Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Anti-Catholicism Dead? (Ques. Proposed by NY Times)
NY Times City Room Blog ^ | 7/23/2008 | Sewell Chan

Posted on 07/23/2008 2:47:21 PM PDT by Pyro7480

When Gov. Alfred E. Smith ran for president in 1928, his candidacy was derailed in large part by anti-Catholic prejudice. It has been nearly 48 years since John F. Kennedy became the first (and so far only) Roman Catholic president, but experts say that anti-Catholic sentiment — much of it originating in, or as a response to, immigrants in New York — remains an enduring force in American culture.

That was the consensus of a panel assembled at the Museum of the City of New York on Tuesday night to consider the question, “Is Anti-Catholicism Dead?

...The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus — a leading conservative intellectual, a former Lutheran pastor and the editor of the leading Catholic journal First Things — offered a surprising view on the question.

“To be a Catholic is not to be refused positions of influence in our society,” he said. “Indeed, one of the most acceptable things is to be a bad Catholic, and in the view of many people, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.”

...He added that anti-Catholicism was as likely to come from the left — sometimes from commentators who believe that a “threatening theological insurgency is engineered and directed by Catholics,” with evangelical Protestants merely as the movement’s “foot soldiers.”

(Excerpt) Read more at cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: anticatholic; anticatholicism; catholic; nytimes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,041-1,059 next last
To: Petronski

Well, she got me all scared and everything ....


441 posted on 07/27/2008 2:20:21 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Besides, around here, with my recent clientele, you call somebody mother, you’re gonna get hurt.


442 posted on 07/27/2008 2:21:17 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Have you even been following this thread?

Annalex made the statement in Post 312 that if a person knowingly and willingly does not believe in the "Marian dogma" then that person "is going to go to (drum roll) hell."

No one has to "twist" anything nor put any words in anyone's mouth. These statements were made in black and white. Deal with that, and not with what you may have preferred to have been said.

443 posted on 07/27/2008 2:22:05 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
You said: I’m sure you’re about to make the same request of Dr. Eckleburg, right?

Pfft...yeah right.

444 posted on 07/27/2008 2:22:50 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper (A vote for third party is a vote for nObama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; AnalogReigns; Quix; XeniaSt; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; wmfights; Forest Keeper; enat

The canon you cite condemns the doctrine of “faith alone”. What is says is that anyone who thinks so is excommunicated; that is the precise meaning of “anathema”. It does not mean that he is condemned to hell because he is not dead yet. It was explained to you many times, “doctor”.


445 posted on 07/27/2008 2:24:01 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Once again you continue to trash people without pinging them to your assault.

I have read the entire thread, including her posts, and you continue to twist her words to create a false accusation...FALSE WITNESS...and it is shameful.


446 posted on 07/27/2008 2:24:48 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper (A vote for third party is a vote for nObama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


447 posted on 07/27/2008 2:26:52 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
You don't think I actually READ that post, do you?

Christ told us why men love the darkness instead of the light...

448 posted on 07/27/2008 2:27:06 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; Petronski

**Well, she got me all scared and everything ....**

Sorry about that. You have FReepmail MD.


449 posted on 07/27/2008 2:28:43 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 441 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

[Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.]

Wilco.

Please pass that on to the individual I was answering, who in the last hour has made numerous personal attacks on posters to this thread.

Thank you.


450 posted on 07/27/2008 2:30:40 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper (A vote for third party is a vote for nObama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Christ told us why men love the darkness instead of the light...

Well, yeah! Duh!

I suppose it doesn't explain why some women prefer darkness, but that doesn't mean I have to read the stuff such women write.

451 posted on 07/27/2008 2:32:40 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; big'ol_freeper
Annalex made the statement in Post 312

Yes. I did. I stand by it. I also explained that according to the Catholic Church, "knowingly and willingly" is an important qualifier that exculpates many protestants and unbelievers. I also explained that "going to go to hell" (or, earlier, "hell-bound") refers to the event in the future which is not predetermined and the sinner may and hopefully will repent and convert.

The misrepresentation of what I said is not in that you don't quote me correctly (you can, you very much can, quote) but you omit my context and insert your own. We don't believe in the predestination of the reprobates. You do. That is the contextual difference.

452 posted on 07/27/2008 2:34:21 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: annalex
We don't believe in the predestination of the reprobates.

Because it is a ridiculously dark false doctrine.

453 posted on 07/27/2008 2:36:01 PM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Parsing uhGAIN!


454 posted on 07/27/2008 2:39:34 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 452 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Predestination is another of those doctrines that diminishes the Triune God by believing that God purposely creates “garbage”. Talk about a Satanic doctrine.


455 posted on 07/27/2008 2:50:52 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper (A vote for third party is a vote for nObama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Because it is a ridiculously dark false doctrine.

Well, as we have been reminded lately, some prefer darkness

456 posted on 07/27/2008 2:54:54 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

You said: some prefer darkness

....and claim it’s the light, wishing to drag the rest of us into the pit with them.


457 posted on 07/27/2008 2:57:38 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper (A vote for third party is a vote for nObama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

You wrote:

“But you made the comment about Protestants in particular...”

Because we were discussing Protestants going to hell - or have you already forgotten that fact?

“I assume you believe the words of Christ who called on men to repent of their sins. Protestants believe that.”

Some men who might refer to themselves as Protestants, or might be called Protestants no matter what they would call themselves, may not any longer believe what you say or what Christ says. We have Catholics who - for whatever reason - fall away, ignore the teachings of Christ and the Church, etc. There are Protestants who do the same. You are correct - generally - when you say that Protestants believe men must repent of their sins. But that does not mean that is, in fact, the case with all Protestants at all times in their lives.

“So what are the “different reasons” Protestants would “go to hell?””

As I already said - sins for which they have not repented.

Why do you struggle with basic reading comprehension? We were discussing Protestants going to hell, or being consigned to hell, so I specifically mentioned Protestants going to hell and you assume it means something different than what was already said about it?

Why is it that anti-Catholics seem to have so many reading comprehension problems?


458 posted on 07/27/2008 3:04:25 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
....and claim it’s the light,

IF
You start with the notion that reason is so depraved that it cannot be relied upon
AND
   IF
   You claim thereafter to "reason" from Scripture or from anything else
   ELSEIF
   You claim anything at all for your discourse other than ecstatic utterance

THEN
Your auditors can expect nothing firm to be built on so self-negating a foundation.

BUT
having forsaken reason, you do get to frustrate communication, inhibit learning, and spread darkness and its emotional concomitants by misinterpreting anything that is said to you. Context and such considerations amount to appeals to reason, but reason was abandoned at the starting gate.

Consequently there is little to no possibility of real conversation, but plenty for polemics and insult and the like.

(But God works best where there is little to no possibility -- Can these bones live?)

459 posted on 07/27/2008 3:06:40 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Awwwwww

bess him lil ol heart!


460 posted on 07/27/2008 3:11:20 PM PDT by Quix (key QUOTES POLS 1900 ON #76 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2031425/posts?page=77#77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 1,041-1,059 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson