Anti-Catholicism, Hypocrisy and Double Standards

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 wife’s 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 that’s just those weird bible-thumpers” let’s 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 don’t 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 that’s not “the Protestants”. That’s 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 wife’s conversion to it. For that, I will literally be eternally indebted to him.

>>And I’ve never seen decency drain out of a conversation so fast as when the term “anti-Catholic” gets thrown around in the same tone as “bigot” or “racist.” In what way can someone who has strong theological objections to “Romanism” but is not a bigot defend themselves against that charge?

I’m not sure what you’re saying in the second statement about making it personal...could you elaborate?<<

It’s this simple. There is discussing a point from a Pro side or an Anti side.
When a non-Catholic comes into a thread “discussing” from an Anti-Catholic point of view rather than a Pro-non-Catholic point of view, what would you suggest we call it? Sorry if it makes those who come into a thread uncomfortable to be called Anti-Catholic. They certainly are not pro-Catholic. If one doesn’t want to be called Anti-Catholic then perhaps witnessing to one’s own faith and relationship with Our Lord, instead of proclaiming how the relationship of another poster should be handled, would be in order.

I have no problem calling one an Anti-Romanist or Anti-Papist. But telling Catholics how we do it wrong is not the same as telling us how you do it right.

I’m the person who started the “Anti-Catholic Troll Hunters”. I have used the label three times and watch very carefully who I apply it to. If you would like to state that this should never be used, that is closing your eyes to human nature.

No one goes onto the Jewish threads and debates their theology. But we get posters who feel that Catholics are fair game. Hmmmm.

if it isn’t in the Bible, I don’t believe it.

I understand. This is not a thread about Protestant theology, and indeed all we ask is that if you cannot leave us alone, then at least describe our beliefs accurately before you comment on them.

But since you bring this up, what is and what is not in the Bible depends on (1) according to whom and (2) what Bible. We think that it is the role of the Church to interpret the Bible; that everything we believe in has at least indirect scriptural support; that you look at an incomplete canon of the Bible. Also, the very assumption, that "if it isn’t in the Bible, I don’t believe it" is not in the Bible.

Theistic evolution: one of the tools of Divine Creation -- is an acceptable line of thought in Catholicism, yes. It presents no contradiction to the Scripture.

First of all, what do you mean by "theistic evolution?" Do you mean evolution guided by G-d ("intelligent design"), or do you reject that in favor of some other form of evolution by which G-d created the universe without guiding it? And how do you explain such a thing anyway?

Evolution (theistic or otherwise) doesn't contradict scripture you if dismiss it as a purely symbolic narrative containing only theological truth. And if the Catholic Church teaches this, then yes, it teaches the Bible is mythology.

Do you even understand what "total inerrancy" means?

I have already posted that they are and always were, spiritually alive. We have the bible as the authority. Yet there is no recorded instance, aka tradition, that ever points to observant Jews worshipping the creature and not the Creator. No Jews, then or now, asked Leah, Sarah, Rachel or David's mother to intercede to God for them.

Nor was Jesus asking Moses or Elijah to intercede with God for him. The transfiguration is not related to praying to the dead. In fact, we have other scripture, from Jesus, no less, that emphasizes the futility of it.

Furthermore, you have no way of knowing where the departed soul that you "talk to" went. If they have fooled you on earth with their piety and were not sincere, or were not elect,then your prayers are not only in vain, but something worse. Maybe you are "talking to" a lost soul.

Pardon me for not understanding your doctrine, I just cannot comprehend praying directly to the Father, through His Son. This is the tradition that the bible teaches us.

How do you suppose a Saint does miracles? Through the Grace of God. If a Saint is already in heaven and can see the Beatific Vision of God, then it stands to reason that a miracle is evidence of someone absolutely being in the presence of God. Or if they were on earth when the miracles occurred, then it is evidence that they were especially close to God. The first miracle after the Day of Pentecost was Peter curing the lame man at the gate of the Temple Beautiful “Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.” Acts 3:6-7

Jesus picked Paul to spread His Word: “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:” Acts 9:15

He picked Peter to lead the Church: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19

The two Saints had entirely different roles.

The 70 (Luke 10:1) were sent out before the Crucifixion, not after the Resurrection, so they don’t have anything to do with this discussion.

So which is it? If it IS in the Bible, but you don’t like it, then you don’t want to believe it. I think that’s what you meant to say.

The fact that the name Mary is in the bible and that she is called blessed among women is quite a bit less than Marianism. But you are perfectly free to believe that she can hear your prayers and that she can intercede for you and that all grace comes from her and that she is the Queen of Heaven and has a thousand other titles. You can believe that she was ever virgin and was assumed into heaven and that Jesus must obey her. But none of that is in the Bible. I'll have nothing to do with it or any religion that does.

that Jesus must obey her

This is a good point that you bring up. Looking closely at the writings of the Catholic Church, one can see it persists in magical thinking, not faith. It really is more like the religion of old Rome than Christianity, but to point it out will raise howls of protests. And there's not even a full moon

Frank Sheed "repetitive argument" counter

Not bad for only early afternoon!

Disclaimer: The post made herewith is for the purposes of information and discussion only and is not to be interpreted, read, or construed as intended to induce, invite, cajole, compel, or influence in any manner whatsoever any person of whatever Confession reading the aforesaid post or participating in the aforesaid discussion to join, attend, inquire, contemplate, believe, or concur with the Roman Catholic Church or any of the other 22 (twenty-two) Rites of the Church aforesaid. The party/ies posting disclaim, reject, and abjure responsibility to said persons, Free Republic, and/or its Moderators for any Acts of God by which the Holy Spirit or another Person of the Holy Trinity induces, persuades, or influences the persons aforesaid to seek such information on their own accord through Divine Intervention or by the process hereby denominated "sanctifying grace." The party/ies posting warrant that this is not his/her responsibility or intent and arises from a Power that cannot be controlled by him or her in this life or hereafter. This disclaimer cannot be revoked as it is not governed by the civil or criminal, statutory or common law of the United States of America or any other governmental entity and is the sole responsibility of Divine Intervention.

Studying Mary on the web is exactly like studying Diana or any other Goddess with a couple of subtle curtsies to some Bible themes. The word worship is dropped from worship but full use of a thesaurus is made to back fill. "venerate, adore, etc etc"

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.