School Paper's Anti-Catholic Stories

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tyler_Smedley
  • Start date Start date
Not open for further replies.


:mad: So our School paper has run 2 anti Catholic Articles in the last two issues and I am extremely upset, they trash not only on our Faith but they seem to think that they can get away with it. I NEED HELP TO FIGHT THIS GARBAGE THAT IS GOING OUT TO 12000 STUDENTS AND TEACHERS! IDEAS COMMENTS ANYTHING!!!

These are the articles…

This one was done earlier just to give you perspective…
The section on the Church supporting the colonial slave trade is a bunch of hooey. You could start there. Find Catholic Answer’s Voting Guide for Catholics and use that.

Seems to me, that your school paper needs to learn responsible journalism…oh, wait, that may be an obsolete ideal in our present, cultural decline… 😦

Lord have mercy.
Okay, point 1) The bishops aren’t using communion as a political tool… they are stating that Kerry can’t use his quasi-Catholicism as a political tool. In other words, he can’t use receiving communion illicitly as a photo-op to purchase votes, and they are stating publicly that he is receiving communion illicitly because he is a public figure and is therefore creating scandal. Do they have the right to do that? yes. Why? because they are in charge of shepherding their flocks and their flocks see this very public figure receiving communion and holding this very public anti-Catholic view and could potentially think that that made it okay. They ARE NOT getting involved in politics. THEY DO NOT care that Kerry gets elected or not (they might, but that isn’t why they are so up in arms), THEY CARE that he not set a wrong example in holding incorrect and contrary public views to the official church teaching while receiving communion very publicly.

The Methodist Church split in 1842 over the issue of slavery. The northern Methodist Church declared anyone supporting slavery could not be a member in good standing within their Church.

Would this paper has also condemmed the Methodist church at that time for threating damnation on those who supported slavery?
I note that all three articles are under the heading of “opinion.” If the facts presented are incorrect, then it should be easy to correct them. If the arguments based on those facts are not logical, then that could be presented.

What are the problems with either the facts or the arguments?
I know these are under opinions, however these opinions are based on the misconceptions of the Catholic Church, and do not give the entire story. One of the misconceptions, in regard to the gay “marriage” issue, is, it is not just the Catholic Church that is against, but also the majority of Protestant churches.
As far as receiving communion, as Catholics, you know the rules to belong to the club.

The three pieces cited are all classified as editorials or opinion pieces; they may assert erroneous opinion, but opinion is protected speech; the counter to it is op-ed presentations.

I would note that the following two quotes, from Wolfgang Deerkop’s piece are well-said and profound statements that we would all do well to remember
In the same manner that Father Seromba does not exemplify the 1 billion adherents to the Catholic faith, Islamic clerics such as Muqtada al-Sadr and those who follow them are not representative of every Muslim.
Generalizations of an entire faith because of fringe movements fracture what little religious tolerance is left in this world and make hypocrites of us all.
Persons are free to disagree with the religious tenets of a particular faith, to espouse that disagreement, and to explain the rationale behind his/her thought. That’s not an attack, whether it’s done by an adherent or a non-believer, provided that it’s not presented in an inflammatory manner and doesn’t rely on inaccurate or erroneous information to present its case.

Members of a faith who find its precepts to be repugnant and/or untenable are free to take appropriate action within their faith, whether by prayer, ecclesiastical legislation, or effecting changes in leadership to revise them. Alternatively, they are free to transfer their religious allegiance and adherence to another religious body which has an outlook more in concert with their own. Or, they disagree, but choose to live with it.

Unfortunately, Mr. Deerkoop fails to understand that political correctness is not a concept to which a religion is required to adhere in its “tenants” (sic). Thus, Muslims are free to require that their women adherents wear veils and Catholics are free to deny ordination to its women adherents.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is not going to do you any good; this isn’t hate literature, its journalistic opinion of a sophmoric nature, typical of college newpapers. As I read the web site, the paper is an official school organ, but is primarily supported by advertising revenue. That makes its content more sacrosanct than if it were dependent entirely on public funding by a state school.

In summary, the solution to your issue is for YOU to take pen to paper - or fingers to keyboard. Volumes of correspondence by those not of the school’s community seldom mean anything to a publication which has that community as its constituency.

Many years,

Does this purported newspaper publish canards or slanderous claims about other religions. It looks like you got some real Catholic haters in your community
Nope this paper is exclusively anti-Catholic in their stories, remember that it is ok for everyone to have thier own opinion unless you are Catholic, then you are just wrong.
Be careful to separate the idea of opinion from fact. If someone does not thing the Catholic Church should get make statements about abortion, for example, then that is an opinion. You, of course, have every right to point out why you think it is an erroneous opinion, but remember this is in the editorial page.

However, just because somebody slaps “opinion” on the top of a column does not mean they can misrepresent facts. These are the areas where you should focus on correction.

Just one example: “million of people died in the Crusades, Inquisitions, blah blah blah…”

Oh, really? Millions? As in at least 2 million?

Not only is that a mind-numbing number, it simply has no basis in fact or logic. These are the things we need to respond to. We don’t need to say that every action taken was proper or good, but when facts are blatantly misrepresented for the very purpose of over-dramatizing the evil of organized religion, it needs to be refuted. This is just one of many factual errors. Even an opinion piece needs to have proper facts.

I can’t just write an opinion that “Microsoft has paid off the federal judiciary” with no basis in fact and expect not to be sued because “well, that’s just my opinion.”
Not open for further replies.