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.
As a Catholic, I certainly don't feel victimized, I feel blessed.
I don’t have a problem with people explaining their beliefs and advocating for their theological traditions no matter how defective. Unfortunately, too much in Protestantism rides on denial of Catholic truths, so it is defined in terms of being anti-Catholic. Junk conversations about obscure popes is one thing, but quite often a substantive conversation about, say, the theology of faith and works, ends up to be about branding every Catholic practice ‘works’, then denying it on that basis.
The victim mentality is a useless thing. Catholicism should be on the offensive; we did, after all, receive the commission to teach every nation. Victims can’t teach.