Looked down On

[TheToddG]

I am getting really sick and tired of all the negative flak we catholics are getting in todays media and popular culture. People think Im weird or mental because of my faith. When people think about catholics now, they associate us with dark dungeons, and random mutilations. Like in the new X-files movie, catholics are made out to be jerks, creeps, and every ones favorite, pedifiles. It is just so so wrong.

I was almost completely out cast when people learned that I was a republican catholic who voted McCain and supports the war.
We need to do something to help our image a little bit.
And the fact that our history class is studding the crusades doesnt help much either(lol)

If anyone has any great ideas to save us from the media, Im all for knowing about it.

 

[Eucharisted]

Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless.

 

[survive]

Be your own culture and make your own media. Make them as well as you can. Network. Go on the offensive. Get the facts and never shrink from argument. Start a well-linked blog. Make a film. Remember the thrill and bracing air of truth and use it with confidence. Remember we’re right.
Never accept the opponent’s terms. When people ask if you would “deny” someone “protection” from AIDS e.g., ask why they would enable dangerous activities and encourage a false sense of security. If someone asks about “pedophile priests” ask them to guess the order of these occupations according to pedophilia rates, most to least: priests, Evangelical pastors, men in general, male public school teachers. Then tell them that was the list upside down. It’s public school teachers, men in general, Evangelical pastors, then priests, one of the least pedophilic groups of men in all Western society. If someone asks you why you would force women to have “unwanted” children, ask what happens in the beginning of any massive genocidal campaign? It’s always the invention of Doublespeak and the distortion of reality. Ask why they would support an anti-girl, anti-health, anti-youth genocidal campaign agains tthe daughters (mostl) of the poor and minorities, which is what abortion is? Ask if they are being cruelly forced to breathe air instead of water or if that’s just what the human body naturally does. And so on.

 

[TheToddG]

Yeah, I completley agree, but the problem is that when some one realizes that they can cash in on it, they’ll do/say anything to keep it going. They’re not afraid to lie and shout if it means getting people to here them.
I fear that most of the negativity comes from those who don’t care, but are so invested in the trend, they cant and wont afford to allow it to change.
Want we need is some one in the media who has a powerfull enough voice, that the masses can learn that what they are hearing about us is bull.
Until that happens, things dont look good.

 

[Mark77]

We are not called by Jesus to be “popular or liked”, as a matter of fact He says, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life”. Mt 16:26.

I know exactly what you mean, my own family looks at me as a nut job because of my conversion and love for Jesus.

Our society has been constantly brainwashing us through the media for over 40 years now. Even many people who were raised Catholic are embarrassed, misinformed and even afraid to learn about the Truth of the Catholic faith and stand up for Jesus.

It’s easier to go along with the crowd and to focus on human failings rather than the exquisite beauty of the Truth Jesus gave us through His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It isn’t cool. As a matter of fact it is extremely difficult to even try to live a good Christian life in today’s society.

But it sure is a lot easier here than it is in many places throughout the world today, or than it was in the past. We don’t have to worry about being killed for our faith here in the US (at least not today).

Et Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam, Et Apostolicm Ecclesiam.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Noibis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[Simon_X]

We, as Catholics, are counter culture. That carries a large burden and a big responsibility. The secular society does not understand us and those that live there, probably never will. But that doesn’t mean we have to give up and give in… Stay focused and stand your ground my friend…

 

[Sam_Maloney]

If you’re looking for popularity, you picked the wrong saviour:
'Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. ’

But remember this: just as we [as a race] suffer for the sins of Adam, now we [as a church] suffer for the sins of the pedophile priests. If our bishops had acted with speed and integrity, we wouldn’t be where we are now.

 

[universalist]

I take it as an honor that pop culture and mass media may look down upon me as a CHRISTIAN BELIEVER! I despise current American pop culture! IN CHRIST.

 

[Simon_X]

I take it as an honor that pop culture and mass media may look down upon me as a CHRISTIAN BELIEVER! I despise current American pop culture! IN CHRIST.

If they look down on you for being a Christian, that means you must be doing something right!

 

[colliric]

I am getting really sick and tired of all the negative flak we catholics are getting in todays media and popular culture. People think Im weird or mental because of my faith. When people think about catholics now, they associate us with dark dungeons, and random mutilations. Like in the new X-files movie, catholics are made out to be jerks, creeps, and every ones favorite, pedifiles. It is just so so wrong.

I was almost completely out cast when people learned that I was a republican catholic who voted McCain and supports the war.
We need to do something to help our image a little bit.
And the fact that our history class is studding the crusades doesnt help much either(lol)

If anyone has any great ideas to save us from the media, Im all for knowing about it.

You need a Catholic perspective on the crusades. Sometimes people don’t understand that when decisions are made, they are often made for a reason. The threat of radical islam was as Real to the west then as it is now. Perhaps it was even more so.

Then they later get distorted and all but fogetten. The Initial reasons for going into the crusades were that Islam threatened to invade and engulf Catholic europe. At one stage they had invaded 70% percent of europe and some of these countries remain islamic to this day. The holy Roman empire was partially invaded and the west several centuries later when the effects became clear and anti-christianity/anti-west ideals set in, decided to do something about it. Christians on pilgramage were being beheaded and terrorised(their heads were being piked and put outside the pilgrimage sites so other fellow pilgrims would see). Some Islamic leaders threatened to destory Holy christian sites, such as Golgotha.

And all these things were being condoned and supported by the Islamic rulers(in those days there were little to no moderate islamics, they would be considered extremists by todays standards).

What the modern world felt after 9/11/01 about radical Islam was what the medieval world felt before the beginning of the crusades.

 

[AltarServer09]

Hate against Catholics is nothing new for Hollywood. A few examples I can think of:

Sin City
A catholic priest is portrayed as a good friend of a serial killer, and he takes part in his friend’s cannibalism (an all-around disgusting movie).

In Bruges
A priest is shot in a confessional booth by the man he is giving a confession to. Not only is it tasteless, but it’s also unoriginal. They also did that in Sin City! (if Catholics are so bad, why can’t they think of anything original ways to insult us?)

There are many more examples, I’m sure.

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

I feel the same way. Except I don’t think that we, as Catholics, should support war. It is part of the culture of death.

 

[puzzleannie]

I .
We need to do something to help our image a little bit.
And the fact that our history class is studding the crusades doesnt help much either(lol)

If anyone has any great ideas to save us from the media, Im all for knowing about it.

if you are speaking of what Catholics need to do to polish their image, if every Catholic truly believed and lived all that the Catholic Church teaches in all aspects of their daily lives, prejudice against us would evaporate overnight, and the world would be converted in a week, and the Kingdom would be fully realized on earth. Catholics need to look at themselves, not at the media.

 

[Lujack]

You need a Catholic perspective on the crusades. Sometimes people don’t understand that when decisions are made, they are often made for a reason. The threat of radical islam was as Real to the west then as it is now. Perhaps it was even more so.

I love a Crusades debate!

Then they later get distorted and all but fogetten. The Initial reasons for going into the crusades were that Islam threatened to invade and engulf Catholic europe. At one stage they had invaded 70% percent of europe and some of these countries remain islamic to this day. The holy Roman empire was partially invaded and the west several centuries later when the effects became clear and anti-christianity/anti-west ideals set in, decided to do something about it. Christians on pilgramage were being beheaded and terrorised(their heads were being piked and put outside the pilgrimage sites so other fellow pilgrims would see). Some Islamic leaders threatened to destory Holy christian sites, such as Golgotha.

I don’t know about this. The high tide of Islamic expansion had come and gone by 1100. It was already rolling back in Spain, and the Byzantines were beginning to recover from the disaster at Manzikert. The emperor Alexius had no need for whole crusading armies. He just wanted a few mercenaries, and was caught badly offguard when the Crusaders showed up.

Pilgrimage to Jerusalem was actually getting safer from its low point when the Crusades began. Generally, pilgrimage was safer when a lone Islamic power controlled the Levant. When the caliphate was weak and fractured, bandits tended to be a problem. A second problem was petty emirates collecting high taxes. Regardless, the caliphate tended to be reasonably tolerant (the Turks were less so, but the Arabs and Palestinians were preferred to the Byzantines by Christian sects like the Copts, or even the Jews, who were no longer ruthlessly opressed).

The caliph you are referring to is al-Hakim the Mad, who was a lunatic in general. He did destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which played a large role in galvanizing the Crusades. Two things about him, though: he was a long time before the crusades, and he was generally regarded by Muslims as the devil incarnate. He was known for wandering the streets and ordering random persecutions. al-Hakim was the exception, not the rule.

Oddly enough, though, the Crusaders themselves receive equal misrepresentation as uniformly bad people, when this is not the case either. The Sack of Jerusalem was disgraceful, and the 4th Crusade was a disaster (if this had never happened, there would not have been an invasion fo the HRE, for Byzantium would have held firm against the Turks). However, once the Franks established themselves in Outremer, they tended to be good kings (with the exception of Reynald de Chatillon and King Guy, who lost Jerusalem).

People like to portray the crusades as one of two things

1. Evil Europeans invade peaceful Middle East, pillaging, killing and raping.
2. Noble Christians save good pilgrims from violent, evil Turks, and liberate Jerusalem.

Its much more complex than that.

 

[Dtmccameron]

We are not called by Jesus to be “popular or liked”, as a matter of fact He says, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life”. Mt 16:26.

But it sure is a lot easier here than it is in many places throughout the world today, or than it was in the past. We don’t have to worry about being killed for our faith here in the US (at least not today).

Mark

ahem As I read it last, it said “soul”. After all, losing you’re life is a small thing in comparison. In fact, we’re called rather specifically to give up our lives…Death of the flesh for the life of the soul…But that might be headed somewhere else entirely…But I don’t think so. Mortification is what it’s about, isn’t it?

Oh well…And the way I heard it, the Faith is stronger in the poorer countries; and I’d say much stronger where people are executed for their faith. It could be that in such circumstances, people have to regularly exercise their Faith, and it doesn’t atrophy like it does in the permissive, laid-back society we have in the “West”.

Then again, circumstances might have nothing to do with a persons spiritual growth, and the appearance of a stronger faith amongst the suffering could just be a result of a mass occurance of that funny “Time are good, I don’t want God telling me what to do. Oh dear God! We’re all going to die! Save us, Dear Lord!” frame of mind so clearly seen amongst the Mass media.

But that would be difficult to prove, wouldn’t it? Because once you gave the suffering all they needed, they’ld quickly forget from whence their blessing flowed, and they would abandon God, as quickly as they’ld turn back to him as soon as the situation turns sour.

 

[joe_clark]

Pray, hope, and don’t worry. Worry is useless. This is good advive. Remember, only God gets to look down upon us all. Hey the laughs on them.

 

[colliric]

I love a Crusades debate!

I don’t know about this. The high tide of Islamic expansion had come and gone by 1100. It was already rolling back in Spain, and the Byzantines were beginning to recover from the disaster at Manzikert. The emperor Alexius had no need for whole crusading armies. He just wanted a few mercenaries, and was caught badly offguard when the Crusaders showed up.

Pilgrimage to Jerusalem was actually getting safer from its low point when the Crusades began. Generally, pilgrimage was safer when a lone Islamic power controlled the Levant. When the caliphate was weak and fractured, bandits tended to be a problem. A second problem was petty emirates collecting high taxes. Regardless, the caliphate tended to be reasonably tolerant (the Turks were less so, but the Arabs and Palestinians were preferred to the Byzantines by Christian sects like the Copts, or even the Jews, who were no longer ruthlessly opressed).

The caliph you are referring to is al-Hakim the Mad, who was a lunatic in general. He did destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which played a large role in galvanizing the Crusades. Two things about him, though: he was a long time before the crusades, and he was generally regarded by Muslims as the devil incarnate. He was known for wandering the streets and ordering random persecutions. al-Hakim was the exception, not the rule.

Oddly enough, though, the Crusaders themselves receive equal misrepresentation as uniformly bad people, when this is not the case either. The Sack of Jerusalem was disgraceful, and the 4th Crusade was a disaster (if this had never happened, there would not have been an invasion fo the HRE, for Byzantium would have held firm against the Turks). However, once the Franks established themselves in Outremer, they tended to be good kings (with the exception of Reynald de Chatillon and King Guy, who lost Jerusalem).

People like to portray the crusades as one of two things

1. Evil Europeans invade peaceful Middle East, pillaging, killing and raping.
2. Noble Christians save good pilgrims from violent, evil Turks, and liberate Jerusalem.

Its much more complex than that.

I agree with these thoughts. I believe this particular way of thinking about warfare is not benificial and is bad history. Even recent Wars often divide people in such manners. I think if you replace the words “Europeans” and “Christians” with “Americans” I think you could say people like to portray the war in Iraq in likewise a manner.

“Evil Americans pilliaging Iraq, killing innocent Iraqis, and degrading peoples personal liberties(the prison photographs incident) and fostering an anti-american culture in the middle east”

Or

“Noble Americans Liberating Iraq from a corrupt dictatorship, stablizing the security of Iraq, providing it’s citizens with a democratic future, correcting the errors that were made during the Gulf War and suceeding in the war on terrorists.”

I find myself somewhere in between, but leaning toward the latter.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I don’t know about this. The high tide of Islamic expansion had come and gone by 1100. It was already rolling back in Spain, and the Byzantines were beginning to recover from the disaster at Manzikert. The emperor Alexius had no need for whole crusading armies. He just wanted a few mercenaries, and was caught badly offguard when the Crusaders showed up.

Pilgrimage to Jerusalem was actually getting safer from its low point when the Crusades began. Generally, pilgrimage was safer when a lone Islamic power controlled the Levant. When the caliphate was weak and fractured, bandits tended to be a problem. A second problem was petty emirates collecting high taxes. Regardless, the caliphate tended to be reasonably tolerant (the Turks were less so, but the Arabs and Palestinians were preferred to the Byzantines by Christian sects like the Copts, or even the Jews, who were no longer ruthlessly opressed).

The caliph you are referring to is al-Hakim the Mad, who was a lunatic in general. He did destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which played a large role in galvanizing the Crusades. Two things about him, though: he was a long time before the crusades, and he was generally regarded by Muslims as the devil incarnate. He was known for wandering the streets and ordering random persecutions. al-Hakim was the exception, not the rule.

Oddly enough, though, the Crusaders themselves receive equal misrepresentation as uniformly bad people, when this is not the case either. The Sack of Jerusalem was disgraceful, and the 4th Crusade was a disaster (if this had never happened, there would not have been an invasion fo the HRE, for Byzantium would have held firm against the Turks). However, once the Franks established themselves in Outremer, they tended to be good kings (with the exception of Reynald de Chatillon and King Guy, who lost Jerusalem).

People like to portray the crusades as one of two things

1. Evil Europeans invade peaceful Middle East, pillaging, killing and raping.
2. Noble Christians save good pilgrims from violent, evil Turks, and liberate Jerusalem.

Its much more complex than that.

You know, I think it’s things like this that both Catholics and non-believers need the most: balanced information. I mean why can’t history be like positive economics where only fact and not opinion is being stated?

Setting that aside, I share in the OPs worries. I admire everyone’s optimism and confidence but don’t you think we’re all getting a little, uh, cocky?

The media is a powerful entity in itself. I think we’ve seen enough of just how much influence it has over the minds of the masses (youth in particular). We cannot ignore such blatant bias. I mean make fun of Mohammed and you’ll have cameras pointing at crowds of angry Muslims. Make pedophile comments about priests and the pope and everyone laughs with you.

Simply put, I agree with the OP. I don’t know if ‘clean up image’ was the proper phrase but we really should stop these guys from pushing us around with such a double standard. Even Christ did not ‘turn the other cheek’ when money changers violated the House of God.

 

[colliric]

You know, I think it’s things like this that both Catholics and non-believers need the most: balanced information. I mean why can’t history be like positive economics where only fact and not opinion is being stated?

Setting that aside, I share in the OPs worries. I admire everyone’s optimism and confidence but don’t you think we’re all getting a little, uh, cocky?

The media is a powerful entity in itself. I think we’ve seen enough of just how much influence it has over the minds of the masses (youth in particular). We cannot ignore such blatant bias. I mean make fun of Mohammed and you’ll have cameras pointing at crowds of angry Muslims. Make pedophile comments about priests and the pope and everyone laughs with you.

Simply put, I agree with the OP. I don’t know if ‘clean up image’ was the proper phrase but we really should stop these guys from pushing us around with such a double standard. Even Christ did not ‘turn the other cheek’ when money changers violated the House of God.

I think it is envy that the media has. Balanced news media does not give in to envy and anti-catholocism. Such media is usually publically owned media that airs with equal reverance, major religious news and even the occasional Mass service along with airing the occasional dissenting opinion.

You will find these media services out there…

WYD occured here this year and before the event alot of our private stations aired alot of anti-catholic material on their programs and especially in their current affairs programs. I noticed this was not so with the Publically owned media, and for obvious reasons, the media that covered WYD. It was then I realised that envy is a major reason the media acts like that.

Privatly owned media has it’s own vested interests involved, and envy seems to sometimes come into play.

Remember that our religion is still the biggest religion in the world… and the private news media is still quite envious.

 

[KCtheMommy]

Wow! You support the war?

Even the Pope doesn’t support the war.