No Room in Polite Society for Anti-Catholic Contempt

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's recent ruling, issuing a stay on the fines for the Little Sisters of the Poor, struck some people in violent ways. One blogger, Jamie Stiehm writing for U.S. News, seems to think that Sotomayor outed herself as that most crass and small minded of people: a Catholic! This was certainly not a predictable outcome in the minds of those progressives who celebrated the elevation of the first "wise Latina" to the highest court in the land. She was supposed to stay on the reservation, of course, voting reliably to uphold the foundations of liberal orthodoxy, whenever they were threatened.

In the progressive worldview, contraception and abortion are to women what breathing and eating are to men: absolute necessities of life. Waivers are being handed out right and left for Obamacare victims, but no waivers for nuns. And if Justice Sotomayor stands up for the religious liberty of these noble women, well "she's just a good Catholic girl," in the snarky tone of Stiehm's blog post. In her opinion, that court is now the "Catholic Supreme Court," and it hates women.

In a rant of old fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry, of which there is a long history in the United States, we learn several scary things. "Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if 'you' are female." And that when Thomas Jefferson championed the separation of church and state, he was "thinking particularly of pernicious Rome." Rome remains pernicious, apparently. The Little Sisters, who, by the way, take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience in order to slave their lives away taking care of the indigent elderly, are terribly wily, and "seemingly innocent." And the big bad Catholic archbishops have painted a bullseye on the foreheads American females: "Their principal target for years on end has been squelching women and girls."

The kind of contempt the author spreads on the heads of Catholics, if written about any other group, would have her immediately barred from polite society, and justifiably. In her mind, there is a noble sisterhood, comprising at least her and Nancy Pelosi. Women who disagree with them are not sisters, though they may be nuns. As a wise Latina myself, I feel very sorry for Justice Sotomayor. She thought she was being celebrated for herself and her achievements in the face of societal barriers that should have kept a Hispanic woman down. It turns out she was just a token after all. Now that she has sided with religious liberty over liberal pieties, she has been unceremoniously dumped from the sisterhood.

I think that Justice Sotomayor understands something that Ms. Stiehm may never get. Governments that wish to preserve a truly pluralistic society must act with great delicacy and even tenderness when it comes to the conscientious scruples of its citizens. It is not necessary to share those scruples or even understand them. Progressives believe with all their soul that women's sexual liberty, untrammeled by copays or unwanted children, trumps any other "good," including religious freedom. They are free to propose that idea in the public square, and they do so with all the power of Hollywood, MTV and higher education behind them. They have the administration on their side, most newspapers and most TV stations. But they don't have most of the citizens of this country, they don't have the Catholic Church and they may have lost Justice Sotomayor.

“I am frankly shocked to witness the war on adherent Christendom in America and the west since my youth in the 60s”

The America of Duck Dynasty is ruled by intolerant secular bigots who claim to be defenders of religious freedom.

” However.... Christian bashing and working to secularize America?

Likely ...Jews....secular ones....have always been up for it.....more than anyone.....maybe....liberal northern protestants too...the big L gang...and UCC”

This was especially true of Abingdon vs Schempp and Murray vs Curlett, the two cases the Warren Court used for declaring Bible reading in public schools to be unconstitutional.

Secular Jews and liberal Protestants worked together on these two cases- the small group of noisy atheists around Madalyn Murray didn’t have the brains or money to get this to the Supreme Court- and that coup fuels the endless campaign against public expressions of Christianity that continues to this day.

Partisan, I think your argument, while evidence-based and certainly interesting, can be faulted for being too on-the-nose on a matter we cannot be exact about. For one thing ---as I understand it: I am open to correction--- the periods of priestly service ("courses") covered 24 weeks and then started over again, so the "course of Abia" came up twice in a year, in the 10th week of the year and in the 34th week. So we can't definitely say when Zechariah received the angelic visitation. Secondly, it says that Zechariah's wife Elizabeth conceived "after those days" (Luke 1:24), which doesn't require it to be 20 minutes after Zechariah returned home and got his clothes off! It could have been days, weeks, who knows? Nothing in the text compels us to say it was according to the hypothetical expedited bus schedule you propose. My comment here is not meant to sweep away your evidence, but to say there are several different, legitimate ways to look at the evidence. There are even people who calculate from the second "course of Abia" to place Jesus' conception in late March, and his birth in late December. I don't know that it's a dogma of the Faith, either way.

Caesar would not have had people travel in March to pay their taxes. Late September would be perfect for this, not too hot, not too cold, not too wet, the bountiful time of year when people have money from their harvests. Luke is very specific concerning times when he tells the story of Elizabeth and Mary. I believe that's because God wanted us to know when these things happened. If you don't want to believe that, that's fine. I will continue to celebrate the conception on Christmas and the birth on the Feast of Tabernacles, it doesn't matter if anyone joins me, I'm practically alone in this anyway. lol

One more question, a simple one: where in the Bible does it say Our Lord is like a fir tree? (I'm just interested. I think it's an attractive idea, so I'd like to know more about it.)

Hosea 14.8

"Look at all the Catholics here that have turned against the free market since the pope made his anti-supply side statements. There were long threads with long-conservative Catholics here arguing against Rush, Sarah, etc."

(BTW, I'm leaving Sarah Palin out of it, because she has already walked back her remarks and said she might not have understood what Francis was saying. Check it out Here (Palin/Francis link)

One doesn't have to be laissez-faire or libertarian or Objectivist to be pro-free market. I think many free-marketeers would agree that a free market ALONE does not produce justice, since the free market must be subject to what Madison called "the benign influence of a responsible government" --- meaning, the Constitutionally enumerated and limited roles that government should play in economic exchange.

That would be: prevention of fraud, protection of creators' intellectual property, establishing sound currency, keeping things competitive (suppressing various kinds of extortion, graft, protectionism, cronyism), preventing the "downstreaming" of external costs and harms, including environmental.

That would NOT be Obamunism, and all its disastrously sovietizing, statist ambitions.

"That's all it takes when there is a system set up where a man is declared "infallible".

Help me out here. Are you saying that all, most, or some of the FReepers mentioned above, in the Francis vs Rush threads, took the positions they did because of their misapplication of the doctrine of papal infallibility? I am fairly confident that none of them did. FReeper Catholics are pretty well-informed on that topic.

"I don't believe in men declaring other men "chief servants"."

Me neither. I believe in God declaring men "chief servants" and in fact distributing gifts that put some men in authority:

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

and...

Ephesians 4:11-12 - "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up."

" Only God knows who it is He prefers."

The Church can make these determinations, e.g. when Paul confers the powers of bishop on Titus and Timothy by the invoking of the Holy Spirit and the laying on of hands.

" Paragraph 54, I believe, of his recent release. He precisely attacked Reagan using the left's terminology."

"Throw away your conservative economic beliefs" is not a fair summary even of that paragraph, and he is certainly not "precisely attacking Reagan"! To say that, you would have to assume that Reagan did in fact practice "trickle-down economics," which he did not. What an absurdity! Therefore you can't say Pope Francis is attacking Reagan.

A free-market economy is shaped by the just exercise of both government and private non-market factors --- and it's disastrous when it is not.

To take just one example, the free cross-border trade in narcotics, weapons, and pirated technology; human trafficking in underage sex-slaves and bracero labor; and the free flow of populations across borders, is certainly "free market" but certainly not just.

A free-market is also shaped by economic transactions which are outside of the market: for instance, private, individual, corporate, and church-related charities, philanthropy, cooperative and mutual-aid societies, and values-based consumer behavior: these are not based on market mechanisms, but form an absolutely essential complement in a free-market economy.

So, as Pope Francis said in that battered Paragraph 54, a free market does not of itself ("por si mismo,") "succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world." Of itself is an important phrase, because it indicates that human economic transactions outside of the market (e.g. voluntary charities) will never become redundant: the market system does not achieve universal good results all by itself.

(BTW, I'm leaving Sarah Palin out of it, because she has already walked back her remarks and said she might not have understood what Francis was saying. Check it out Here (Palin/Francis link)

Not me! The pope is a socialist, plain and simple. Rush and Sarah should stick with their original statements, now is no time to get wobbly. The pope is drawing battle lines, time to pick a side.

I have seen those threads, and I do not agree with your generalization that these FReeper Catholics have turned against the free market. If you asked them, "Have you turned against the free market??" you would get a range of respectable answers, including ones insisting on a better definition of terms. One doesn't have to be laissez-faire or libertarian or Objectivist to be pro-free market. I think many free-marketeers would agree that a free market ALONE does not produce justice, since the free market must be subject to what Madison called "the benign influence of a responsible government" --- meaning, the Constitutionally enumerated and limited roles that government should play in economic exchange. That would be: prevention of fraud, protection of creators' intellectual property, establishing sound currency, keeping things competitive (suppressing various kinds of extortion, graft, protectionism, cronyism), preventing the "downstreaming" of external costs and harms, including environmental. That would NOT be Obamunism, and all its disastrously sovietizing, statist ambitions.

See, now we have to explain ourselves. Before Francis made his remarks it wasn't hard for about everyone here to call themselves pro-free market, but now we are being accused of not caring for the poor if we are pro-free market. We who love freedom love freedom because freedom is the best way for the poor and the wealthy alike. Now there is all this "well, explain yourself" semantical games being played.

All I know is the above. We were never attacked for being free-market before Francis made his statement. Now we are, being accused of not caring for the poor, etc. This is the fallacy of the Catholic system, where a belief is put out that a man is the representative of Christ.

Me neither. I believe in God declaring men "chief servants" and in fact distributing gifts that put some men in authority:

Nowhere is it said that Peter or any pope was "chief servant". Peter was never even in Rome so it wouldn't matter if he was chief servant, it wouldn't apply to any pope.

The Church can make these determinations, e.g. when Paul confers the powers of bishop on Titus and Timothy by the invoking of the Holy Spirit and the laying on of hands.

Bishop does not equal "chief servant".

Anyone with common sense knows exactly who Francis was attacking, and even going so far as to use the left's terminology in doing so.

A free-market economy is shaped by the just exercise of both government and private non-market factors --- and it's disastrous when it is not.

There you go again, now we have to qualify our statements. No, I am pro-free market. Anyone with any sense knows what I mean by that, I'm not going to throw a bunch of qualifications in there when I say it.

So, as Pope Francis said in that battered Paragraph 54, a free market does not of itself ("por si mismo,") "succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world." Of itself is an important phrase, because it indicates that human economic transactions outside of the market (e.g. voluntary charities) will never become redundant: the market system does not achieve universal good results all by itself.

And I know exactly what he wants to go with it, the same thing every liberal since Wilson has wanted, overwhelming central authority.

"And I know exactly what he wants to go with it, the same thing every liberal since Wilson has wanted, overwhelming central authority."

Your entire last post is an example of persistently flicking away contrary evidence. You are not strengthening your argument by doing that. You would strengthen your argument by careful exegesis (reading-out: looking for the meaning of his statements in the context of his other statements)-- not eisegesis (reading-in: inserting your own definitions and suppositions).

Here's some context:

"We cannot respond with truth to the challenge of eradicating exclusion and poverty if the poor continue to be objects, targets of the action of the state and other organizations in a paternalistic and aid-based sense, instead of subjects, where the state and society create social conditions that promote and safeguard their rights and allow them to be builders of their own destiny." -- Abp Bergoglio, 2009

And: Pope Francis slams "adolescent progressivism," calls for being faithful to the Lord

Ephesians 4:11-12 - "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up."

I've read something like that; somewhere...

Mayflower Compact

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

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.