Anti-Catholicism, Hypocrisy and Double Standards

ConstantinesRant ^ | Sunday, July 22, 2007 | Constantine

[vladimir998]

Good read!

[annalex]

Anti-Catholicism rots the mind. It blinds people and they become obsessed with the destruction of something that they cannot destroy

I have the same "real issue".

[Salvation]

Great links, thank you!

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

[khnyny]

Thanks for the ping.

[uglybiker]

Yeah, I must be seein’ things.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Excellent article, thanks for posting it!

[Aquinasfan]

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.

That does have the ring of truth, doesn't it?

I need to learn to punt earlier and pray more.

[Claud]

The author makes a number of good points, particularly about history. But I have to admit again (I’ve said this umpteen times before on this forum) I really despise the term “anti-Catholic.” I refuse to have anything to do with it.

To me, it smacks of the same kind of wimpy victimology which we see on the other side.

It is not a terribly useful label either. If I believed Catholicism to be of the Antichrist you bet your bippy I’d be vehemently anti- it and proud of the fact, just as I’m proud as punch to say I’m anti-abortion, anti-terrorism, and well, frankly, anti-Protestantism.

Telling a man he *shouldn’t* be anti- something he views as evil is asking him to be a schizophrenic.

[tiki]

I have been guilty of using the term anti-Catholic. I use it not from a point of victimology but as a catch-all term. In the past I have used Protestant but some have protested. What term would you recommend?

As a Catholic, I certainly don't feel victimized, I feel blessed.

[Claud]

I don’t have a constructive replacement to offer, unfortunately.

Actually though, maybe what bugs me is the *personalization* of the issue. Calling someone an anti-Catholic is (the way I hear it anyway) a personal accusation. When we get into personal matters, the debate is already lost...what we are called to do IMHO is just to answer questions and correct misimpressions as often as we are called to— patiently, repeatedly and firmly.

Argue the issue, not the person.

[tiki]

I don’t use it in a personal way but in reference to a group-think kind of thing that exists.

[DarkSavant]

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.

That does have the ring of truth, doesn't it?

I need to learn to punt earlier and pray more.

Saw a lot of this last week. On top of that, usually one of them pings all their friends and then they gang up and try to subdue the Catholic with sheer mass of replies.

[netmilsmom]

>>I responded “Really? So if I were Jewish would it be okay for you to tell me that you are passionately anti-Jew?” <<

The dude stole my line!

[Claud]

Right, that makes sense. I would venture to guess that like you, most people don’t use it personally...but it can come across that way at times.

Oy... language is an imperfect thing! :)

[MarkBsnr]

Well, when you’re right and on the side of good, it stirs up a lot of ill feeling. When the foundations of one’s beliefs are sloppily built sand, it’s easier to attack than to defend.

We have been blessed (and burdened) with carrying the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church to all humanity. throughout history. It is our lot. And, in part, it is how we will be judged by Him. We are not judged by the opposition we are subjected to; we are judged by how we meet (and possibly convert) the opposition.

[Campion]

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.

The author is absolutely right on here, as he is throughout this excellent piece.

The behavior pattern he describes arises because the anti-Catholic ideologue is operating according to an "Inspector Javert" methodology ... the question is not whether the suspect (the Catholic Church) is guilty -- that has already been decided in the affirmative -- the question is simply what evidence can be made to "stick".

[DungeonMaster]

Catholics sure can write about themselves.

[netmilsmom]

>>Actually though, maybe what bugs me is the *personalization* of the issue.<<

Go back and reread the “Anti-Catholic” threads.
The first, “Do you believe.....” question makes it personal. That’s what I have a problem with.

[SaltyJoe]

It’s easier to blame the devil than to assign guilt properly and without words like “ignoramus”.

Mankind has inflicted horrible sins upon their own brothers and sisters.

Is it true that most murdered in Nazi concentration camps were executed by their Jewish capos? Maybe. Some theorize that the capos, by executing the victims themselves were more merciful than how the Nazis would butcher the condemned.

And of those pro-abortion candidates that use their Catholic Baptism as a pledge pin, aren’t most of them voted into office by other Catholics?

Beware the satanic tactic that turns the hearts of men against fellow man. What is but a natural separation has become an unnatural division. This is how satans turn dark skinned people against light skinned people, and even male against female.

The proper division is sin versus obedience. If St Michaels victory cry is “Who is like God?”, then mankind’s battle cry must be “Who is like Jesus?” With Jesus, our Human Race is victorious as He is our Ever Champion.