"Make-Believe Catholics?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Don_Schneider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Don_Schneider

Guest
On the Catholic News thread, I left a response to John L. Allen, Jr., a senior correspondent for the Catholic National Reporter, the ultra-left independent “Catholic” newspaper. The response was to an article linked to by a young forum member here. In the course of his article, Mr. Allen refers to orthodox Catholics as being practitioners of “Taliban Catholicism.” In my response, I point out how such a characterization is simply not merely hyperbolic, but is also incorrect as to its substance.

If Mr. Allen and his radical adherents at NCR and other venues wish to resort to outright mendaciousness in such characterizations, should we orthodox Catholics resort to fighting fire with fire? Mr. Allen is a shrewd man and fully understands the power of language and such catchwords over the minds of the sheep he seeks to shear. Most people don’t know who the Taliban are, but have heard their name in a sinister context. Thus, Mr. Allen’s attempt to associate us with evil. If so, what name, for example, should we use to describe “Catholics” who would actually step into a voting booth and pull the lever for a candidate (like President Obama) when they fully realize that such will serve to condemn millions of more unborn babies into the indefinite future?

How about “make-believe Catholics?”

For a “Catholic” to deliberately seek to condemn innocent unborn children, then there can be only two possible explanations. The first is simply that the person is monstrous. If he or she is German and had a time machine and could travel back to the date of the last truly free election of the Weimer Republic, then he or she would vote for the Nazis knowing full well that they would later condemn (among others) millions of Jewish people to death. If unborn children are as fully human as had been Hitler’s victims (as the Church teaches), then what exactly is the difference?

Of course, thankfully few people would fit this characterization. Therefore, the only remaining explanation (is there any other?) is that such people do not see unborn children as being human as they would already born Jewish people. This means they do not accept the teaching authority of the Church. Therefore, I think the term “make-believe Catholics” would be a fitting response to Mr. Allen’s mendacious characterization of us. Such is at least true.

Any other suggestions?
 
“Cafeteria Catholics” is too benign a term. “Disobedient Catholics” is closer, but does not express their true potential to damage those whom they lead. Much the same with “Dissident Catholics”. “Demon-lead Cartholics”, no matter how true, in this day and age will serve only to marginalize those who use the term. “Schismatic” insults those who have separated themselves from the Church, but remain staunchly pro-life.

Maybe “Deatholics”?
 
Don_Schneider said:
On the Catholic News thread, I left a response to John L. Allen, Jr., a senior correspondent for the Catholic National Reporter, the ultra-left independent “Catholic” newspaper. The response was to an article linked to by a young forum member here. In the course of his article, Mr. Allen refers to orthodox Catholics as being practitioners of “Taliban Catholicism.” In my response, I point out how such a characterization is simply not merely hyperbolic, but is also incorrect as to its substance.

If Mr. Allen and his radical adherents at NCR and other venues wish to resort to outright mendaciousness in such characterizations, should we orthodox Catholics resort to fighting fire with fire? Mr. Allen is a shrewd man and fully understands the power of language and such catchwords over the minds of the sheep he seeks to shear. Most people don’t know who the Taliban are, but have heard their name in a sinister context. Thus, Mr. Allen’s attempt to associate us with evil. If so, what name, for example, should we use to describe “Catholics” who would actually step into a voting booth and pull the lever for a candidate (like President Obama) when they fully realize that such will serve to condemn millions of more unborn babies into the indefinite future?

How about “make-believe Catholics?”

For a “Catholic” to deliberately seek to condemn innocent unborn children, then there can be only two possible explanations. The first is simply that the person is monstrous. If he or she is German and had a time machine and could travel back to the date of the last truly free election of the Weimer Republic, then he or she would vote for the Nazis knowing full well that they would later condemn (among others) millions of Jewish people to death. If unborn children are as fully human as had been Hitler’s victims (as the Church teaches), then what exactly is the difference?

Of course, thankfully few people would fit this characterization. Therefore, the only remaining explanation (is there any other?) is that such people do not see unborn children as being human as they would already born Jewish people. This means they do not accept the teaching authority of the Church. Therefore, I think the term “make-believe Catholics” would be a fitting response to Mr. Allen’s mendacious characterization of us. Such is at least true.

Any other suggestions?
Click to expand...
I do not believe you have quoted Mr. Allen correctly. He did not characterize “orthodox Catholics” as practicing “Taliban Catholicism.” The exact sentence from his article in which that phrase is used - the only time it’s used, in fact - is:

“What George Weigel correctly calls “Catholicism lite,” meaning a form of the faith sold out to secularism; and what I’ve termed “Taliban Catholicism,” meaning an angry expression of Catholicism that knows only how to excoriate and condemn.”

I fail to see where his statement equates orthodox Catholicism with so-called “Taliban Catholicism.” Do you have a need to “excoriate and condemn” Mr. Allen? Did his use of “Taliban Catholicism” strike a little too close to home? Who is the one really practicing “mendaciousness,” to use your word?
 
Mattapoisett64 said:
I do not believe you have quoted Mr. Allen correctly. He did not characterize “orthodox Catholics” as practicing “Taliban Catholicism.” The exact sentence from his article in which that phrase is used - the only time it’s used, in fact - is:

“What George Weigel correctly calls “Catholicism lite,” meaning a form of the faith sold out to secularism; and what I’ve termed “Taliban Catholicism,” meaning an angry expression of Catholicism that knows only how to excoriate and condemn.”

I fail to see where his statement equates orthodox Catholicism with so-called “Taliban Catholicism.” Do you have a need to “excoriate and condemn” Mr. Allen? Did his use of “Taliban Catholicism” strike a little too close to home? Who is the one really practicing “mendaciousness,” to use your word?
Click to expand...
I am responding to the implication that I discerned by his usage of the phrase, and as I believe it will be interpreted by the typical readership of his very liberal organ. Orthodox Catholics do condemn those who refer to themselves as Catholics yet evidence the de facto rejection of Church dogma by their actions as stated within my post regarding the life-and-death issue of abortion (as the most salient example). Such condemnation is designed to hopefully bring the erring back into the fold and thus achieve their salvations, which is the most important consideration of all.

If Mr. Allen should care to clarify whom exactly he intended his remarks towards and state that he wasn’t referring to those as I mentioned above, then I shall be glad to retract and apologize. As for now, considering the venue in which he works, I believe my interpretation of his remarks is valid as to whom he had in mind.

By the way, someone else who responded to his article must have drawn the same interpretation as I did. He mentioned that he has encountered “Taliban Catholics" here—on this forum. If this person meant me personally, then by his use of the plural he obviously meant at least one other as well. I seriously doubt he meant just two of us.

Here are some responses Mr. Allen’s remarks engendered:

“I too want desperately to move beyond the polarization of the last few years, as you and the young people you write about seem to. But sadly, mainstream Church structure in the person of the Pope and the Curia, not just a few arch-conservative bishops, appears to be taking us back to earlier formulations on the authority of the clergy, on the role of women, and on the role of the laity.”

“Not only was i born after the pre-Vatican II mess, i was born after the post-Vatican II mess. But for the last 10-15 years of my adult life, it seems like i keep hearing about battles that have longs since been fought and decided. The first time i heard a Taliban-type Catholic railing against the Spirit of Vatican II, i had no idea what he was talking about - other than the obvious Spirit of Vatican II, ie, the Holy Spirit.”

And, oh yes:

“I would have to agree with Mr. Allen’s observations based on my personal observations. Those he calls ‘Taliban Catholics’ I have come across in the Catholic Answers forum and can be very difficult to discuss anything with. I have yet to come across anyone in real life who thinks to that degree in anyone under 35.”

It seems his flock over there had no difficulty discerning his intent along the same lines as have I.
 
Mattapoisett64 said:
I do not believe you have quoted Mr. Allen correctly. He did not characterize “orthodox Catholics” as practicing “Taliban Catholicism.” The exact sentence from his article in which that phrase is used - the only time it’s used, in fact - is:

“What George Weigel correctly calls “Catholicism lite,” meaning a form of the faith sold out to secularism; and what I’ve termed “Taliban Catholicism,” meaning an angry expression of Catholicism that knows only how to excoriate and condemn.”

I fail to see where his statement equates orthodox Catholicism with so-called “Taliban Catholicism.” Do you have a need to “excoriate and condemn” Mr. Allen? Did his use of “Taliban Catholicism” strike a little too close to home? Who is the one really practicing “mendaciousness,” to use your word?
Click to expand...
He is obviously upset over something, as the Church does not do anything but teach the rules and enforce the rules. If a person is upset with the rules, then that is no reason to go around equating the Church with a form of terror that kills, obviously Dan Brown and this author have something in common, that line of attack is in the same vein as … It is preposterous and only shows that somewhere Mr. Weigal (can’t wiggle out of that one) , so he is upset about it. And now he is lashing out, sometimes peoples names do give clues to what is bothering them. He can’t Wiggle out of that one because the Church is that Robost in its doctrine. So we will leave Mr. Weigal alone to deal with his issue. i have done some bad things but I have never been excoriated and condemned for any of them, as a matter of fact I haven’t seen anyone flogged in this church either , and the Guillotine has not been used, I think they keep that back here in the sancrisity somewheres. This is all obsurd and Mr. Weigal has a problem that he will not go into detail about.

Benjamin
 
He says he keeps hearing about battles long since fought and decided. If these battles were decided he wouldn’t keep hearing them. It sounds as if he likes to declare his side the winner and wait for everyone to believe him. Sounds typical of whatever he is one of.
Then he says the “mainstream” Church (as if there were several) is taking us back to earlier formulations of things that were never reformulated at all and never will be. I think Fantasy Catholics has a certain appropriateness but it needs work.
 
Take care with your assertions about Catholics who voted for Obama. Surely you are correct about many, but certainly not all. I am fervently pro-life, and yet I voted for Obama. Perhaps this was mistaken, but it was not evil, nor apostasy. I simply realistically evaluated the situation–abortion was not going to become outlawed under McCain, and there was little argument it would even be lessened. And I concluded that a candidate who could select someone such as Palin for VP was utterly unfit to be in office.

I now see that vote as a mistake, as I underestimated the imminence of FOCA–though with Palin on the other ticket, my vote was between evil or incompetence, and I’m not sure there is a clear winner. Assuming I was mistaken, it was a political miscalculation. We must make choices in the real world, and there is often not a good candidate to select. If a future election gives us a pro-life candidate who will lead the country into ruin and who could not lessen abortions, or a pro-choice candidate with otherwise sensible policies who would not increase abortions, the pro-life candidate would not be the clear winner.

You are falling into a classic trap against which Christ preached–judging the hearts of others. We Catholics who voted for Obama made a mistake. You have also made a mistake in accusing our hearts of being in the wrong place. I have now admitted my mistake, I await you admitting yours.
 
camerong said:
Take care with your assertions about Catholics who voted for Obama. Surely you are correct about many, but certainly not all. I am fervently pro-life, and yet I voted for Obama. Perhaps this was mistaken, but it was not evil, nor apostasy. I simply realistically evaluated the situation–abortion was not going to become outlawed under McCain, and there was little argument it would even be lessened. And I concluded that a candidate who could select someone such as Palin for VP was utterly unfit to be in office.

I now see that vote as a mistake, as I underestimated the imminence of FOCA–though with Palin on the other ticket, my vote was between evil or incompetence, and I’m not sure there is a clear winner. Assuming I was mistaken, it was a political miscalculation. We must make choices in the real world, and there is often not a good candidate to select. If a future election gives us a pro-life candidate who will lead the country into ruin and who could not lessen abortions, or a pro-choice candidate with otherwise sensible policies who would not increase abortions, the pro-life candidate would not be the clear winner.

You are falling into a classic trap against which Christ preached–judging the hearts of others. We Catholics who voted for Obama made a mistake. You have also made a mistake in accusing our hearts of being in the wrong place. I have now admitted my mistake, I await you admitting yours.
Click to expand...
Dear Camerong:

I’m not exactly certain what it is you wish me to apologize for. I said that few Catholics (or for that matter, few people) would fit into the monstrous category for voting for pro-abortion politicians who, in some instances, are able to appoint pro-abortion jurists. Rather, most don’t see unborn children as human the way they would already born babies, which means that such Catholics don’t accept the teaching authority of the religion they profess to belong to; thus: “make-believe Catholics.”

You seem to be arguing that there is a third explanation as to why a Catholic might have voted for, for example, President Obama. I find it incredible that any voter would not understand what sort of justices and judges he is certain to appoint. We are just one vote away on the Supreme Court of reversing that diabolic and infamous decision that made the murder of the unborn possible to the extent that it has since then. Although all four of these (all Catholic, by the way) men of integrity are relatively young as Supreme Court Justices go, there is no guarantee that all will make it through even President Obama’s first term, let alone his second should that unfortunate eventuality occur. Even if all do, the president now has the chance to replace the older liberal justices with younger ones which will have ramifications for years to come. He has already had one such opportunity and will likely have at least two more before long.

You seem to be arguing that you and perhaps others hadn’t realized this and thus felt as though it didn’t matter who won the election in regard to the abortion issue. Therefore, you felt no moral imperative to vote on the abortion issue alone and free to vote on other issues in which you were presumably more in sympathy with Senator Obama.

I must confess, this hadn’t occurred to me. If you want me to say I’m sorry for that, then I will. I’m just glad you are too and will apparently vote pro-life in future elections. Thank you!

By the way, one of my state’s United States senator is both a Democrat and pro-life, a very rare combination any longer, alas. Should the Republican Party run a “pro-choice” candidate against him (such as our “Catholic” former Governor Ridge) when he stands for reelection, then I will vote for Senator Casey even if I agree with his opponent on every other issue and disagree with him.
 
Don_Schneider said:
Dear Camerong:
You seem to be arguing that there is a third explanation as to why a Catholic might have voted for, for example, President Obama. I find it incredible that any voter would not understand what sort of justices and judges he is certain to appoint.

. . .

You seem to be arguing that you and perhaps others hadn’t realized this and thus felt as though it didn’t matter who won the election in regard to the abortion issue. Therefore, you felt no moral imperative to vote on the abortion issue alone and free to vote on other issues in which you were presumably more in sympathy with Senator Obama.

I must confess, this hadn’t occurred to me. If you want me to say I’m sorry for that, then I will. I’m just glad you are too and will apparently vote pro-life in future elections. Thank you!

By the way, one of my state’s United States senator is both a Democrat and pro-life, a very rare combination any longer, alas. Should the Republican Party run a “pro-choice” candidate against him (such as our “Catholic” former Governor Ridge) when he stands for reelection, then I will vote for Senator Casey even if I agree with his opponent on every other issue and disagree with him.
Click to expand...
Regarding your first paragraph, there were a significant number of pro-life Catholics who felt the same way. See, for example:
latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec17-2008oct17,0,2107469.story
slate.com/id/2184378/ (an article by Catholic who also served as Regan’s constitutional lawyer)
and a slew of other editorials around election day with similar titles. These articles made a strong case for Obama, especially if his other political goals aligned with the Catholic voter’s. Among their points, they argued that Obama would reduce the number of abortions through his other social policies, where as McCain would not.

I thank you the second paragraph above.

And I agree with your third–I live in Nebraska, and our Senator Ben Nelson is a pro-life democrat. Although, I’m beginning to loathe democrats as a whole for the current health bill. Let’s pray the pro-life democrats defeat it as long as it provides for abortion.

Cheers.
 
camerong said:
…I am fervently pro-life, and yet I voted for Obama. Perhaps this was mistaken, but it was not evil, nor apostasy. I simply realistically evaluated the situation–abortion was not going to become outlawed under McCain, and there was little argument it would even be lessened. And I concluded that a candidate who could select someone such as Palin for VP was utterly unfit to be in office.

I now see that vote as a mistake…
Click to expand...
Greeting Camerong. I am pleased to hear you admit your mistake, but I am saddened to hear you not admit it was a sin. If we believe that a certain sin is not a sin, then it means we are deceived by the devil. Once we have either done that sin or blessed another’s doing of it, we then need to humble ourselves to God in order to experience the godly sorrow that leads to repentance (2nd Cor. 7:8-10). Repentance is a change of mind. Then by confessing what we have done or blessed as a sin (1st John 1:9), God is faithful and just to pardon us through the blood of the Lamb.

I am also a pro-life democrat, but ever since I was reborn from above (John 3:3-7), I have never been able to put democrat before pro-life by voting for a pro-death democratic candidate for civil office. It’s not me that makes me unable to do this. I am just as evil as that Texas woman who ate her baby. It’s God’s seed abiding in me that makes me unable to punch a hole next to the name of a pro-death candidate for civil office (1st John 3:9). Before I was reborn, I was a pro-life DEMOCRAT. Now I’m a PRO-LIFE democrat. It’s all about priorities. It’s wickedness to help those in need of clothing, shelter, and health care when there are others with the higher priority needs of oxygen, water, and food.

The 7 things every human being needs, in order of priority, are: oxygen, water, food, clothing, shelter, health care, and companionship. Our party, on the presidential level, has adopted a platform of denying oxygen, water, and food from some who are in need of those things. It will never abandon this pro-death platform for as long as we continue to vote for pro-death candidates for civil office. I also believe that Mr. McCain was unfit for the office. If all of the candidates are unfit for a given office, then I don’t vote for that office. It’s not that I’m afraid God will punish me if I vote for a pro-death candidate for civil office. It’s that I am incapable of voting for a pro-death candidate for civil office, because I am reborn from above.

When I pick up the stylus in the voting booth, it’s as though I’m holding a knife in the air over a helpless baby in the same manner Abraham once did, only it’s impossible for me to go through with it. I firmly believe, with all my heart, that if Jesus had returned on election night last year, every person who voted for Mr. Obama would have been left behind on earth to die and spend eternity in the spot that is reserved in eternal fire for murderers (Apocalypse 21:8). The reason why they would have been left behind is not because they voted for Mr. Obama, but that they were not reborn from above.

God was even so gracious as to give us a sign, but we were too blind to see it. That sign consisted of the testimonies of those saying Mr. Obama opened his mother’s womb in the wrong place on earth. To this day, he still has not shown the paper that would answer this question: Where on earth did Mr. Obama open his mother’s womb? And why won’t he let the unborn? OK, that was two questions, but still they are two interesting questions nonetheless. Those are the two questions that born from above birthers ask. We don’t answer those two questions. We just ask them with the humility of a child asking them.

As for you Camerong, it’s scientifically impossible for me to judge your heart. Only God can do that. I am simply answering this question: is it possible for a man who has God’s seed abiding inside him to punch a hole next to the name of a pro-death candidate for civil office? I am absolutely sure that the answer is no. It is impossible. I am obeying the command to discern spirits to see if they are of God (1st Joh. 4:1). My fellow Catholic, it is with sadness that I inform you that your spirit is currently not of God. The good news is that it can still change. Please swallow your pride before God so that He can give you the spirit of grace that He only gives to the humble (1st Peter 5:5).

Upon arriving at the prayerful discernment that at least half of my fellow Catholics do not have God’s seed abiding in them, I stopped receiving communion. I ask God to give me all the grace I need through prayer and the sacrament of reconciliation, because I cannot bring myself to receive communion with the thought that about half of my fellow Catholics are receiving communion with the innocent blood of thousands of souls each day on their hands. We are not to eat with such individuals (1st Corinthians 5:11).

Please don’t get me wrong. The emotion inside me towards half of my fellow Catholics is 0% anger. Instead, it’s 100% sadness, because I know that unless they repent and become reborn from above, I will never see them in the afterlife. It’s impossible for a human being who is reborn of God to let another let a man let a woman have his offspring put to death (1st John 3:9). I will always fulfill my obligation to go to mass every Sunday. It’s just that going to mass is now a sad thing for me. I quietly pray at mass for God to give my fellow Catholics grace, while at the same time knowing that God cannot give them grace until they swallow their pride and humble themselves before Him. (to be continued)
 
(continued) God has even been so gracious as to give us the authority to pronounce the one, whose name we punched a hole next to, a fraud so that we can demand a re-election. This authority comes by way of the fact that Mr. Obama used a certain book to take his oath of office. Then it comes by taking notice of a legal precedent that is found inside that book. In the scroll of Deuteronomy, chapter 22, verses 13-21, we find legal precedent that gives us the authority to call him a fraud. Her cloth is his paper that is currently inside a vault in Hawaii. Her blood is the ink that was used to spell either the words “United States” or “British East Africa.” His testimony against her is the word of witnesses who say he was born in British East Africa, which is now Kenya. Unless the man hands over his cloth to the civil authorities for inspection, our Judge gives us the authority to pronounce him a fraud.

There is also one other thing that I believe. It’s not a church teaching. It’s something that has come to me through Lectio Divina prayer. I don’t believe the souls of aborted babies are in heaven. I don’t believe they’re in hell, of course, but I don’t believe they’re in heaven either. I believe they are in a state of death, a state that’s not as good as being here on earth, but not as bad as being in hell. St. John wrote “death and hell” (Apocalypse 20:13-14) as though there are two different states other than heaven. I personally believe that purgatory consists of those souls in a state of death that will be resurrected, along with souls currently in heaven, at the Lord’s next coming (1st Thes. 4:16-17).

I am not certain if SOME of the souls of aborted babies believe in God or if ALL of them do. What I am certain of is that at least some of them believe in God. We’ve always thought of heaven as up and hell as down in relation to us. Where do I believe the souls of aborted babies who believe in God are in relation to us? Please brace yourself. I believe that the souls of aborted babies who believe in God are currently under the altar (Apocalypse 6:9-11) of our churches. They are given white robes even though they don’t have the testimony of Jesus Christ. The only way this could be is if they were killed before they got the opportunity to hear the good news that every human being deserves to hear (Mark 16:15-16). Their brethren, those about to be killed in the same manner as they, are inside wombs of women who have made a certain appointment with a certain doctor. The reason why these souls cannot possibly be up above us yet is because we let their parents block the good news from coming to their ears.

God knows what will happen before it happens. Abortion on demand law began in 1969 (California Supreme Court). I’m too young to remember, but I understand that 1969 was also the year that the Holy Spirit gave our clergy the idea of moving the altar from where it was before 1969 to where it is now. I suggest that we dare not consider the thought of moving the altar back until the number of souls under it stops increasing (Apocalypse 6:11). There are only two ways that can happen. Either we repent for letting another let a man let a woman have his offspring put to death, or the Lord returns in judgment, taking a few of us while leaving the rest of us to die of whatever calamity will come upon the earth at that time.

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
Daniel John
 
You are falling into a classic trap against which Christ preached–judging the hearts of others. We Catholics who voted for Obama made a mistake. You have also made a mistake in accusing our hearts of being in the wrong place. I have now admitted my mistake, I await you admitting yours.
Click to expand...
I just want to say that I don’t buy it. Not at all. This is a case either of a terribly crass, supine ignorance (Was there one single person in the USA who was not aware that Barack Oabama was 100% pro all abortion rights before the election? Only if they went out of their way to remain ignorant) or it’s a lie. Nobody owes you an apology. IMO, you may have an unresolved matter for the confessional.

Also, supporting infanticide is complete political incompetence, meaning your faculty of right judgement is also compormised.

All I see is another liberal Catholic whose lukewarm comittment to Catholic social teaching allowed them to get swept up in a materialist media frenzy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top