is not actual American policy as articulated in the Constitution.

It doesn’t exist.

It is a fiction.

[The wording occurred in a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to a private individual. But has been blown up out of proportion by the left.]

The first Amendment as adopted in 1791 reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

No such thing as “separation of church and state”.

 

[DebChris]

I’m not Republican, never have been, and the only “Catholic radio” I listen to is WAOB (We Are One Body), which seems to consist almost exclusively of local bishops and brothers saying prayers, rebroadcasting homilies by other bishops, past Popes, and the current Pope, an occasional presentation on a saint, and local families saying Rosaries, the Divine Mercy chaplet, and St. Brigid’s prayers.

Must say I prefer that kind of “Catholic radio” to whatever stations air all this commentary on politics.

The idea of Jesus being Republican or Democrat is laughable, given that he was born into a very politically charged atmosphere/ area and managed to avoid aligning with any of the groups then too.

I have always been and will continue to be a free speech advocate though, which means I usually end up having to stick up for whoever is making the “unpopular” speech this week. I had a friend who went into that line of work exclusively and is very well known in the field and he defends many people whom he personally does not agree with at all but he is concerned with the legal principles at stake, as am I.

Of course, while living overseas and attending Mass there were different nationalities. Each person prayed for the protection of the king in the land where we were living as well as personal homelands. There were few Westerners.
The American Constitution protects freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Wilberforce led the crusade against slavery in England after his conversion.
I know of few Catholic churches in which the American flag is displayed on or even near the altar, even on military posts. I have listened to Christian radio (not Catholic) and was confused when they talked about a Christian flag. Vatican City is a sovereign nation. Of course there is a papal flag. The issue of flags being displayed on the altar is mute.
My faith does matter when it comes to where I stand on issues. Where another person stands on a different issue is not going to change what is important to me. What might change my position are new facts that bring into question old ways of thinking.

An earlier post mentioned being Irish. The Irish have their flag and England has its. The French defeated the monarchy during their violent revolution. The fleur de lis symbolizes the monarchy, Still it remains a symbol of France. Versailles is a tourist attraction.

When we fail to see history as a continuum, and start to take out parts, there is a natural disconnect. The 13 colonies broke from England during the American Revolution. There are a number of events leading to a westward expansion of the United States as well as growing friction between a predominantly agricultural South and industrial North. Don’t leave out the people who were already here and the effects the “newcomers” had on their lives.
I always enjoyed history. Aljazeera recently did a 4 part documentary on the Crusades from an Arab perspective. I took my daughter one summer on a trip through Wisconsin’s Hidden Valley where I learned more about fur trading than is taught in schools. I have gone canoe camping in the Boundary Waters. I have lived through history, including being on the embassy grounds when there was an assassination attempt against an American ambassador.

I personally don’t have access to Catholic Radio. I did tune out political rhetoric from evangelical stations. When I tune into the radio I am looking for good music. If I watch EWTN, when I visit my daughter or another person with cable, I am looking for sound Catholic teaching. I delete e-mails that stray from the focused message into support for a particular candidate or party.

 

[jeannetherese]

.
If I wanted more black folks in the prolife movement, there is no way I would be able to “convert” them if I said, yes, I hate that all your babies are being killed, but I strongly support the Confederate Flag.

They might, on the other hand, understand you arguing that you hate that their babies are being killed AND you strongly support the right to free speech, which allows you to stand up for their babies.
Oftentimes, the way the argument is framed makes a difference.

 

[jeannetherese]

I wonder if the OP would mind giving examples of what the radio hosts actually said on their various shows that she found so objectionable? I skimmed thru on my phone but didn’t see any specific reference to content as I’d be interested in hearing the comments for myself. If I missed it, forgive me and I’ll point my browser in that direction to find the info

It seems that we’ve jumped to the conclusion that the hosts are bad people. seems like charity requires some specific allegations as to these disgraceful comments.

Agreed. It would be most helpful to have specific quotes and the names of the speakers and the context in which the words were spoken.
Perhaps a link to podcasts with the time of the quote which gave offense noted?
If you cannot find sources for your argument, please post that information. There’s not much point in discussing allegations which cannot be substantiated and harm the reputation of others.
Thanks so much.
jt

 

[DebChris]

They might, on the other hand, understand you arguing that you hate that their babies are being killed AND you strongly support the right to free speech, which allows you to stand up for their babies.
Oftentimes, the way the argument is framed makes a difference.

The same people who chartered planes and marched on Washington now want to deny others the same right to free speech because their message is not political correct.

In the 1960’s, the Black Panthers were articulate in their political expression. A person certainly did not have to accept their tactics in order accept their constitutional right to speak their minds.
The 1st Amendment gives voice to those who might not otherwise be heard.

It is unfortunate that in the last few years we have lost the art of reasoned debate. We do not have to agree with one another on every single issue in order to work together to get things done. This was pointed out by Governor Kasich because he dares to work with a Democrat amid speculation that he is planning a new presidential run. Who says we can’t work together without an outside motive?
As it rains in Houston, neighbors are not waiting for emergency personnel. They are helping each other. That is as it should be.

 

[Rhubarb]

You realize that “separation of church and state” is not actual American policy as articulated in the Constitution.

It doesn’t exist.

It is a fiction.

Sola Scriptura strikes again. There’s a lot more to American politics and government than the Constitution. It’s been like that since day 1.

 

[randomuser]

They might, on the other hand, understand you arguing that you hate that their babies are being killed AND you strongly support the right to free speech, which allows you to stand up for their babies.
Oftentimes, the way the argument is framed makes a difference.

Their babies? “Their babies”?

No - they’re OUR babies, all of us who profess to be pro-life. Much like how there’s no such thing as “illegitimate children” (only illegitimate parents), there’s no such thing as “their” babies - especially not in the context you none-too-subtly insinuate.

Who stands up for the babies when their mommies and daddies are getting gouged by insurance companies and hospitals? Who stands up for the babies when their mommies and daddies have to get a second and third mortgage to pay for those babies to be born? And who stands up for the babies after they’re born – especially “their babies”?

Respectfully, there’s not much room in the “pro-life” movement for those who are only “pro-birth.” There are way too many “pro-birth” people and not enough truly “pro-life” people. As Chris Christie famously said not too long ago, he’s “pro-life” for the…“other”…people in our society, too. As we all should be.

 

[dmelosi]

Their babies? “Their babies”?

No - they’re OUR babies, all of us who profess to be pro-life. Much like how there’s no such thing as “illegitimate children” (only illegitimate parents), there’s no such thing as “their” babies - especially not in the context you none-too-subtly insinuate.

Who stands up for the babies when their mommies and daddies are getting gouged by insurance companies and hospitals? Who stands up for the babies when their mommies and daddies have to get a second and third mortgage to pay for those babies to be born? And who stands up for the babies after they’re born – especially “their babies”?

Respectfully, there’s not much room in the “pro-life” movement for those who are only “pro-birth.” There are way too many “pro-birth” people and not enough truly “pro-life” people. As Chris Christie famously said not too long ago, he’s “pro-life” for the…“other”…people in our society, too. As we all should be.

I don’t know of a person who is only pro-birth, only those many that are married to their party that try to call pro-life something other than what it really is, to ease their conscience for so openly being an apologist for the party of death.

 

[randomuser]

In the 1960’s, the Black Panthers were articulate in their political expression. A person certainly did not have to accept their tactics in order accept their constitutional right to speak their minds.
The 1st Amendment gives voice to those who might not otherwise be heard.

Having gone to school with a lot of people whose parents were involved with the Black Panthers, I continue to be flabbergasted at just how much they have been demonized. First unexpectedly refreshing thing I have seen on CAF in quite a long time.

 

[randomuser]

I don’t know of a person who is only pro-birth, only those many that are married to their party that try to call pro-life something other than what it really is, to ease their conscience for so openly being an apologist for the party of death.

The GOP is the party of death. You can’t advance a “pro-life” agenda by demonizing those across the aisle, which is what you just did.

 

[DebChris]

I don’t know of a person who is only pro-birth, only those many that are married to their party that try to call pro-life something other than what it really is, to ease their conscience for so openly being an apologist for the party of death.

I do believe it has already been established earlier in this thread that being pro-life is not a matter of party affiliation. Where a person stands on one issue does not determine where a person stands on an unrelated issue.
There are many ways in which the pro-life movement reaches out to the mother to help her find the resources she needs. One prime example is Room at the Inn, which provides shelter for expectant mothers. Birthright helps with basic necessities. There are even diaper drives on college campuses sponsored by students themselves who are involved in the pro-life movement.
A few hospitals are starting to provide Finnish style baby boxes for newborns.
Nobody has questioned the value of any child’s life regardless of circumstances of conception or social environment.

 

[Claire091166]

One can talk about civil war history and whether it was about slavery or not about slavery or the St Andrews cross or getting used to seeing the swastika or the right to free speech or censorship or the southern states rights to defend themselves or the Dukes of Hazard, planned parenthood etc, etc.

The fact is, in this present day, both the display of the swastika and the confederate flag bring pain to your fellow brothers and sisters whose unborn babies you profess to care so much about. If one is prolife, wouldn’t you want to try to eliminate those things in the parents’ lives that bring pain, so they can keep their babies?

This is the crux of the matter to me. As Pope Francis said, when you meet a stranger who is hungry, you give him food. You don’t talk about free speech or their blood pressure or whatever. That may come later.

Jesus Christ did the same thing: he met people where they were and built from there.

I think the key thing lacking in a lot of these arguments as one commenter noted is empathy. This is sad and discouraging for those of us who are passionately prolife.

I listen to the show, Morning Glory, on EWTN, and during the police shootings last year, Gloria Purvis, the African American co-host of the show (and a prolife warrior) was often dismayed at the lack of empathy showed to the brothas who were killed by her fellow white Catholic Pro lifers.

Also, I attended a prolife dinner sponsored by Walter Hoye, a prominent prolife pastor who spent sometime in jail for refusing to support abortion. Another black prolife pastor said if white prolife folks spoke out against the injustices of what happened to Tamir Rice for example, there would be many more black people in the prolife movement.

As for samples that show Patrick Madrid’s defense, I posted links already. In one of the shows, you could hear the pain and anger in a callers voice as he took Mr. Madrid to task. I also called in to the same show.

As I said, my prayers are with y’all.

 

[dmelosi]

The GOP is the party of death. You can’t advance a “pro-life” agenda by demonizing those across the aisle, which is what you just did.

I am hopeful that some on the left will shake the “pied piper” affect and realize that abortion is the intentional and violent killing of the most innocent of human beings.

I am hopeful that when some on the left do shake that affect they will realize what they have been an apologist for.

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks to you and a few others for your understanding.
Yes, the word I sought for a few of the Confederate Flag Catholics was “unreal”.

As one commenter said, there is no separating the issues. I don’t believe that one can be prolife, yet still support the displaying of a flag that causes so much pain to your fellow brothers and sisters. Even if David Duke were against the killing of innocent babies in the womb, I could never in good conscience vote for him, because I would not consider him prolife. As someone else said, he would be pro birth.

Many have attempted to rationalize the display with historical explanations and such, but the fact is that the flag causes pain to others both now and in the past because of what it stands for. I have no problem if someone had the flag on their private property, but it does not have a place in public buildings etc.

I continue to be staunchly prolife and I pray daily for the Catholic Radio folks, but right now, I cannot see myself listening to Catholic Radio ever again. One never knows though.

I also challenge all those who support the display of the flag in public places to seriously think and pray about their position.

I’ll be upfront, I tend to follow topics like this in order to increase my understanding, which I know is lacking. I’m a white northern guy, so the Confederate flag doesn’t evoke a lot of feelings for me either with regards to racial issues or “southern pride.” But I want to be empathetic to others because I think it’s an important part of living the Christian life. :grouphug:

I can understand the association of the flag with slavery and racism because of the connection to the Civil War. So I do understand (though I’m sure not completely) how it can be such a source of pain. I do wonder how it is that the flag is still flown in places today. I have a hard time imagining that all people (ignoring, of course, the white supremacists) fly the flag for racist reasons. There has to be some other reason. Whether that reason is strong enough to continue flying it at government buildings is a discussion that needs to be had. I can’t say I’d contribute anything meaningful to such a conversation.

I can understand being disillusioned. I wouldn’t assume lack of charity on the part of Patrick Madrid or any other Catholic radio personality. I don’t think it’s out of malice. I know for me, I have a knee-jerk reaction to put on the brakes when people start talking about taking things down in light of some recent tragedy. Perhaps that is why these radio personalities were pushing back a little on the idea. I don’t know.

Sorry if my ramblings aren’t very helpful. I’m still thinking through these things.