Skip to comments.Anti-Catholicism, Hypocrisy and Double Standards
Posted on 07/23/2007 3:36:15 PM PDT by annalex
Sunday, July 22, 2007
As a young Catholic I was unaware of the amount of irrational hatred that was directed toward the Catholic Church and Catholics themselves. Growing up in Los Angeles I was not subject to the Fundamentalist tracts being placed on my family car while we were at Mass as I would have been had I lived in the Bible Belt. My exposure to people of other faiths was frequent and always positive. The majority of my friends growing were Jewish as were the girls whom I had the honor of dating. My babysitter growing up was Mormon, as was my Paternal Grandfather. My Paternal Grandmother is a Methodist and my Father was an atheist for most of his life. My Maternal Grandfather was a Presbyterian from a family that produced many deacons. However, my Maternal Grandmother was an Irish Catholic and thus my Mother was a Catholic and therefore we were raised Catholic. None of this was seen as a conflict. None of the above people in my family ever acted as though anything was wrong with my siblings and I being raised Catholic.
In my college years I essentially fell away from the faith. I still called myself a Catholic but had no particular belief in any of the dogmas that makes one a Catholic. I just knew that I was of Irish ancestry and thus was Catholic. My beliefs were for the most part agnostic. I thought that true believers were absurd (I included both theist and atheist true believers as absurd).
While in college I heard all about how the Catholic Church was responsible for the Dark Ages, the destruction of the Native Peoples of the Americas, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, pimples on teenagers, Milli-Vanilli and just about everything else that negatively effected anyone anywhere at anytime everywhere. I learned how peaceful and wonderful Muslim societies were and how Christians lived very well under Islamic rule. And how the Crusades were an evil move by a corrupt Pope to throw off that wonderful balance and have a huge land grab for greedy Churchman and Nobles. I heard how nothing good happened in the Christian world and no good men were produced in the Christian world until Marin Luther and later "the Enlightenment". I look back now and marvel at how I remained a Catholic even if it was in name only. All my history professors with their fancy PhDs thought Catholicism was a force for evil in the Western World who was I to disagree? Of course I just went along and got good grades and degrees not really challenging the idiocy that I was being taught.
There I was just a young guy going through life not contemplating the great issues of life and certainly not contemplating being a Catholic when I had the misfortune to meet a Rabbi that was a friend of my wifes family. During our discussion, the rabbi told me about things that Christians buy into like the Trinity and the fact that Jesus was God. I was told that I could never understand Jews and their suffering at the hands of Catholics. I was told that I would never know what it is to be a Jew or how it feels to have your children forced to sing Christmas carols (oh the horror! the horror!). I would never know what it is like to look at someone like me and see the Inquisition and the Crusades. Now, anyone who is not a self absorbed bigot would know that talking to a person who is half Irish and Catholic knows a little something of prejudice and persecution. My ancestors could not own land in their own country. They had to pay taxes to a foreign English master and support his foreign Church that was a parasite on their own land. They had real persecution. If they could have gotten off with simply singing Church of Ireland songs rather than pay taxes to and be persecuted by the British, I'm sure they would have gladly accepted. But why look past ones on victim-hood in order to see truth, when victim-hood is so much more of a commodity in our modern society.
At that point I made a commitment to understand my faith. I would never let someone attack the beliefs of my ancestors as this rabbi did without making a strong defense. My ancestors were willing to be persecuted (the real kind of persecution not the Christmas Carol kind) rather than abandon their faith. The least I could do is understand what they found so important as to endure what they did. Thus starting my journey toward becoming a passionate believer. The irony of a anti-Catholic bigoted rabbi bringing me closer to the truth of Christ is absolutely wonderful.
I started reading books by the usual authors that are sold at Borders and Barnes & Noble like George Weigel. While informative they were, upon reflection, very superficial. However, I happened upon a book called Catholicism verses Fundamentalism by Karl Keating. I thought it was simply going to be an analysis of Catholic beliefs versus Fundamentalist beliefs. What I had purchased was a wonderful combination of satire and apologetics. It has become the definitive apologetics book produced in the last 30 years. The title of the book itself mocks Jimmy Swaggarts silly book Catholicism and Christianity. Throughout the book I was baptized by fire into the world of anti-Catholicism. I learned about such Fundamentalist writers and thinkers as Lorraine Boettner, Alexander Hislop, Jimmy Swaggart, Jack Chick and others. Keating dismantled their arguments so thoroughly that one wonders how these people are not all routinely dismissed even by honest Fundamentalists. Sadly, low rent bigots like Hislop, Boettner and Dave Hunt are still widely read in Fundamentalist circles. Swaggart has fallen out of favor as we all know. Keating opened up a new door to me. I now was ready for the next step and started buying every book by Chesterton and Belloc I could find as they are the greatest apologists for the Catholic faith in the last 100 years.
The Holy Spirit has a funny way of working. I became friends with a wonderful guy who happens to be a Fundamentalist Christian. As we would talk he would mention some of the things that Keating talked about in his book. I was informed that Peter never went to Rome and that the Church was founded by Constantine the Great, and that Easter is really Ishtar and other scholarly insights that occupy the minds of Fundamentalist writers. I was told all about Catholicism and how it is really just paganism re-written. To his and most Fundamentalists credit, they literally do not know they are repeating lies. These books are sold at Protestant Book Stores and Churches. Also, he informed me of these things out of love as he believed my soul was in peril. So he could not process the refutations that I would make to him and just go on to the next attack. Most Catholics know about this tactic that Fundamentalists use. They will tell us what we believe and how stupid we are for believing it. 99% of the time they are wrong. The problem is that they have been told by Dave Hunt (his bio is from "rapture ready") or James White that the Calumnies that they are stating are Gospel truth.
After a while I began to pick up more and more apologetics material to refute my friends claims. I also decided that I would no longer play defense with him. I would attack his belief in sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone). When I would press him and ask about where those teachings are found in the Bible he would have no answer. This lead to his anger that I was asking too much to show me where the Bible taught either one of those Protestant Traditions (Traditions of men, not of God I might add). I would also repeat what he would say to me but re-phrase it to see if he really was willing to stand by it. For instance, he once told me that he was passionately anti-Catholic. I responded Really? So if I were Jewish would it be okay for you to tell me that you are passionately anti-Jew? He was taken aback and responded Of course not! I then responded I guess some hatred is acceptable while others is not. His response .silence. And then move on to the next attack. That is generally the tactic of the anti-Catholic. Never acknowledge that they are wrong, just move on to the next attack until they find something that the Catholic cannot answer. Usually it ends with some obscure Pope from the 7th century that no one knows about.
Anti-Catholicism rots the mind. It blinds people and they become obsessed with the destruction of something that they cannot destroy. People have been trying for 2000 years. Churchmen like Roger Mahoney have done their best. But the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it. So this leads to desperation. Which then leads to all kinds of ridiculous theories and outright lies about what Catholics believe and do. It does not stop with Fundamentalist Christians though. Before we think well thats just those weird bible-thumpers lets examine some things that people just know.
People "just know" that the Catholic Church did nothing in the Americas but persecute the indigenous people and massacre them. We "just know" that Priests never stood up to the Spaniards. Of course this is untrue. It is true that there were Catholic Priests who conducted themselves terribly during colonial times. However, it was Catholic Priests who sought to make life better for the indigenous people. Jesuits armed Indians against the Spanish in Paraguay, Francisco de Vittoria pleaded with the Spanish King in defense of the Indians. Most people in the Americas have never heard of Bartoleme de las Casas. Las Casas, a Spanish Dominican Priest has been called the Father of anti-imperialism and anti-racism. There is also Antonio Montesino who was the first person, in 1511, to denounce publicly in America the enslavement and oppression of the Indians as sinful and disgraceful to the Spanish nation. There of course were villains in the Spanish system but so were there in the American and English systems that were dominated by Protestants. We dont hear about the brutality of Protestant lands in the US. We hear about those backward Spanish Catholics (who built the first Universities in the Americas) but not about the theocratic police state established in Geneva by John Calvin or the massacres carried out by Anabaptists in Munster.
In some cases anti-Catholicism is not only profitable it can allow for common bullies to slander and desecrate the memory of men finer than themselves without repercussions. Take the case of Daniel Goldhagen. He has made a career out of slandering the Catholic Church. Commenting on Mr. Goldhagens slanderous book A Moral Reckoning, Rabbi David Dalin, described Goldhagens work as "failing to meet even the minimum standards of scholarship. He went on to say That the book has found its readership out in the fever swamps of anti-Catholicism isn't surprising. But that a mainstream publisher like Knopf would print the thing is an intellectual and publishing scandal." This statement is absolutely correct. Let us be honest though, Goldhagen simply represents the double-standard that exists in our society. He is a left wing Jew who attacks the only group that it is acceptable to attack in modern American society, the evil Catholics. If a right wing Catholic were to make his living by attacking Judaism and slandering a prominent rabbi while blaming Judaism for the Marxist massacres under the NKVD he would be an out of work conspiracy kook and a anti-Semite. He would certainly not be published in the New Republic. Goldhagen has made the absurd statement that Christianity is anti-Semitic at its core. Imagine if one were to say that Judaism is anti-Gentile to its core. They would be isolated as an anti-Semite. The message is clear. A Jewish bigot like Goldhagen gets published by Knopf and the New Republic while his mirror image would be isolated and vilified.
I would like to wrap up with some other observations. All Catholics are told endless stories about Catholics persecuting people. Generally it starts with a Catholic King who orders the persecution of a group and despite the Bishops or Pope condemning it, "the Catholics" are to blame. An example of his would be during the Crusades when Crusaders massacred Jews along the Rhine. That was the Catholics despite the local Bishops hiding and protecting Jews. When a Protestant barbarian like Oliver Cromwell slaughters Catholics at Drogheda and sells the women and children into sex slavery or sacks Wexford thats not the Protestants. Thats just Cromwell.
Much is made about Hitler being a baptized Catholic by ignoramuses like Dave Hunt. Other bigots like Goldhagen argue that Nazism was an extension of Catholic bigotry through the ages. Yet these people do not mention that Karl Marx was a Jew and that the ranks of the NKVD, some of the greatest murderers of all time, were filled with Jews. By using Goldhagens logic should we not attack Judaism and Jews? If we Catholics are and our faith are responsible for a former Catholic who later went so far as to persecute the Church, should not Jews be held responsible for Karl Marx and Genrikh Yagoda and the fact that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish. The answer is of course not. Your Jewish neighbor has likely not heard of the NKVD, Yagoda let alone support what he and they did.
As I wrap up my thoughts on this I should say thank you to all of the people that I mention above. Especially the Rabbi who started my journey. Had he not been a self absorbed bigot, he would not have angered me and I would not have explored my own faith. I would have continued in my ignorance and would not have understood the faith that built Western Civilization and sustained my ancestors. I would not have understood the faith that Christ taught to the Apostles, that was passed on to their successors, our Bishops. I would not truly know the joy of being a Catholic. His ignorant statements brought about my reversion back to the true faith and my wifes conversion to it. For that, I will literally be eternally indebted to him.
For your pinging pleasure
Sounds like he's been reading the Religion Forum on Free Republic.
Ah, great read.. loved it. And so true.
Any reason why I’m the only Protestant pinged to this thread, annalex?
If he had, his statememnt would read:
"...I was unaware of the amount of irrational hatred directed by Christians toward any beliefs (Christian or otherwise) other than their own."
Current article. BTTT!
Are there others?
Not even close.
Excellent piece. Thanks for posting it.
I am anti-RC doctrine but with at least two exception - Jesus is God as well as Son of God & anti-abortion. It appears to me that RC doctrine is a morphing of the Aronic Priesthood rather than completely superseeding it as Hebrews, for example, demands.
I have no intention to go to war I simply reject the RC doctrine that equates RC "membership" with the body of Christ (i.e. the true/invisible church).
18 "There is no more an oblation for sin"... Where there is a full remission of sins, as in baptism, there is no more occasion for a sin offering to be made for such sins already remitted; and as for sins committed afterwards, they can only be remitted in virtue of the one oblation of Christ's death.
You probably object to the theology of the Eucharist as sacrifice; however, the Eucharist is not making a new sacrifice.
The Douay-Rheims is such a beautiful, poetic—almost musical—translation.
I hit Post too soon.
On your second part, the Catholic teaching is that anyone validly baptized is baptized Catholic, and therefore belongs to the Mystical Body of Christ, which is His Church. “Validly” here means in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, with water. In other words, most Protestant baptisms are valid and your ministers baptize into the Catholic Church. “Invisible Church” is an expression we don’t like because baptism is not invisible.
Now, what happens to that newly baptized who attends a Protestant community of faith? He does not follow up with a Catholic Church life and falls off. The picture is better for an Orthodox who maintains a Church life in obedience to his bishop, receives valid sacraments of confession and the Eucharist and so the ordinary means fo salvation are available to him, despite the unfortunate schism of the past 1,000 years.
This is the Catholic ecclesiology in a nutshell; I realize that you are likely to disagree, but I want you di disagree with what we really teach rather than with what you think we teach.
Please consider applying your Catholic pinglist to this fine article.
Sadly this pretty much say it all in the nutshell. I pray for that my Protestant Brothers and Sisters to read the Early Church Fathers and realize that they have been lied to about Catholicism.
Dear friend,Excellent article thank you for posting it
I wish you a Blessed Evening!
The author has some real issues with non-Catholics.
Anti-Catholicism rots the mind. It blinds people and they become obsessed with the destruction of something that they cannot destroyI have the same "real issue".
Great links, thank you!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Thanks for the ping.
Yeah, I must be seein’ things.
Excellent article, thanks for posting it!
That does have the ring of truth, doesn't it?
I need to learn to punt earlier and pray more.
The author makes a number of good points, particularly about history. But I have to admit again (I’ve said this umpteen times before on this forum) I really despise the term “anti-Catholic.” I refuse to have anything to do with it.
To me, it smacks of the same kind of wimpy victimology which we see on the other side.
It is not a terribly useful label either. If I believed Catholicism to be of the Antichrist you bet your bippy I’d be vehemently anti- it and proud of the fact, just as I’m proud as punch to say I’m anti-abortion, anti-terrorism, and well, frankly, anti-Protestantism.
Telling a man he *shouldn’t* be anti- something he views as evil is asking him to be a schizophrenic.
As a Catholic, I certainly don't feel victimized, I feel blessed.
I don’t have a constructive replacement to offer, unfortunately.
Actually though, maybe what bugs me is the *personalization* of the issue. Calling someone an anti-Catholic is (the way I hear it anyway) a personal accusation. When we get into personal matters, the debate is already lost...what we are called to do IMHO is just to answer questions and correct misimpressions as often as we are called to— patiently, repeatedly and firmly.
Argue the issue, not the person.
I don’t use it in a personal way but in reference to a group-think kind of thing that exists.
>>I responded Really? So if I were Jewish would it be okay for you to tell me that you are passionately anti-Jew? <<
The dude stole my line!
Right, that makes sense. I would venture to guess that like you, most people don’t use it personally...but it can come across that way at times.
Oy... language is an imperfect thing! :)
Well, when you’re right and on the side of good, it stirs up a lot of ill feeling. When the foundations of one’s beliefs are sloppily built sand, it’s easier to attack than to defend.
We have been blessed (and burdened) with carrying the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to all humanity. throughout history. It is our lot. And, in part, it is how we will be judged by Him. We are not judged by the opposition we are subjected to; we are judged by how we meet (and possibly convert) the opposition.
The author is absolutely right on here, as he is throughout this excellent piece.
The behavior pattern he describes arises because the anti-Catholic ideologue is operating according to an "Inspector Javert" methodology ... the question is not whether the suspect (the Catholic Church) is guilty -- that has already been decided in the affirmative -- the question is simply what evidence can be made to "stick".
Catholics sure can write about themselves.
>>Actually though, maybe what bugs me is the *personalization* of the issue.<<
Go back and reread the “Anti-Catholic” threads.
The first, “Do you believe.....” question makes it personal. That’s what I have a problem with.
Mankind has inflicted horrible sins upon their own brothers and sisters.
Is it true that most murdered in Nazi concentration camps were executed by their Jewish capos? Maybe. Some theorize that the capos, by executing the victims themselves were more merciful than how the Nazis would butcher the condemned.
And of those pro-abortion candidates that use their Catholic Baptism as a pledge pin, aren’t most of them voted into office by other Catholics?
Beware the satanic tactic that turns the hearts of men against fellow man. What is but a natural separation has become an unnatural division. This is how satans turn dark skinned people against light skinned people, and even male against female.
The proper division is sin versus obedience. If St Michaels victory cry is “Who is like God?”, then mankind’s battle cry must be “Who is like Jesus?” With Jesus, our Human Race is victorious as He is our Ever Champion.
Some popes behavior; some priests behavlior; disobedient catholics, especially left wing ones — are frequent tactics.
If one wants to get somewhere with a substantive argument, one must challenge the Protestantism’s chief suoperstitions, of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. That is, after all, a purely scriptural argument that puts Protestantism on the defensive.
LOL! So do I!
Lord have mercy on me. Mother Mary, pray for me, a sinner, now and at the hour of my death.
Nice post. I find the anti Catholic sentiment here at FR the most distasteful along with theories of the Neo Confederates and the anti-police crowd. Fortunately the latter two are relatively few in posters. The first seems pretty widespread.
Although I'm not through using the term "Protestant" when it's applicable, and, despite the protestations (no pun intended) to the contrary by some on this forum, it IS applicable to the Baptists.
The "Trail of Blood" is a "Trail of Baloney".
I don’t see the point of obsessing on people who don’t like your faith.
The author suffers from the same thing she says the anti-Catholics suffer from. Just the reverse.
I don’t have a problem with people explaining their beliefs and advocating for their theological traditions no matter how defective. Unfortunately, too much in Protestantism rides on denial of Catholic truths, so it is defined in terms of being anti-Catholic. Junk conversations about obscure popes is one thing, but quite often a substantive conversation about, say, the theology of faith and works, ends up to be about branding every Catholic practice ‘works’, then denying it on that basis.
The victim mentality is a useless thing. Catholicism should be on the offensive; we did, after all, receive the commission to teach every nation. Victims can’t teach.
>>I dont see the point of obsessing on people who dont like your faith.<<
Like someone who starts threads about all the bad things in another’s faith? The problem with your post is that it’s not obsession.
1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.
When one is constantly told that one is wrong, talking about that is not obsession. This author just states facts.
>>The author suffers from the same thing she says the anti-Catholics suffer from. Just the reverse.<<
As we should. When other communities may have theories, we have a story.
The source of unity should be the Blessed Mother, as she has the mystical connection to the Church Militant. Unfortunately, blasphemous deconstruction of Our Lady is the primary Protestant pastime.
On this, I am sure the author would agree. I certainly agree. Like I just posted to someone else, we don't have an argument with anyone advocating his own belief system.