Anti-Catholicism (An Op-Ed the NY Times refused to publish)

Archdiocese of NY ^ | October 29, 2009 | Archbishop Timothy Dolan

[NYer]

October 29, 2009

The following article was submitted in a slightly shorter form to the New York Times as an op-ed article. The Times declined to publish it. I thought you might be interested in reading it.

 
FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York
 
October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!
 
Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism. 
          
It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”
          
If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:
 

• On October 14, in the pages of the New York Times, reporter Paul Vitello exposed the sad extent of child sexual abuse in Brooklyn’s Orthodox Jewish community. According to the article, there were forty cases of such abuse in this tiny community last year alone. Yet the Times did not demand what it has called for incessantly when addressing the same kind of abuse by a tiny minority of priests: release of names of abusers, rollback of statute of limitations, external investigations, release of all records, and total transparency. Instead, an attorney is quoted urging law enforcement officials to recognize “religious sensitivities,” and no criticism was offered of the DA’s office for allowing Orthodox rabbis to settle these cases “internally.” Given the Catholic Church’s own recent horrible experience, I am hardly in any position to criticize our Orthodox Jewish neighbors, and have no wish to do so . . . but I can criticize this kind of “selective outrage.”

Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.  

• On October 16, Laurie Goodstein of the Times offered a front page, above-the-fold story on the sad episode of a Franciscan priest who had fathered a child. Even taking into account that the relationship with the mother was consensual and between two adults, and that the Franciscans have attempted to deal justly with the errant priest’s responsibilities to his son, this action is still sinful, scandalous, and indefensible. However, one still has to wonder why a quarter-century old story of a sin by a priest is now suddenly more pressing and newsworthy than the war in Afghanistan, health care, and starvation–genocide in Sudan. No other cleric from religions other than Catholic ever seems to merit such attention.

• Five days later, October 21, the Times gave its major headline to the decision by the Vatican to welcome Anglicans who had requested union with Rome. Fair enough. Unfair, though, was the article’s observation that the Holy See lured and bid for the Anglicans. Of course, the reality is simply that for years thousands of Anglicans have been asking Rome to be accepted into the Catholic Church with a special sensitivity for their own tradition. As Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican’s chief ecumenist, observed, “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond.” Not enough for the Times; for them, this was another case of the conniving Vatican luring and bidding unsuspecting, good people, greedily capitalizing on the current internal tensions in Anglicanism.

• Finally, the most combustible example of all came Sunday with an intemperate and scurrilous piece by Maureen Dowd on the opinion pages of the Times. In a diatribe that rightly never would have passed muster with the editors had it so criticized an Islamic, Jewish, or African-American religious issue, she digs deep into the nativist handbook to use every anti-Catholic caricature possible, from the Inquisition to the Holocaust, condoms, obsession with sex, pedophile priests, and oppression of women, all the while slashing Pope Benedict XVI for his shoes, his forced conscription -- along with every other German teenage boy -- into the German army, his outreach to former Catholics, and his recent welcome to Anglicans.

True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.

I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday.   Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally? 
 
The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.
 
I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.

Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.

[NYer]

[netmilsmom]

We’re thin skinned.
(do I have to put a sarcasm tag on this?)

[khnyny]

The NY Times is scum. Liberals/communists/marxists really hate Catholics, btw. Targeted attacks against the Church have been on the left’s agenda for many years.

[Alex Murphy]

We’re thin skinned.

You'll get no argument from me.

[vladimir998]

And there are plenty of Freepers who ally themselves with that Leftist rag in that effort too.

I never forget the simple truth: all Protestants are Liberals.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

True enough, but the Church hierarchy needs to do a much better job of policing its own and promoting Catholic orthodoxy at Catholic colleges and universities where the anti-Catholicism going on is well within their jurisdiction. It's no good to cry foul at The New York Times when Notre Dame and Georgetown are harboring anti-Catholics and heretics.

[Alex Murphy]

I never forget the simple truth: all Protestants are Liberals.

And no Catholics voted for Obama. Right.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“And no Catholics voted for Obama. Right.”

Many Catholics think (really, feel) like Protestants. They are Liberals and Catholics-In-Name-Only. Liberalism is infectious.

[Coleus]

teachers and coaches are, by far, the biggest abusers out there.

[Salvation]

**The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.**

Bravo, Archbishop Dolan!

[Salvation]

You are right.

NO REAL Catholic voted for Obama.

Only CINOs did.

[netmilsmom]

>>You’ll get no argument from me<<

Yup, that sarcasm tag was needed.

[Alex Murphy]

You are right. NO REAL Catholic voted for Obama. Only CINOs did.

How many "real" Catholics would you say voted for McCain? Please use only scientifically provable numbers.

[boatbums]

I never forget the simple truth: all Protestants are Liberals.

By "all Protestants" do you mean any Christian not affiliated with the Catholic Church?

[Alex Murphy]

"I never forget the simple truth: all Protestants are Liberals."

By "all Protestants" do you mean any Christian not affiliated with the Catholic Church?

I wondered the same thing. The usual definition offered is that Protestant means "not Catholic and not Orthodox", which means we're actually getting this odd, frankly untenable argument:

"Only Catholics are Conservatives".

[kosta50]

It's simple: NYT didn’t publish his letter because it's too good and it's true. Liberals scream about tolerance and inclusiveness only when they want something; but don't ask them to be tolerant or inclusive, or to practice what they preach to others.

[netmilsmom]

>>I never forget the simple truth: all Protestants are Liberals.<<

Yikes! Did you forget the sarcasm tag there?
My sister is Baptist and more conservative than me.
My sister-in-law is Charismatic and militant conservative
My brother-in-law and his wife are Evangelical and conservative militant Pro-Life
My niece-in-law is from an independent “Bible Church” and conservative.

I would say that I know as many Protestant conservatives as Catholic conservatives.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“By “all Protestants” do you mean any Christian not affiliated with the Catholic Church?”

By Protestants I mean Protestants. The Eastern Orthodox are not Protestants. The Oriental Orthodox are not Protestants.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I wondered the same thing. The usual definition offered is that Protestant means “not Catholic and not Orthodox”, which means we’re actually getting this odd, frankly untenable argument:”Only Catholics are Conservatives”.”

Liberalism is not a merely political issue. Read Liberalism is a Sin.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Yikes! Did you forget the sarcasm tag there?”

Nope.

“My sister is Baptist and more conservative than me.”

Politically maybe. Religiously, if she is Protestant, then she can only be a Liberal.

“My sister-in-law is Charismatic and militant conservative”

I never said anything about conservative. The opposite of Liberalism - in the religious sense - is not conservatism. It is orthodoxy.

“My brother-in-law and his wife are Evangelical and conservative militant Pro-Life”

And they’re still Liberals - religiously. It cannot be any other way.

“My niece-in-law is from an independent “Bible Church” and conservative.”

No, she is a Liberal no matter how conservative her political views. I never said anything about conservative political views.

“I would say that I know as many Protestant conservatives as Catholic conservatives.”

I never mentioned conservatives.

I’m not vouching for this website, but they at least have the book Liberalism is a Sin posted there:
http://www.liberalismisasin.com/

[boatbums]

By Protestants I mean Protestants. The Eastern Orthodox are not Protestants. The Oriental Orthodox are not Protestants.

Then, I, as a very conservative, non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern/Oriental Orthodox - but Christian still - kindly request a correction to your statement that I am therefore a liberal. You are quite WRONG on that point!

[boatbums]

Well, good, I see you are backtracking a bit and now saying you were not talking about "politics". It is STILL a dumb statement and especially as a reply to a paper about political liberals trashing Catholics. Is it okay to trash other Christians?

[RobbyS]

No Catholic who takes his religion half-way seriously should subscribe to the NYT.

[RobbyS]

Well, Archbishop Dolan has no control over the others, except for his considerable personal influence. The Catholic conference has been in a something rebellious state since 1968.

[TaxachusettsMan]

Hilariously, this thread has proven the very point Archbishop Dolan was trying to make, as some of FR’s very own regularly (indeed, in the case of one of them, CONSTANTLY) ranting anti-Catholic posters have wasted no time jumping right in!

Nice going, guys!

[Jeff Chandler]

The NY Times is run by a cabal of deranged, Marxist fairies. What else would you expect from them?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Well, good, I see you are backtracking a bit and now saying you were not talking about “politics”.”

I’m not back tracking one bit. My comments have been consistent throughout and always are.

“It is STILL a dumb statement and especially as a reply to a paper about political liberals trashing Catholics.”

It is not a dumb statement and is grounded in the wisdom of the Church. And religious Liberalism is linked to political liberalism.

“Is it okay to trash other Christians?”

Correct descriptions trash no one.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Then, I, as a very conservative, non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern/Oriental Orthodox - but Christian still - kindly request a correction to your statement that I am therefore a liberal.”

My statement was not incorrect in the least and you deserve exactly no change of statement.

“You are quite WRONG on that point!”

I am not wrong in the least.

[Gamecock]

NO REAL Catholic voted for Obama.

Somehow I get the feeling Ted Kennedy voted for Obama. He was obviously a real Catholic, since he was served the Eucharist in Roman Catholic churches. And since the Roman Catholic Church sez he was a Catholic, FR opinions on his not being a real Catholic are moot.

[cammie]

My understanding is that although Ted Kennedy went to Mass regularly, he did not present himself for Communion. At least he didn’t at the Papal Mass.

[Gamecock]

Kennedy aside, some pro-murder politicos did take communion from the pope.

[annalex]

If voting for Obama or McCain or any of the political clowns is definition of liberal/conservative, then indeed there are plenty “liberal” communion-receving Catholics. But if you look at the political philosophy that comes out of Catholicism you will find that the very idea that getting someone elected constitutes legitimate government is laughable. It is a very Protestant idea, same kind of mental infection that is your private interpretation of the Holy Scripture. Protestantism is a form of liberalism. Vladimir is absolutely right.

[Gamecock]

It was said above that NO REAL Catholic voted for Obama.

Pro-murder Democratic Roman Catholic politicians partake in the Eucarist. Since they are not forbidden, but welcome to the table they are "real Catholics." That was my point.

[annalex]

They are "real" in that specific sense, that they had not been denied Communion so far. They are not "real" in the sense that they do not logically follow through with the Catholic teaching, specifically on the points that abortion, euthanasia, human cloning and gay marriage are not matters that can be put to a vote. A Catholic who is real in the latter sense -- his faith is real in him, -- would submit his fallible judgement to the judgement of the Church.

Now, which Christian group would that be, that holds to the big lie that individual judgement in the area of interpreting the Scripture may supercede and even publicly protest the judgement of the Church?

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Decree Concerning The Canonical Scriptures (Trent IV)

Say Amen?

[Gamecock]

So who would that be?

Not I, according to many RCs here.
Trent, they have said, only applies to those who lived in the time of the decree.

So why haven’t the pro-murder politicos been booted.

[Hacksaw]

You'll get no argument from me.

Someone who pings the moderator as much as you probably shouldn't make that comment.

[Alex Murphy]

Someone who pings the moderator as much as you probably shouldn't make that comment.

MUWAH HAHAHAHAHA

[trisham]

We’re thin skinned. (do I have to put a sarcasm tag on this?)

************

One might expect that someone would have the integrity to at least use the full quote before commenting.

[annalex]

The condemnation of private interpretation of the scripture, that I quoted, is an infallible decree for all times.

Regarding excommunications, the Church does not do that in haste. Remember, Christ came to heal those who are sick, not to condemn them.

[allmendream]

And what then is YOUR idea of “legitimate” government if not that of a Constitutional Republic with elections?

[annalex]

One where moral issues are not put to the vote.

[allmendream]

Whose morality?

You suggest that anything decided upon by the majority of American voters that contradicts your morality makes the Government of the USA illegitimate?

What system do you think would be preferable? Where a ruling religious council can chose which candidates are morally unfit to run for office and be able to strike down laws that they see as immoral? That is the system in Iran, and the people don't seem to be big fans of it.

[annalex]

I say that anything decided upon by the majority of American voters that contradicts universal morality makes the Government of the USA illegitimate.

[allmendream]

Yet left unanswered was what form of government you would envision that would maintain your precious moral legitimacy.

How would “legitimacy” be restored? By overturning the will of the voters? By what mechanism?

An Iranian style council of religious leaders?

Do you think it is the government's job to enforce morality or to enforce the law?

Should the government forbid businesses to conduct business on the Sabbath? Forbid its citizens to eat meat on Friday? Dictate dress codes?

Do you claim to be for limited government?

[annalex]

There are many systems of government that maintain universal moral code and leaving moral disputes to the religious authority and the independent juduciary. The American Republic till about 1973 was one example of such system. There were others.

The specific questions that you ask, about holidays, etc. are not a matter of moral law. Abortion, euthanasia, medical experimentation on humans, gay “marriage”, no fault divorce are moral issues that modern democratic governments often decide wrongly. Abortion, for example, is legal in the United States. When the political system allows for laws that violate universal justice, that political system becomes illegitimate, regardless of its popularity.

[allmendream]

You think our Constitutional republic should submit to religious authority. No doubt the authority of your own religion and not any other?

There could be no system more anathema to our founding fathers than that.

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient allies.”
— James Madison, June 20, 1785

[annalex]

I think that by its consitution the US renders itself illegitimate when it passes laws that are morally abhorrent, regardless of anything else. I cited specific examples of such laws.

The Republic founded by the Fathers left moral issues to the discretion of individuals and local courts.

[allmendream]

I think any government that submits itself to “religious authority”, as you suggest, is an illegitimate abomination that is tyrannical to the freedom of conscience of its subjects. And subjects they would be, not free citizens, but subjects.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Bolton's anti-Catholic crack on Fox News' Glenn Beck today:
"When I was in Baltimore City public schools we had fish on Friday for the Catholics - that was probably unconstitutional." The establishment clause on religion in the U.S. Constitution refers to CONGRESS passing a law. Serving fish in a cafeteria is not a LAW or an "ESTABLISHMENT" and wasn't passed by CONGRESS. Duh... So much for secular NEA public schools.

Better go back to McDonogh and retool the Constitution section in U.S. history.