Coulter's Anti-Catholic Slur

[AngelicDoctor]

Before I am attacked…I want to say that I am a defender of the Church. I have taken on College presidents who promoted art exhibits that are anti-catholic I write letters and I live in a state that is known for its anti-catholic bias…That said…

I find the comment ‘clumsy’ but the analogy she was trying to make valid. Perhaps a better way to have phrased the remark might have been “it took misguided christians more than one thousand years to create a corrupt system of ‘selling’ indulgenses”…

Her point was that corruption within religion [and christians are readily taken to task for being ‘corrupt’ hence her recognition of an instance] is not normal and if it occurs should be seen as an aberration and not a founding principal or factor. With human secularism and global environmentalism [both new found religions] it has occurred at its instance.

As catholics we do own our past, worts and all. There were abuses that occurred around the selling of indulgences. Christians [including those of us inside Mother Church] have at times acted out in UNCHRISTIAN acts. Some of those acts were identified overtly and covertly with the Church. To be overly sensitive is not beneficial nr productive. To hide or ignore the reality gets us where we were with the latest scandal.

That said I think we can all read into the commentary the proper context and not see the piece as an attack upon the Church. If Ann Coulter wanted to denigrate the Catholic Church in a meaningful way she would. I just see this as an example that the common person would recognise, it was long ago. She could just as easily used the abuse scandal of today. However, then the focus would have shifted to those ‘evil’ catholic priests and the real point of the message been lost. Can you see that?

All these points on the post are well-taken. But… there is a spreading of ignorance involved in casually bandying about or invoking complex theological terms.

I have heard elsewhere conservative columnists use the expression “paying for indulgences” to describe the idea of “carbon neutrality.” The problem with this analogy is that they often invoke simply the term “indulgences” in such a casual way that it promotes ignorance about the Catholic faith. They can invoke the term in such a way that people equate the principle of indulgences (which is part of our faith) with the idea of selling something sacred (which was a historical corruption). Ask most Christians and non-Christians what an indulgence is… and I bet a good number of them would say that it is something like a permit to sin that Catholics pay for.

I also recently heard Michael Reagan shoot off about how annulments are just a form of “Catholic divorce.” Even conservatives who respect the Church don’t always hold off on making ignorant asides now and then.

 

[Tom317]

All these points on the post are well-taken. But… there is a spreading of ignorance involved in casually bandying about or invoking complex theological terms.

I have heard elsewhere conservative columnists use the expression “paying for indulgences” to describe the idea of “carbon neutrality.” The problem with this analogy is that they often invoke simply the term “indulgences” in such a casual way that it promotes ignorance about the Catholic faith. They can invoke the term in such a way that people equate the principle of indulgences (which is part of our faith) with the idea of selling something sacred (which was a historical corruption). Ask most Christians and non-Christians what an indulgence is… and I bet a good number of them would say that it is something like a permit to sin that Catholics pay for.

I also recently heard Michael Reagan shoot off about how annulments are just a form of “Catholic divorce.” Even conservatives who respect the Church don’t always hold off on making ignorant asides now and then.

Very good points, which simply supports my view that we cannot let those people off the hook just because they are conservatives or Christians. Propogating anti-Catholic views, or even promoting ignorant views of the faith is not helping the Church at all and is doing a lot of harm.

 

[rlg94086]

Very good points, which simply supports my view that we cannot let those people off the hook just because they are conservatives or Christians. Propogating anti-Catholic views, or even promoting ignorant views of the faith is not helping the Church at all and is doing a lot of harm.

The correct response is fraternal correction, not automatically accusing someone who makes an ignorant comment of being an anti-Catholic. IMO calling someone who makes an ignorant statement anti-Catholic just feeds those who are really anti-Catholic or even those who are on the fence about it. They look at such responses, and say “they are a bunch of nutters.”

 

[Tom317]

The correct response is fraternal correction, not automatically accusing someone who makes an ignorant comment of being an anti-Catholic. IMO calling someone who makes an ignorant statement anti-Catholic just feeds those who are really anti-Catholic or even those who are on the fence about it. They look at such responses, and say “they are a bunch of nutters.”

I would agree, except for the fact that I believe Ann is an anti-Catholic and fraternal correction used with her will simply be seen as a joke.

 

[Tom317]

The correct response is fraternal correction, not automatically accusing someone who makes an ignorant comment of being an anti-Catholic. IMO calling someone who makes an ignorant statement anti-Catholic just feeds those who are really anti-Catholic or even those who are on the fence about it. They look at such responses, and say “they are a bunch of nutters.”

BTW, I do not think Ann is ignorant, I think she knew exactly what she was doing. She uses insults, slams, and mis-characterizations to make money. Not only do I think she anti-Catholic, but I do not think she cares much about “God based religions.”

 

[rlg94086]

BTW, I do not think Ann is ignorant, I think she knew exactly what she was doing. She uses insults, slams, and mis-characterizations to make money. Not only do I think she anti-Catholic, but I do not think she cares much about “God based religions.”

And you make your assumptions that she is anti-Catholic based on what? That one article? And where do you get the idea that she does not care much for “God based religions?” I haven’t read all of her work, but I understand the book Godless is describing the state of her political opponents (i.e. liberals). Why would she do that, if she herself didn’t care for God?

To assume ignorance is charitable in this case. Unless I had a way to discuss the issue with her, or someone else challenges her directly on the wording of the article and her view on Catholics, I have no reason to assume the worst.

 

[Tom317]

And you make your assumptions that she is anti-Catholic based on what? That one article? And where do you get the idea that she does not care much for “God based religions?” I haven’t read all of her work, but I understand the book Godless is describing the state of her political opponents (i.e. liberals). Why would she do that, if she herself didn’t care for God?

To assume ignorance is charitable in this case. Unless I had a way to discuss the issue with her, or someone else challenges her directly on the wording of the article and her view on Catholics, I have no reason to assume the worst.

I have watched Ann for years, and read some of her work. I am of the view that she cares of nothing more then making money. She will attack aynone and anything to help enhance her bottom line.

My views of her being an anti-Catholic are coming from the article, for I personalyl see a lot of hate for the Church in that article…a lot.

 

[Tom317]

And you make your assumptions that she is anti-Catholic based on what? That one article? And where do you get the idea that she does not care much for “God based religions?” I haven’t read all of her work, but I understand the book Godless is describing the state of her political opponents (i.e. liberals). Why would she do that, if she herself didn’t care for God?

To assume ignorance is charitable in this case. Unless I had a way to discuss the issue with her, or someone else challenges her directly on the wording of the article and her view on Catholics, I have no reason to assume the worst.

Also, please understand that I do not believe a genuine Christian of any denomination would act as Ann does. She is just flat mean to those she dislikes, nearly all of the time. She calls names and tosses insults like they were nothing and she gets low and in the gutter so often that I cannot see her having any real God based morality at all. Ann represents an absolutely terrible witness for Christ, if she even believes in Christ.

 

[rlg94086]

Also, please understand that I do not believe a genuine Christian of any denomination would act as Ann does. She is just flat mean to those she dislikes, nearly all of the time. She calls names and tosses insults like they were nothing and she gets low and in the gutter so often that I cannot see her having any real God based morality at all. Ann represents an absolutely terrible witness for Christ, if she even believes in Christ.

Ah…now, I understand. It’s a personal distaste you have for her. Okay. Well, it doesn’t make much sense to discuss it any further. I neither support nor despise her, and I would prefer to keep it that way.

God bless,

Robert

 

[Tom317]

Ah…now, I understand. It’s a personal distaste you have for her. Okay. Well, it doesn’t make much sense to discuss it any further. I neither support nor despise her, and I would prefer to keep it that way.

God bless,

Robert

Wrong. I have no distaste for her because I do not know her. I have distaste for her tactics, and for the things she wrote in that article. Ann might be a troubled person who carries a lot of pain and just lashes out as a result of that pain, or it can be any number of other things. I would not have listened to her and read her stuff if I had distaste for her personally. I just have trouble buying that she is any sort of Christian or any sort of person of faith. I think she is a brilliant woman who uses everything (including her body stuffed into provocative clothes) to make money. And, in this latest case, she used the Catholic Church to advance her views and I feel she needs to be called on this stuff.

I also feel very strongly about the fiasco with Sean Hannity. People like Ann and Sean who claim to have faith, yet prove otherwise, need to be called on their trash.

 

[martino]

Ok I am going to try and make this my last post on this thread, but I cannot promise you anything.

Everyone agrees that in her column denouncing the global warming fanatics she juxtaposed the religion of liberalism with some of Catholicism’s less than steller moments.

Some are accusing her of anti-Catholism based on the claim that what she is doing is comparing the church of liberalism with Catholicism and then concluding that they are both false religions.

Not only does this interpretation make nonsense out of her column but she even prefaced the entire thing by saying:

“These days, new religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the God-based religions.”

It is very easy to see that she set out to prove that the church of liberalism is a false religion. The rerferences to the Catholic Church represent the “the God-based religions” but more specifically “the worst aspects” of them, which is why she brings up the “selling of papal indulgences” and the “courts of inquisition”.

Which one is it… Is Catholicism a false religion or an example of a God-based religion? If it is the false religion then where is the example of the God-based religion? Or is the God-based religion also a false religion?

Should her statement at the beginning read like this:

"These days, false religions are barely up and running before they seize upon the worst aspects of the false religions. "…makes no sense.

Her claim is that even authentic religions are susceptible to corruption over time but the church of liberalism originates from and is sustained by these same corrupt practices…unlike Catholicism which “took hundreds of years” before practices such as the selling of indulgences or courts of inquisition began to spring up.

The distinction that she makes is more important to the point of her column than the similarities. Corruption is a given in any human institution but its one thing to develop corrupt practices over time and quite another thing to originate from them.

peace out!!!

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

Ok I am going to try and make this my last post on this thread,

I haven’t been reading all the posts or keeping up, but it almost seems like you says this every or every other post (if I had time, I’d go back and count).

Whether I agree with you viewpoints or not, I admire your tenacitiy with what you believe.

 

[martino]

I haven’t been reading all the posts or keeping up, but it almost seems like you says this every or every other post (if I had time, I’d go back and count).

Whether I agree with you viewpoints or not, I admire your tenacitiy with what you believe.

I know I was laughing too! But this time I had something new to say at least!!!

 

[Tom317]

The sad thing is several of us wasted so much time speaking about Ann Coulter, as if in the scheme of things she means anything.

 

[martino]

I dont think it was a waste of time. The more I think about what she wrote I am beginning to see her column as a possible defense of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tom317]

I dont think it was a waste of time. The more I think about what she wrote I am beginning to see her column as a possible defense of the Catholic Church.

I the more I think about it, the more I am convinced she is an anti-Catholic and quite possibly an anti-faith person.

Yet, I feel it is a waste of time because neither of us will ever have an impact on Ann, nor will we change each others’ minds about her. It all seems silly to me now as I look back on our conversation.

 

[martino]

I the more I think about it, the more I am convinced she is an anti-Catholic and quite possibly an anti-faith person.

Yet, I feel it is a waste of time because neither of us will ever have an impact on Ann, nor will we change each others’ minds about her. It all seems silly to me now as I look back on our conversation.

Tom how would you defend the Church against someone who actually wanted to claim the Catholic Church is a false religion because other known false religions used corrupt practices similar to those used by the Church at various times?

How would you separate the Catholic Church from those other false religions? What distinction would you make?

This question is precisely related to the rest of this thread.

 

[Tom317]

Tom how would you defend the Church against someone who actually wanted to claim the Catholic Church is a false religion because other known false religions used corrupt practices similar to those used by the Church at various times?

How would you separate the Catholic Church from those other false religions? What distinction would you make?

This question is precisely related to the rest of this thread.

Of course, there are plenty of ways to defend the faith. The problem lies in the audience, which is typically so anti-Catholic that they have no desire to know the truth.

 

[Eden]

This thread is so long that I have not read every reply. But I’m pretty sure that one of Ann’s parents is Catholic, the other Protestant. She was raised Protestant, however.

 

[bquinnan]

I caught this slur upon reading the column, too. Lately it seems like Coulter is crossing the line from being amusingly hyperbolic to being just plain offensive. Her Edwards comment didn’t score points with me, either.