Posted on 02/24/2011 3:15:40 PM PST by NYer
February 23rd, 2011
By Father Robert Barron
Anti-Catholicism has long been a feature of both the high and the low culture in America. From the 19th century to the middle of the 20th, it was out in the open: Many editorialists, cartoonists, politicians and other shapers of popular opinion in that era were crudely explicit in their opposition to the Catholic Church. But then, in the latter half of the 20th century, anti-Catholicism went relatively underground. It still existed, to be sure, but it was considered bad form to be too obvious about it. However, in the last 10 years or so, the old demon has resurfaced.
There are many reasons for this, including the animosity to religion in general prompted by 9/11 and the clerical sex-abuse scandal that has, legitimately enough, besmirched the reputation of the Catholic Church. I’m not interested here so much in exploring the precipitating causes of this negative attitude as I am in showing the crudity and unintelligence of its latest manifestations. Permit me to share two examples.
I’m reading James Miller’s “Examined Lives,” a biographical study of 12 great philosophers, from Socrates to Nietzsche. I found Miller’s treatment of St. Augustine to be extraordinary, not because it shed any particularly new light on the saint’s work, but because it was so unapologetically anti-Catholic. Miller comments approvingly on the young Augustine, the intellectual seeker who moved from Manichaeism to neo-Platonism in the open-minded quest for the always elusive truth. But on Miller’s reading, the seeker’s fall from grace was his embrace of the “closed system” of Christianity, which led Augustine to become a coldly oppressive sectarian. Here is how Miller brings his analysis of Augustine to a close: “He lay the conceptual grounds for creating perhaps the most powerful community of closed belief in world history – the Catholic Church that ruled over medieval Western Europe as an all-encompassing, if not quite totalitarian theocracy, unrivalled before or since by any other religious or secular one party state, be it Muslim or Communist.” The not so subtle implication (despite that little “not quite” in front of “totalitarian”) is that the Catholic Church has proven more oppressive than the Taliban and the states fronted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
But Miller’s excursions into anti-Catholicism seem as nothing, compared to the exertions of Mark Warren, the executive editor of Esquire magazine. In a piece on his blog last week, Warren drew attention to a recent expose of the church of Scientology which appeared in the pages of the New Yorker magazine. He praised the author for revealing the ridiculous beliefs of Scientology, which are based upon the wild, science fiction-like musings of L. Ron Hubbard. But then Warren commented that these claims are no wilder, no more irrational, than those of any other of the “great” religions, including and especially Christianity. What follows is one of the most ludicrous “summaries” of Christian belief I’ve ever read. Here are some highlights: “I grew up believing that every breath I drew sent a god-made man named Jesus Christ writhing on the cross to which he had been nailed – an execution for which he had been sent to earth by his heavenly father.” And “yet I was born not innocent but complicit in this lynching, incomprehensibly having to apologize and atone for this barbarism for all my days and feel terrible about myself and all mankind.”
One notices here something that is also on display in the anti-Christian polemics of Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens, namely, a presentation of Christianity that is informed by a painfully childish “theology,” something out of a half-understood grade school catechism. For example, Maher, Hitchens, Warren and many other critics speak of the Christian belief in a “sky god,” betraying no sensitivity to the dynamics of symbolic language in a religious context. The “heavenly” Father of whom biblically minded people speak is not a being who dwells in the clouds but rather a reality that radically transcends the categories of ordinary experience. And I can only smile at the sheer weirdness of Warren’s characterization of the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death on the cross. The correct doctrine is that God, in Christ, entered, out of love, into the depth of human misery, sin and failure in order to bring the divine light even to those darkest places.
What is most remarkable in all of this is not the unintelligence of the explicit claims being made but rather the blatancy of the contempt for the church. When this hoary old prejudice shows itself, Catholics have to stand up to it, lest it be allowed to evolve into something even more dangerous.
The Day of the Lord
1 Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.[a]
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b] That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
14 So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.
Homily,
------------------------------------------------------------
So based on the following: 2 Peter, Chapter 3, Verse 8
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
Assuming the world will last 7000 years and that the 7 year tribulation may have started 2 years ago with the election of Obama ;) that makes the world at most 6995 year old.
6995 years times 365.25 days per year is
2,554,923.74 days Since God started creation in human terms.
And if a day is unto 1000 years. 1000 x 2,554,923.74 = 2,554,923.74
There fore the world is 2,554,923,750 -- ie. 2 and a half billion (give or take 54 million ) years old.
Now if earth is 2.5 billion years old, the universe must be a we bit older.
The word of Lord ..... Amen
“As long as there are Rednecks, you Catholics will never be the last acceptable group to hate.”
What about the redneck Catholics?
There is an interesting old town on the Oregon Coast where about fifty years ago the inhabitants were overwhelmingly Scandinavian Lutheran. A large number of the outsiders (non-Scandinavians) were Catholic.
The slang term used by the Scandinavians for the Catholics was Rednecks.
Go figure.
Sounds like them there Scandinavians are geographically and culturally impaired.
As much as some of them dislike Catholics, in their perception Catholics still appear to be a notch or two above Missouri Synod.
How many time have you and/or your co-religionists defended evolution specifically as Catholics? How many times have you/they said "Catholics accept evolution?" How many times has rejection of evolution/higher criticism been lumped in with sola scriptura as Protestant heresy?
Have you ever read Jim Auer's "Under 21" columns in Liguorian? Or any of the innumerable articles in Catholic publications (pick any of them) that defend evolution/higher criticism?
Go to "Catholic Answers" and see what they say. Read Peter Stravinskas' The Catholic Response. Note the rejection (in the name of Catholicism) the anti-evolutionist, anti-higher critical positions.
Ever hear of Archbishop Whelan of Hartford, CT (now deceased)? I corresponded with him. He openly praised the Arkansas ACLU for its anti-creation litigation (I believe the Diocese of Little Rock actually filed an amicus curiae brief with the ACLU).
If Catholicism doesn't all but teach evolution, then why do you and your co-religionists believe in it???
::Facepalm again!::
I literally cannot believe you are making such a statement. It didn't start in the Seventies. It's been in the Catholic Church for a century. Furthermore it isn't just "left-leaning" Catholics; it's almost the entire church including the Vatican and at least the last two popes (and probably the last six). Why don't you read now Pope Benedict's book In the Beginning (written back when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger) in which he denies the historicity of Genesis and attributes it to pagan creation myths? You can get it from the so-called "conservative Catholics" at Ignatius Press.
There are many young-earth Creationist Catholics,
Where are they? Among the traditionalists that "real" Catholics routinely accuse of Protestantism? Why aren't there more on Free Republic? How does the premier conservative forum on the Internet have such a vast majority of Catholics committed to evolution?
Probably the largest group in the United States are those who read Genesis 1 literally,
Yes! They're called "Fundamentalist Protestants" and Catholics look down on them for being an "embarrassment to religion!"
except for the issue of time periods. Genesis 1 refers to “days” before the earth was set in motion around the sun, so these people simply hold that “day” means simply a period of time, during which God executed Intelligent Design throughout the universe.
The point is that the creation of the universe was not a natural phenomenon! It was an act of omnipotence acting on nothingness. This being the case, there is simply no need to stretch the "six days" into billions of years so the universe could form "naturally!"
Finally, there are many who are largely literalists, but regard the first 11 chapters of Genesis as a “special case.” They hold that with most of the bible, what is recorded is revelation: People witnessing the action of God, and recording it, protected from error by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Genesis 11 represents a pre-history, where instead of writing down the absolute and literal truth as they witnessed it, they wrote down creation as they understood it, guided by the Holy Spirit to infuse it with powerful, deep, and true revelations about the human condition.
::How many times do I have to facepalm???::
The Torah was not written by inspired men, not even Moses. It was in its entirety written by G-d and then dictated to Moses letter-for-letter. Furthermore, the generation that received the Torah was only the 26th generation of humanity. There were ten generations from Adam to Noach, ten generations from Noach to Abraham, and six generations from Abraham to Moses. All the Israelites at Sinai knew their ancestry. Furthermore, Moses' father `Amram was born during the lifetime of Jacob. Jacob was born during the lifetime of Shem the son of Noah (and studied under him), Shem was born during the lifetime of his grandfather Methuselah, and Methuselah's life overlapped that of Adam himself for 243 years. All this information was known by the Israelites who left Egypt a mere 210 years after Jacob and his family moved there.
The only reason to reject the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is scientific uniformitarianism retrojected into a supernatural event.
Finally, I am not an "intelligent design" proponent. "Intelligent Design" is nothing but theistic evolution with a signature.
I have made each of these points many times over the years. How many more times do I have to make them???
You bore me.
That is false, ZC -- no more than the Presbyterian position. In Catholic, Presbyterian, Orthodox etc. Churches, the basic position is "you got to accept God created everything, and that the Bible is inerrant, beyond that the lips are shut" -- there is no fixed Catholic, Orthodox Presbyterian or Presbyterian C in America or Lutheran Church Missouri Synod etc. clear statement on this.
Yet you pillory Catholics only -- why?
Perhaps because the Catholic Church is the biggest purveyor of "theistic evolution" on the planet, more so than any Lutheran or Presbyterian church?
Or maybe because it was the Catholic Church I was told to leave because my beliefs about Biblical interpretation "just [weren't] Catholic."
Being shown the door (for being guilty of Biblical literalism) by a Church that adopts totem poles is a little . . . infuriating.
Circlecity: There is nothing wrong with anti-Judaism so long as people don’t take it out on Jews.
hmmmm...
All that is saying is that is one doesn’t have to respect a person’s religion to respect them as a human being and I stand by it.
ok, so are you saying it’s ok to be be anti-Judaism?
Absolutely. Judiasm rejects Christ. Thus, one can't be Christian and support a theology that rejects Jesus. That doesn't mean one can't support Jews in their struggle. But by the Apostle John's definition their religion in anti-Christ.
I just answered that question.
Circlecity, I don’t know which denomination, if any, you claim, but, respectfully, would you be pleased if someone were to use those words in the context of your ecclesial community?
Since I’m a Christian that happens all the time and I let it roll off my back. That isn’t a issue for one secure in their faith.
So it’s ok to display anti-Judaism, according to you? hmmm...
Accepting Jesus as the Christ is, by definition, displaying anti-Judaism.
hmmm... let me ask --> American Constitutionalist, Zionist Conspirator, is this correct?
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.