Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

[Tom317]

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.

Which should tell you that she is doing far more harm then good. It is one thing to speak bluntly (like Father Corapi does), it is quite another thing to talk bluntly and to constantly insult people. There is simply no need to bash people, there is never a good reason to do that and it is always a sign of an immature person.

 

[a_priori]

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.

People don’t care about indulgences because they see them as part of the superstitious unsophisticated past. They see the Catholic Church as an anachronism that is increasingly irrelevant. We did that. We created a vacuum because we clamored for the same things the worlds clamors for and with equal zeal and abandon. Instead of being salt and light by taking the commands of Christ seriously, we look and act just like everyone else. What other conclusion could they come to?

We need to change that by our works, not by screaming louder than the next person. Let Ann scream. We should be about our Father’s business.

 

[martino]

People don’t care about indulgences because they see them as part of the superstitious unsophisticated past. They see the Catholic Church as an anachronism that is increasingly irrelevant. We did that. We created a vacuum because we clamored for the same things the worlds clamors for and with equal zeal and abandon. Instead of being salt and light by taking the commands of Christ seriously, we look and act just like everyone else. What other conclusion could they come to?

We need to change that by our works, not by screaming louder than the next person. Let Ann scream. We should be about our Father’s business.

the only thing i have left to say about all of this is that i love your Bob Dylan quote!

We may not agree on Coulter but I think we would probably agree on Dylan.

 

[Tom317]

People don’t care about indulgences because they see them as part of the superstitious unsophisticated past. They see the Catholic Church as an anachronism that is increasingly irrelevant. We did that. We created a vacuum because we clamored for the same things the worlds clamors for and with equal zeal and abandon. Instead of being salt and light by taking the commands of Christ seriously, we look and act just like everyone else. What other conclusion could they come to?

We need to change that by our works, not by screaming louder than the next person. Let Ann scream. We should be about our Father’s business.

Yes, it is truly sad that so many Catholics do not understand the continuing value of indulgences. What is funny is the Church is blasted for selling indulgences, yet truthfully how many people would not line-up to buy a remission of sins if they could?

 

[martino]

For the record, I am a huge fan of indulgences!

 

[a_priori]

the only thing i have left to say about all of this is that i love your Bob Dylan quote!

We may not agree on Coulter but I think we would probably agree on Dylan.

Dylan is more important than Coulter anyway. Now your talkin’… I knew we were in agreement. Thank you.

 

[a_priori]

Yes, it is truly sad that so many Catholics do not understand the continuing value of indulgences. What is funny is the Church is blasted for selling indulgences, yet truthfully how many people would not line-up to buy a remission of sins if they could?

I’m not sure indulgences have any “continuing value” except to show where the Church got sideways a little while ago. But the concept of a get-out-of-jail-free card is indeed part of the American psyche.

 

[Tom317]

I’m not sure indulgences have any “continuing value” except to show where the Church got sideways a little while ago. But the concept of a get-out-of-jail-free card is indeed part of the American psyche.

Catholics can still receive indulgences and they are still of incredible value.

Here is a very good definition of an indulgence:

*In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth. *

The Church has been given the power of the keys, which means what it binds and looses on earth, is bound and loosed in Heaven, which means indulgences are very real benefit for thos who receive them.

 

[a_priori]

The Church has been given the power of the keys, which means what it binds and looses on earth, is bound and loosed in Heaven, which means indulgences are very real benefit for thos who receive them.

I am still in RCIA and have yet to come up to speed on all these issues. But I don’t think “indulgence” is a word that most Catholics wish to scream from the rooftops.

 

[jman507]

I am still in RCIA and have yet to come up to speed on all these issues. But I don’t think “indulgence” is a word that most Catholics wish to scream from the rooftops.

That is a shame, they are a very good thing.

Perhaps it’s not even the indulgence itself, but the act of trying to gain one, is very worthy in itself.

 

[Tom317]

I am still in RCIA and have yet to come up to speed on all these issues. But I don’t think “indulgence” is a word that most Catholics wish to scream from the rooftops.

Yes, but they should! It is a wonderful gift and it is a gift that literally ALL Catholics should avail themselves of. Purgatory is no game, and to have our sins remitted while still alive helps our stay in Purgatory to be shorten. These are undeniable facts, not guesses.

 

[Tom317]

The sad thing is all souls in Purgatory believe in indulgences and in the productivity of our prayers for them. Indulgences, and Purgatory and signs of great mercy.

 

[Tom317]

Ann Coulter clearly holds the typical attitude towards indulgences, one that says indulgences are a joke and were simply used in an abusive way. She shows she has no clue about the Catholic faith, other then the hot points to blast Catholics.

 

[rlg94086]

Ann Coulter clearly holds the typical attitude towards indulgences, one that says indulgences are a joke and were simply used in an abusive way. She shows she has no clue about the Catholic faith, other then the hot points to blast Catholics.

If she shows the “typical attitude” and “has no clue” about indulgences, then why do you assume she is then using them to “blast Catholics.” That is illogical. If she had a clue and disapproved of the correct practice of indulgences, then it would make sense.

It was years after converting to Catholicism before I found out that indulgences still exist. I thought they were an abuse that happened before the Reformation and then they were abolished. Since most non-Catholics don’t know indulgences still exist in today’s Church, then I would argue that Coulter was commenting on an historical event.

 

[Tom317]

If she shows the “typical attitude” and “has no clue” about indulgences, then why do you assume she is then using them to “blast Catholics.” That is illogical. If she had a clue and disapproved of the correct practice of indulgences, then it would make sense.

It was years after converting to Catholicism before I found out that indulgences still exist. I thought they were an abuse that happened before the Reformation and then they were abolished. Since most non-Catholics don’t know indulgences still exist in today’s Church, then I would argue that Coulter was commenting on an historical event.

The point I am making is that many anti-Catholic people have several often used “things” they use to bash the Church. The mis-use of indulgences that supposedly lead to Luther’s break with the Church is one of those often used issues of the past that people sight to directly blast the faith, or to indirectly blast the faith (as Ann did).

Ann, imo, used indulgences because she thinks of it as an ugly mark in the Catholic past and that most people reading her article would agree with the analogy. That is, imo, an anti-Catholic tactic because she used it with cold calculation that most people would agree with her and she used what she considers and ugly mark on the Church of over one-billion people to drive home her point. I wonder if she would use an ugly part of her own past as an analogy, something tells me she would not.

As for indulgences, as I said before, it is quite sad that Catholics do not know the incredible benefit of recieving indulgences because every Catholic can receive them many times a year if they so desired–including three weeks from now mon Divine Mercy Sunday.

If Ann knew the truth of indulgences, she would not have used them as an analogy, yet she does not know what they are or that they still can be recieved, she fell back to the usual anti-Catholic bashing that so many Protestants have done since the Protestant Revolt.

 

[rlg94086]

The article is not a “Catholic bashing” article at all. She may have inadvertantly said something which Catholics would find offensive, but you have no basis to call it “cold calculation” on her part. You don’t know her intention or her feelings about Catholics.

The selling of indulgences were the primary abuse that Luther was originally protesting. My understanding is that he wasn’t originally planning on breaking from the Church, rather he wanted to reform it.

If Ann knew the truth about indulgences in the Church today, she probably still would have used the analogy, but added “the sale of” before the word indulgences in her article. The sale of indulgences was indeed a terrible abuse in the Church by some of the Bishops at the time.

The point I am making is that many anti-Catholic people have several often used “things” they use to bash the Church. The mis-use of indulgences that supposedly lead to Luther’s break with the Church is one of those often used issues of the past that people sight to directly blast the faith, or to indirectly blast the faith (as Ann did).

Ann, imo, used indulgences because she thinks of it as an ugly mark in the Catholic past and that most people reading her article would agree with the analogy. That is, imo, an anti-Catholic tactic because she used it with cold calculation that most people would agree with her and she used what she considers and ugly mark on the Church of over one-billion people to drive home her point. I wonder if she would use an ugly part of her own past as an analogy, something tells me she would not.

As for indulgences, as I said before, it is quite sad that Catholics do not know the incredible benefit of recieving indulgences because every Catholic can receive them many times a year if they so desired–including three weeks from now mon Divine Mercy Sunday.

If Ann knew the truth of indulgences, she would not have used them as an analogy, yet she does not know what they are or that they still can be recieved, she fell back to the usual anti-Catholic bashing that so many Protestants have done since the Protestant Revolt.

 

[martino]

The article is not a “Catholic bashing” article at all. She may have inadvertantly said something which Catholics would find offensive, but you have no basis to call it “cold calculation” on her part. You don’t know her intention or her feelings about Catholics.

The selling of indulgences were the primary abuse that Luther was originally protesting. My understanding is that he wasn’t originally planning on breaking from the Church, rather he wanted to reform it.

If Ann knew the truth about indulgences in the Church today, she probably still would have used the analogy, but added “the sale of” before the word indulgences in her article. The sale of indulgences was indeed a terrible abuse in the Church by some of the Bishops at the time.

Hey i agree with you man but check this out…she actually did use the above phrase to qualify her remark…it came in the very next sentence…"*The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called “carbon offsets.” *

 

[rlg94086]

Hey i agree with you man but check this out…she actually did use the above phrase to qualify her remark…it came in the very next sentence…"The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called “carbon offsets.”

Thanks Martino. As I have said, I never had a problem with her use of the indulgences in the article, because I understood what she meant from the beginning.

I only wish she had been more precise with her wording in the last paragraph, where she said Global Warming was a false religion and unfortunately did it by comparing it (indirectly) to the Catholic Church by mentioning indulgences and inquisitions (ergo inferring that the Church is also a false religion). Personally, I don’t think she was intending to say that because she could have easily said it directly if that is what she meant, but her wording was very clumsy.

 

[Tom317]

The article is not a “Catholic bashing” article at all. She may have inadvertantly said something which Catholics would find offensive, but you have no basis to call it “cold calculation” on her part. You don’t know her intention or her feelings about Catholics.

The selling of indulgences were the primary abuse that Luther was originally protesting. My understanding is that he wasn’t originally planning on breaking from the Church, rather he wanted to reform it.

If Ann knew the truth about indulgences in the Church today, she probably still would have used the analogy, but added “the sale of” before the word indulgences in her article. The sale of indulgences was indeed a terrible abuse in the Church by some of the Bishops at the time.

I do not agree, and suspect we will not reach any level of agreement on this issue of indulgences. First, I do not see the sale of indulgences as a “terrible abuse” because the indulgences were still valid if the people recieving them were properly disposed. Second, it is never a good thing, imo, to use a sore point of an entire group to make a point about another group. It is a low blow and a cheap shot, and also relfect her disdain for the faith. IMO, she would never point the same finger of blame or analogy towards her own life, so that makes her both an anti-Catholic and a hypocrite.

BTW, Luther and boys revolted and in their revolt (which I believe is descrined in the 5th tumpet in chapter none of Revelation) threatened the souls of millions.

 

[Tom317]

Thanks Martino. As I have said, I never had a problem with her use of the indulgences in the article, because I understood what she meant from the beginning.

I only wish she had been more precise with her wording in the last paragraph, where she said Global Warming was a false religion and unfortunately did it by comparing it (indirectly) to the Catholic Church by mentioning indulgences and inquisitions (ergo inferring that the Church is also a false religion). Personally, I don’t think she was intending to say that because she could have easily said it directly if that is what she meant, but her wording was very clumsy.

To most of this agree. I firmly believe that Ann implied that the Catholic faith is a false religion.