and general counsel to the organization then known as “Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.”Posted on 07/17/2007 10:50:08 AM PDT by NYer
Recently, when the Supreme Court declined to strike down as unconstitutional a federal law prohibiting the killing of partially delivered babies by the grisly practice formally known as “dilation and extraction abortion,” a reptilian creature known to Americans of an earlier time as Blanshardism–a creature thought by many to be long and mercifully extinct–crawled out from under a rock.
Paul Blanshard was the Ian Paisley of American anti-Catholicism in the middle third of the twentieth century. He was the author of the vile anti-Catholic tract titled American Freedom and Catholic Power
The neo-Blanshardite reaction to the Supreme Court’s partial-birth abortion ruling was led by former University of Chicago Provost Geoff Stone, who in condemning the decision as upholding what he ludicrously regarded as a an imposition of the Catholic religion pointedly called attention to the fact that the five justices forming the majority are members of the Catholic Church, and the Philadelphia Inquirer, which published a despicable cartoon depicting the five wearing the mitres of Catholic bishops.
Had the partial-birth abortion decision come out the other way, turning on the votes of the two Jewish justices, and had a prominent conservative professor have made an issue of their religion and a conservative newspaper published a cartoon depicting them wearing yarmulkes and prayer shawls, there would have been howls of outrage and loud denunciations of the bigotry on display. People across the spectrum of religious and political belief, including those who oppose partial birth abortion, would have condemned the cartoon and demanded apologies. And they would have been right. Religious prejudice should be unacceptable in American public life. Period.
But while the writings of Professor Stone and the cartoon in the Philadelphia newspaper drew a certain amount of criticism and generated discussion on some blogs, the neo-Blanshardites were not reprimanded or even criticized by prominent liberal civil rights leaders or by leading liberal civil rights and civil liberties organizations. Perhaps I missed something, but I heard no denunciations from those secular or religious liberals who have long proclaimed themselves mortal enemies of all forms of prejudice, and from whom therefore one would have expected a firm condemnation of bigotry even when manifested in support of a cause they like.
Some Catholics spoke up in defense of themselves and their Church, but few prominent non-Catholics came to the aid of their Catholic fellow citizens. It was almost as if we were back in the 1940s and 50s, when it was socially acceptable to regard Catholics who were true to their faith as potentially disloyal to the principles of American freedom and democracy, and therefore unfit to be trusted with high political or judicial office.
Yet it is not quite true that no non-Catholics spoke out against the new Blanshardism. There are heroes in this story. The heroes, however, are not to be found among the mainstream civil rights and civil liberties groups. No condemnations of the rank anti-Catholicism on display were forthcoming from the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, or Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Nor was anything heard from the mainline Protestant denominations that are regarded by many Catholic liberals as Catholicism’s true friends and ecumenical conversation partners. Leaders of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, etc. were silent. The prejudice antennae of these leaders–ordinarily so sensitive–seems to shut down when the victims of prejudice are Catholics.
Who were the heroes, then? Who rushed to the defense of Catholics when they and their Church were under siege from the neo-Blanshardites? It was the leaders of the Evangelical movement. And they came with a powerful and, indeed, remarkable statement. Led by Chuck Colson, many of the most influential leaders of contemporary Evangelicalism joined together to condemn anti-Catholicism. And they did not stop there. They went on to acknowledge and express remorse for the involvement of American Evangelicals in anti-Catholic prejudice in the past.
After condemning Stone’s remarks and the Inquirer’s cartoon, Mr. Colson, joined by Frank S. Page, president of Southern Baptist Convention, Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, and many more leading Evangelicals, said:
We believe it is our particular duty to condemn the bigotry we are now witnessing in view of the history of anti-Catholicism in our nation. It is a stain on the Protestant Christian conscience that at one time many of our people accepted the vile teachings of Paul Blanshard in his book American Freedom and Catholic Power, and supported the anti-Catholic agenda of the group founded by Blanshard and others that now styles itself Americans United for Separation of Church and State (formerly known as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State).
They then invoked the example of Pope John Paul II:
Just as Pope John Paul II acknowledged past injustices committed by Catholics, or committed in the name of Catholicism, against Protestants, Jews, and others and pledged to work against any revival of these injustices, we acknowledge past Protestant prejudices against Catholics and pledge to fight against the anti-Catholic bigotry we are now witnessing. Our Catholic brothers and sisters will not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them.
This is a profound statement of solidarity and support, and Catholics should lose no time in thanking their Evangelical brothers and sisters for it. Speaking as a Catholic myself, I will say this: If there was ever any doubt about who are our true friends and ecumenical partners, this doubt has been erased. We need ask and answer but two questions: Who spoke? Who remained silent?
The Pope did not say that Christian believers who are not Catholics aren't Christians.
They obviously are. The question is whether their ecclesial structures are adequate, not whether their hearts are true.
On the other hand most Protestants remain aghast at the idea of holding bingo (gambling) sessions in the basement of a church building.
Baptist Ping
“The question is whether their ecclesial structures are adequate,”
Ecclesiastical structures are adequate for what?
To dispense the sacraments.
Yeah, Poland and Malta are such thoroughly apostate nations. [lol]
Wake up; the rest of the world is not like New England and doesn't fit into such predictable categories. The least churchgoing state in the nation is Oregon. Oregon is 15% Catholic. Guess you'll have to find another scapegoat, huh?
And New England Protestants cooked up more than their fair share of strange religious ideas. A certain religion that has their world headquarters and "Mother Church" in the Back Bay neighborhood of Boston wasn't founded by Catholics.
Catholic / Protestant
C-—Authority: Scripture and tradition
P-—Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone
Bible: C—— Includes apocrypha- P-— Excludes apocrypha
Results of Fall: C-— Corruption and tendency to sin/
P-—Total depravity and guilt
Free will:C-— Free to do good or evil /P-— Free only to do evil
Predestination: C-—Related to God’s foreknowledge /P-— Related to God’s decrees
Atonement: C-— Death of Christ created merit that is shared with sinners through sacraments /
P-—Death of Christ was a substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied God’s justice
Divine grace: C-— Prevenient grace helps one believe; efficacious grace cooperates with the human will to do good /
P-—Common grace enabling good works given to all; sufficient grace for salvation given to elect only
Good works:C-— Meritorious/ P-—Results of divine grace and unworthy of merit/
Salvation: C-— Received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance. Those who have never heard of Christ may be saved. (Catech 847)
P-—Result of divine grace; unconditional. Those who have never heard of Christ may be saved. /
The Church: C-— The Catholic Church is “the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation” (Catech 845) but those baptized in other Christian denominations are in communion with the Church (Catech 838). /
P-—There is a distinction between the visible and invisible church. God saves anyone he chooses, or anyone with proper faith, regardless of church membership.
Sacraments:C-— Convey grace by their operation (ex opere operato).
/
P-—Means of grace only if received with faith.
C-—Priests A special vocation for some believers; mediators between God and man/
P-—Priesthood of all believers.
Transubstantiation: C-— Affirmed / P-— Rejected
Purgatory: C-— Affirmed P-— / Denied
Prayer to saints: C-— Accepted / P-— Rejected
Well, in the South, that would be both Southern Baptists and Methodists. The Baptists are generally very strongly pro-life. The Methodists are... well... Methodists.
<<<”On the other hand most Protestants remain aghast at the idea of holding bingo (gambling) sessions in the basement of a church building.”>>>
Do they still stay “aghast” about the dinners for divorced and remarried wedding partners held in the basement?
<<<”On the other hand most Protestants remain aghast at the idea of holding bingo (gambling) sessions in the basement of a church building.”>>>
Do they still stay “aghast” about the dinners for divorced and remarried wedding partners held in the basement?
Easy. Minnesota - Lutherans
Utah - LDS
South - Baptists
And the Bible calls Christ's Church "the pillar and foundation of truth."
So how can there be thousands of "pillars of truth" espousing contradictory doctrines? As far as I know, there isn't a single doctrine that all non-Catholic Christians agree on, including sola scriptura, except that they all reject the papacy.
Matthew 28:18-20The Great Commission includes baptism and instruction in the faith which was handed on to the Apostles.Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
You need to get out more. Of all my family, friends and acquaintances, Catholic, Protestant and other, the Catholics are far more likely to attend service than any other group. This is by a wide margin, very wide. Could be because in the Midwest, it's typically Catholic or mainline Protestant, in this part of Iowa, it's basically Catholic or Lutheran. In this particular county, Catholics are the majority and our 1400 family parish church is usually 3/4 to overflowing for four services each weekend. Lent and Advent seasons are crazy packed.
BTW, your contention that the Yankee states are the only place where Catholicism is the majority denomination is silly. 
I totally agree. The sin of pride is always in one’s attitude to another. I include all in my prayers.
I’ll take a wager that there will be many, many non Catholics waitng for many Catholics at Heavens’ door.
Nice chart, I remember seeing something similar after the 2004 presidential election because of the high correlation between Catholic states and Democratic states. That picture bears it out.
Yes, that proves that the higher the rate of RC’s in the population, the more liberal the electorate.
Is that your attempt to admit that you were incorrect in your assertion that the NE is the only part of the country that is Catholic?
Possibly, lots of people who call them selves Catholic don’t vote like a Catholic should. But the point of posting the graphic was to demonstrate to another poster that he was wrong in asserting that the NE was the sole bastion of Catholicism.
To put a religious inference in your statement regarding New England and the South is dumb. For one thing, the South is not a Protestant monolith, just as New England is not a Catholic monolith. That you could make such a statement already casts aspersion on the logic of your reasoning, but let’s take your argument to task.
All I am going to say is, church attendance in southern Louisiana, which is largely Catholic, is on the exact same par with northern Louisiana, which is Bible Belt Protestant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.