Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

[martino]

Then we have a difference in perception. My experience…and this is my experience, is that the people I find myself explaining the Catholic faith to the most is catholcs. I think Sean hannity is sharp, I think he doesn’t understand a key issue of the faith, why would the average reader, let alone a catholic reader understand the issue of indulgences (Probably the most misunderstood issue in our faith)?

I do not think you would be anit-catholic. We are on a Catholic forum and it is the issue we are speaking about. If you were a first time poster claiming to be a Bible Christian (Non-catholic) I would ask you to clarify if mean at the time of reformation or currently.

I do understand your perception, I spent all day yesterday explaining to someone what an indulgence is. It is very very misunderstood. But her point wasn’t to deny the teaching of indulgences, she only wanted to make the parrellel between the selling of indulgences to the selling of carbon credits, both of which are corrupt practices, at least in her mind and mine also.

Im a little uneasy about the Hannity comparison because his point was to deny a certain Church teaching and that is something altogether different.

I would never side with anyone who claimed that the Catholic Church is false or that any of her teachings are false.

But you are right because it is a problem of perception i guess.

 

[Tom317]

I’m glad that you would stop short of calling me anti-Catholic, but I wonder why so many felt it Ok to call her anti-Catholic.

I know it’s getting boring and I sound like broken record but the point of the statement was that liberals are “selling indulgences” and calling them “carbon credits”. Her example was right on spot and did a very good job of making the point. Not because it’s a sore spot with Catholics but because it is commonly understood by all that it is a “corrupt practice”. Point being that buying carbon credits is a corrupt practice. There is no othe analogy that makes the point so clearly.

That is exactly what she said. I see no need to go into detail about how indulgences work today.

The very fact that the sale of indulgences is a huge sore spot for Catholics, and that it is not a simple topic to beging, means she should not have used the analogy. If she is a good writer, she could have used straight forward language to drive her point home, instead she chose to use a huge sore spot among a billion people in this world…now that is truly a dumb thing to do.

While the sale of those indulgences was wrong, it is not as simple as saying it was wrong. The culture of the time, how governments worked, the influence of the Church on the governments, the need the Church had, etc., and the fact that all of those indulgences were valid, just not properly done. None of that is even hinted at when a person uses a troubled event as analogy.

 

[lsusportsfan]

I do think the general tone and also as doing it for a comparison to Global warming makes it seem like she is saying it is phooey. That being said I think we can parse what she meant all day long and her intentions etc. I am pretty sure that Ann is not going to be writing a piece on her further view of indulgences and its history. I think the casual reader will get the impression that Indugences are aagin a medival creation and is nonsense. I can see that on the blogs and forums now.

So my interest is far less defending or demonizing Coulter than trying to correct a misconception. Also maybe Pope Leo X needs a little defending here too. I have seen him metioned on the blogs and the myths continue.

For instance this problematic
“It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences”

So are Papal indulgences corrupt? Was Pope John Paul the II corrupt when he issued them?

Again the issue is not ANN or her intent. The issue is that this has furthered misunderstanding of Catholic Doctrine

 

[lsusportsfan]

Here is a sample of what is on the blogs

Coulter goes on to equate “carbon offsets” with papal indulgences—basically, get into heaven free cards in the Middle Ages—whereas we thought of them more like wealthy families buying their sons out of the Civil War. Gore says he’s paying his way out of guilt instead of recrafting his life to meet his very public mission, which seems to be to bring down Western civilization through unproven, sometimes junk, science.

thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=522

And that’s really what it comes down to; global warming has turned into a religion. Albeit, a corrupt one. A corrupt religion of the scope of Catholicism, pre- Martin Luther.
I say it’s time for a reformation

bitsblog.florack.us/?p=5470

Ann pick’s on Al, his large carbon offsets and his larger weight problem - but then she equates Carbon Offests with one of my favorite aspects of the Cathlic religion -Papal Indulgences. You know, where after you sin you pay the church some money and you’re sin meter is moved back to zero again, and again, and again. Just like Gore’s carbon offsets, where you can pollute all you want as long as you pay a little extra.

kimexplainsitall1944.typepad.com/kim_explains_it_all/2007/03/nobody_expects_.html

For those who are unaware, in the early part of the Sixteenth Century, Pope Leo X effectively codified the practice of selling indulgences. This practice led Martin Luther to write his 95 theses and thus was born the reformation and the Protestant Church.

In Catholic theology, an indulgence is like an excuse slip from your mother. It allows those who are “in communion with the church” to be excused of venial sins they have committed. Some people believe that the Catholic Church has discarded that part of their theology, but that is not the case. What they have done is to eliminate the sale of indulgences and to crack down on their use as a “get out of jail free” mechanism.

therogersinstitute.blogspot.com/2007/03/edwards-claims-his-mega-mansion-is.html#comments

Not saying we should not say there were abuses but again this junk is largely go by unresponded too. I am trying to respond via comment section

 

[Michael_C]

Here is a sample of what is on the blogs

thecarconnection.com/blog/?p=522

bitsblog.florack.us/?p=5470

kimexplainsitall1944.typepad.com/kim_explains_it_all/2007/03/nobody_expects_.html

therogersinstitute.blogspot.com/2007/03/edwards-claims-his-mega-mansion-is.html#comments

Not saying we should not say there were abuses but again this junk is largely go by unresponded too. I am trying to respond via comment section

Good post. This is why I cringe when I hear someone flippantly talking about the Church. The message Anne sent to many can be summed up in this quote taken form one of the blogs:

“And that’s really what it comes down to; global warming has turned into a religion. Albeit, a corrupt one. A corrupt religion of the scope of Catholicism, pre- Martin Luther.”

 

[Michael_C]

Good post. This is why I cringe when I hear someone flippantly talking about the Church. The message Anne sent to many can be summed up in this quote taken form one of the blogs:

“And that’s really what it comes down to; global warming has turned into a religion. Albeit, a corrupt one. A corrupt religion of the scope of Catholicism, pre- Martin Luther.”

Sorry, didn’t realize you quoted this already. I was too busy reading the blogs.

 

[lsusportsfan]

LOl, no problem. And those are blogs I found in like 2 minutes. If I used Techorati I could prob find hundreds more. Add that to the million of political forums then one realizes there is a problem lol.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

I would hardly say that someone who has to use insults is intelligent.

Adamantly Disagreeing with someone does not mean you are isulting them.

"liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions "
“The only place Al Gore conserves energy these days is on the treadmill.”
“last time I saw him on TV I thought, “That reminds me – we have to do something about saving the polar bears.””
“Never mind his carbon footprint – have you seen the size of Al Gore’s regular footprint lately? It’s almost as deep as Janet Reno’s.”
“Gore may have a small carbon footprint, but he has a huge carbon butt-print”

No insults there.

'course first I went looking for a link to another article of hers that someone posted - but the mods saw fit to remove it already.

 

[Keikiolu]

Did anyone else catch Ann Coulter’s vicious and gratuitous slam at the Catholic Church in her column yesterday? She has a paragraph that begins, “It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to come up with the corrupt practice of papal indulgences.”
I certainly hope that some Catholic in public life like Robert Novak or Buckley or Bill Donohue will take her on. I was shocked! Perhaps I should not have been.

townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/03/21/the_coming_***_age
you need to click on the more+ at the right of the screen and look for A. Coulter for the article
Anne Carmel

Oh come on…!!

While she obviously doesn’t fully understand what she’s talking about re “indulgences”, the “icon” of “selling favors for money” is a popular and pervasive one.

It wasn’t a shot at the Church per se. It was an example of a great institution having a “perceived” problem with corruption.

Were all Popes and clergy always “perfect men”?

No.

Does that fact constitute a “shot at the Church”?

No.

Nice to know about the liberal bias of the OP, though.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Fitz]

Ann has quite the sharp tongue and she has been the topic of many a thread in Catholic Answers. I read her article and I was mad about her commment. Then I reread it, and had to admit that many a Protestant mentions the selling indulgences thing and they also do the paying for annulments if you are rich enough like a “Kennedy”. However, I have also heard Ann say that she would never vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. Ann is a Protestant bigot, IMHO. I know I have read her stuff and lauged at some of her nonsense, but she is only able to accept a Protestant in power. She gets wealthy with her outrageous statements and writings. OK. She makes some good points and I do find her interesting. She has a very quick mind, and I find that fascinating. However, she is Ann and she offends many. That is her MO. Now she has offended Catholics. During the primaries she will offend Mormons. She routinely offends Muslims.

 

[martino]

Well I give up at this point. Like Michael said, its a difference of perception.

If indulgences are misunderstood it is not because of anything Ann Coulter did or didnt say. They are misunderstood because the Church has failed to teach us what they are.

All the stuff your seeing on the blogs was there before her column came out I promise you.

I think this is a case of political correctness run amuck. You are not allowed to mention facts the sensitive Catholics may find offensive. Well not just Catholics, we cannot mention anything that anyone may find offensive.

That is another hot topic altogether though.

 

[martino]

Ann has quite the sharp tongue and she has been the topic of many a thread in Catholic Answers. I read her article and I was mad about her commment. Then I reread it, and had to admit that many a Protestant mentions the selling indulgences thing and they also do the paying for annulments if you are rich enough like a “Kennedy”. However, I have also heard Ann say that she would never vote for Romney because he was a Mormon. Ann is a Protestant bigot, IMHO. I know I have read her stuff and lauged at some of her nonsense, but she is only able to accept a Protestant in power. She gets wealthy with her outrageous statements and writings. OK. She makes some good points and I do find her interesting. She has a very quick mind, and I find that fascinating. However, she is Ann and she offends many. That is her MO. Now she has offended Catholics. During the primaries she will offend Mormons. She routinely offends Muslims.

Ok i was going to shut up but this is a total lie. You have not heard her say that she would never vote for Romney because he was a mormom. I challenge you right now…either correct yourself or produce the evidence.

I have heard her say that as of now she would have to vote for Romney because he is the only pro-life guy that is running so far. She said she likes Giuliani but would note vote for him unless he changed his position on abortion. This was on the O’Reilly Factor. Bill even asked her again…'so you’re a Romney guy" and she said, YES “unless Giuliani changes his position on abortion”.

I can produce the entire transcript if necessary. You need to tell us where you heard her say she wouldn’t vote for him because he is a Mormon.

Let’s see if this link works:

youtube.com/watch?v=m5MgtzyUMuc

 

[litllulu]

Ok i was going to shut up but this is a total lie. You have not heard her say that she would never vote for Romney because he was a mormom. I challenge you right now…either correct yourself or produce the evidence.

I have heard her say that as of now she would have to vote for Romney because he is the only pro-life guy that is running so far. She said she likes Giuliani but would note vote for him unless he changed his position on abortion. This was on the O’Reilly Factor. Bill even asked her again…'so you’re a Romney guy" and she said, YES “unless Giuliani changes his position on abortion”.

I can produce the entire transcript if necessary. You need to tell us where you heard her say she wouldn’t vote for him because he is a Mormon.

Let’s see if this link works:

youtube.com/watch?v=m5MgtzyUMuc

I always thought Romney WAS prochoice. I have heard him referred to as the prochoice mormon.

 

[Fitz]

You need to tell us where you heard her say she wouldn’t vote for him because he is a Mormon.

Hey, you are right. I did see her interviewed on Fox, but I stand corrected. I think she said he would have problems because he was Mormon. I have not kept up with her latest appearances with Mitt Romney. She likes Guilliani but she won’t vote for a prochoice candidate. That was all part of the interview if I remember.

However, we are on a Catholic site and I think telling me that I lie is quite harsh. As far as I know we can state what we think without a news link. I was mistaken but not lying. I believe we call it an error. Not posting on this thread again. Bye.

 

[rlg94086]

I always thought Romney WAS prochoice. I have heard him referred to as the prochoice mormon.

Nope. Like Ronald Reagan, he was pro-choice, but his views changed. He had 4 bills pass his desk as governor of Massachusetts which sought to expand abortion rights, and he vetoed them all. He also fought against gay marriage and the cloning of embryonic stem cells at Harvard (unfortuntately he lost those fights). So, he has a record to back up his claim of being pro-life.

Compare his stance and record against the two front-runners, and I think it is easy to see who is a better pro-life candidate.

 

[rlg94086]

Hey, you are right. I did see her interviewed on Fox, but I stand corrected. I think she said he would have problems because he was Mormon. I have not kept up with her latest appearances with Mitt Romney. She likes Guilliani but she won’t vote for a prochoice candidate. That was all part of the interview if I remember.

However, we are on a Catholic site and I think telling me that I lie is quite harsh. As far as I know we can state what we think without a news link. I was mistaken but not lying. I believe we call it an error. Not posting on this thread again. Bye.

I saw the same interview, and I believe you recall it correctly. She did not say she wouldn’t vote for him, but I think she did say something about having trouble with his mormonism - she may have just said something like “his mormonism may be a problem.” I’m not sure.

 

[martino]

I saw the same interview, and I believe you recall it correctly. She did not say she wouldn’t vote for him, but I think she did say something about having trouble with his mormonism - she may have just said something like “his mormonism may be a problem.” I’m not sure.

No, when she was asked if it would be a problem she said, “no, the republican party is a big tent and they have a working knowledge of God.”… i paraphrased a bit because i cant remember it verbatim.

 

[martino]

Hey, you are right. I did see her interviewed on Fox, but I stand corrected. I think she said he would have problems because he was Mormon. I have not kept up with her latest appearances with Mitt Romney. She likes Guilliani but she won’t vote for a prochoice candidate. That was all part of the interview if I remember.

However, we are on a Catholic site and I think telling me that I lie is quite harsh. As far as I know we can state what we think without a news link. I was mistaken but not lying. I believe we call it an error. Not posting on this thread again. Bye.

I have no problem retracting the “lie” comment. But you have to admit that a false assersion like that would certainly seem like a lie especially put in the context of this thread where so many people simply do not like her. i have become accustomed to people just lying to try and prove a point.

It seems as though you inadvertantly made a false statement. So I apologize for calling it a lie.

 

[martino]

LOl, no problem. And those are blogs I found in like 2 minutes. If I used Techorati I could prob find hundreds more. Add that to the million of political forums then one realizes there is a problem lol.

type in “i hate ann coulter” or anything negative about her and I bet you get twice as many blogs attacking her as you do people attacking the practice of indulgences.

 

[marybee]

type in “i hate ann coulter” or anything negative about her and I bet you get twice as many blogs attacking her as you do people attacking the practice of indulgences.

Martino, we can all see that you are the president of the Ann Coulter Fan Club.