Posted on 07/03/2003 2:27:18 PM PDT by nickcarraway
When I was Mayor of Boston, Sean Hughes of West Roxbury, MA, my good friend from the Irish peace and justice movement, came into my office at Boston City Hall and presented me a sign to remind me of a not so enlightened time in Boston’s history.
Not too many years ago, signs like the one he gave me appeared in downtown store windows reading, “Help Wanted, no Irish or Catholics need apply.”
In fact, Boston was a city that strongly backed the virulent anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party, or the Order of the Star Spangled Banner as it was also called. These bigots controlled every State Senate seat and all but two seats in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. Bible-thumping diatribes against Catholics were routine in Boston. Riots and demonstrations against Catholics and immigrants were commonplace. Propaganda by Congregationalists stirred up the people, and even resulted in the burning of a Catholic convent in Charlestown, MA while hundreds looked on and cheered.
The blatant hatred for growing Catholic immigrant communities in Boston, New York and Philadelphia became so intense by so-called natives, religious leaders and politicians that finally the tenacious and courageous John Hughes, Archbishop of New York, was forced to go public. He took on the powerful institutions and politicians who were persecuting poor and struggling, mainly Irish, Catholics. Hughes also challenged City Hall, the State House and even our nation’s capital to cease the abuse and discrimination. His most public and direct response to the threat of the burning down of Catholic churches, convents and schools was, “I’ll make New York City look like ‘A Second Moscow’ if they do.” Hughes was severely criticized in the press for his outspoken comments. In fact, he was a frequent target of Thomas Nast, creator of the most popular editorial newspaper cartoons of the day, whose militant anti-Catholic sentiments were well known.
Much of the ridicule was directed at the pope and what some called his ignorant and uneducated immigrant flock. Even Catholic officials were afraid to confront the establishment that controlled the money and jobs at that time. Hughes openly took on Catholic Democratic politicians whom he felt had taken the Catholic voters for granted. Sound familiar? The Catholic officials who did support the reforms won, while those who wavered lost their positions. The only defender of the oppressed immigrant people at the time were some Catholic Church leaders, most of whom originally came from Ireland. Clearly it was these Catholic leaders who forced reform and fought for social and economic justice.
Once Bishop Hughes proved the political importance of the Catholic vote, he then was satisfied to step back and let the state do what it did and the Church do what it was supposed to do. Catholic discrimination did not end there, however. It festered throughout the 19th century and into the next, and it is still with us today in an, admittedly, much more subtle way. A major problem today is that too many Catholics think they have made it in America and the struggle is over. Yes, they finally elected a U.S. President. They have also been represented by many prominent Catholic political, business, religious and medical leaders. But do Catholics really have influence in the United States today? Are Church principles, traditions and values of the Catholic faith treated with respect in our secular society? In a liberal media-influenced society, do loyal traditional Catholics have a serious voice in the ownership of these powerful interests? Do other religions hold the same high level of respect for Catholic principles as we do for theirs? Does either major political party really care what is important to Catholics? They either ignore us or take us for granted. Lastly, even the recent clergy sex abuse scandal, was it not evident that so very few prominent Catholics were willing to at least stand up for the overwhelming majority of good and faithful priests we have in the Church? Were they afraid of the criticism that they would receive on talk radio and television by being associated with the church? Why is it that it is largely the Catholic Church that historically defends the poor, innocent, immigrant and unborn and opposes the death penalty, war, welfare reform and same sex marriages? In this “politically correct” environment, with so much power in the hands of the media elite, is it any surprise that the Church has so many cultural enemies?
Let me end with a question for Catholics to ponder- a question that goes to the essence of my comments and is tied to recent developments. What do you think the chances are that a U.S. President will ever nominate a Catholic pro-life judge to the U.S. Supreme Court, given that some openings on the nation’s highest court are expected in the near future? And even if one did, what are the odds that Catholic U.S. Senators would vote for them. The Constitution gives the Senate the power of advice and consent over nominees to the federal judiciary. Generally, this means majority rules. However, the current polarized environment finds many nominees excluded by special interest induced filibusters, not even allowing the Senate to vote on their candidacy.
Maybe those store signs that I talked about earlier should now read,
“U.S. Supreme Court Judges needed, No Catholic Pro-Life Judges Need Apply.”
________________________________
Raymond L. Flynn
National President of Your Catholic Voice
Former U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See and Mayor of Boston
www.yourcathoilcvoice.org
(617) 269-0909
Flynn kissed the Kennedy's butts when he was mayor of Boston, and was one of the chief deriders of the "Republican Revolution" when the GOP was the only political party to take courageous stands on the pro-life issue.
Is he suddenly overcome with a guilty conscience? Will he stay in the Democrat Party, or are his words just part of his job?
(Full disclosure: I think Ray Flynn is still a raging drunk, and his words ring exceedlingly hollow.)
And we all remember how easy it was for Clarence Thomas' nomination to pass the Senate. Was there ever a longer, more overtly hateful acceptance process for any other Supreme Court Justice than Clarence Thomas's? Also, I believe that Mr Flynn was talking about today's hateful climate regarding religious conservatives, which has grown more openly hostile than at any other period in American history. Flynn is a good man with many strong conservative views. So far some responders in here have called him "drunk", "democrat", "Kennedy buttsniffer", but just can't come up with anything of substance to put this man down with. Why not just say what you're thinking, he's Catholic.
I'm Catholic, and where was Flynn's defense of the "pro-life" position when his buddy Clinton was in the White House, and Flynn was the designated pit-bull to go after Newt Gingrich after the Republican takeover.
Flynn's a johnny-come-lately to the pro-life party, and he's still a Democrat, which party's presidential platform supports abortion.
Cite the testament. I recall that he went to Catholic school, but I also recall very distinctly that he said he attends the Episcopal Church.
Might have something to do with his being divorced in 1984 and remarrying in 1986.
Social justice issues mattered more to Flynn when he was excoriating Newt Gingrich for starving children in 1995.
I'll never forget the hate in his voice; course, that's when he was drinking like a fish, too.
The fact that he remains in the Democrat Party says a lot about him, as it did about Robert Casey, who wasted the last few years of his wonderful life fighting the Democrat establishment over abortion.
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.