Anti-Catholicism - A Homiletic Entitled "Insults and Persecution"

Simple Catholicism ^ | July 4, 2003

[NYer]

People sometimes have vague fears about the Catholic Church, that we have a sinister plan to restrict their freedom. Since this is Fourth of July weekend (and it fits with our Scripture readings) I would like to address those fears.

Once I had a conversation with a young woman concerned that the Catholic Church was trying to take away her “right to choose.” She described herself as “very pro-choice.” Fair enough, I told her, but I was curious how far she would take it. “Suppose,” I asked, “someone were mistreating their pet (not feeding it properly, allowing it to live in filthy conditions, etc.) would you favor a law to prevent a person from making such a choice?”

She of course saw where I was going. While we both recognized the right to privacy, we did not want it to become a license to harm humans – or animals. We both desired maximum freedom for others, but we acknowledged situations where that freedom should be limited.

That is our nation's dilemma as we celebrate its 227th birthday. It does no good to talk about pro-choice and anti-choice. Every law, when enforced, infringes on someone else’s choice.

The correct question is contained in today’s readings. They presuppose human freedom, but ask what we will do with it. In the Old Testament God sent prophets like Ezekiel to call people back to the right path. They did not listen because their faces had become hard. (Ez 2:4) Easy to recognize that hardness in others, but more difficult to see when we look in the mirror.

Jesus also received an unenthusiastic reception from his countrymen. “They took offense at him.” (Mk 6:3)

That kind of reception will become more common for those serious about their Catholic faith. History professor Philip Jenkins has written an insightful book titled The New Anti-Catholicism. Not a Catholic himself, he analyzes what has become the “last acceptable prejudice.” The prejudice shows itself not just in fringe groups who are openly anti-Catholic (Lumen Productions, Bob Jones University, etc.), but right in the mainstream: major newspapers, movies, television, the arts.* One reason for this hostility is our teaching on matters like abortion and homosexuality.**

This is not a bad place for us to be. Jesus said that if they hated him, they would also hate us. Today St. Paul declares:

I am content with weaknesses, insults,

hardships, persecutions, and constraints,

for the sake of Christ;

for when I am weak, then I am strong. (2 Cor 12:10)

Of course, we must be cautious in claiming persecution. No one here is being arrested, tortured and executed for their faith - as is happening in other countries. And perhaps more to the point, you and I (unlike Jesus) are not innocent - nor can we claim a level of integrity equal to Paul.

At the same time, it is hard to ignore that the media have a bias against Catholicism and that their repeated insinuations do have an impact on our young people. Some young Catholics wonder whether they want to belong to an organization portrayed as anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-democratic, anti-science, even anti-Semitic.

We need people who can respond to the more egregious charges such as that, in the face of the Holocaust, the pope remained silent or even collaborated with Hitler. Besides the accusation that Pius XII was Hitler's Pope the media make frequent references to other “black legends”: Crusades, Inquisition, Burning Times, Galileo. We can perform a real service by studying these issues and helping people get beyond what “everyone knows” to a more nuanced understanding.

Celebrating the Fourth of July, as Catholics we desire to take our place alongside other citizens. We do not seek to dominate or impose. As Pope John Paul stated, “The Church proposes. She imposes nothing.” Rather, in light of the Gospel and in light of our two thousand year tradition, we join fellow citizens in asking: What does freedom means? Where does it come from? And what we will we do with such a gift?

************

*Jenkins mentions a Seattle art gallery which featured a blasphemous depiction of Christ crucified. “Below the cross, two nuns lie on their backs with the end of a coat hanger between their legs.” Other paintings had crude representations of priests. He notes that our society would not tolerate similar stereotyping of Jewish rabbis, black ministers, native Americans, etc. For sure Catholic priests and nuns provide rich ground for parody, going back to Chaucer and continuing into productions like Late Night Catechism. But if you imagine that the more vicious variety is an isolated phenomenon, I encourage you to read The New Anti-Catholicism.

**We cannot dodge these questions by saying they are private concerns of specific groups. As Mother Teresa observed, "If abortion isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong." If a society accepts the killing of unborn children, on what moral basis can we hold that any other act is unacceptable? The only thing which will matter is who is the strongest, that is who controls the means of communication and is most clever at manipulating people's emotions. Regarding homosexuality, our desire to accept and support those who struggle with same sex attractions does not require that we redefine marriage.

[NYer]

Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care.

A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world. For newspapers and newsmagazines, for television news and in movies, for major book publishers, the Catholic Church has come to provide a grossly stereotyped public villain. Catholic opinions, doctrines, and individual leaders are frequently the butt of harsh satire. Indeed, the notion that the church is a deadly enemy of women, the idea of Catholic misogyny, is commonly accepted in the news media and in popular culture, says Jenkins. And the recent pedophile priest scandal, he shows, has revived many ancient anti-Catholic stereotypes.

It was said that with the election of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholicism in America was dead. This new book corrects that illusion and draws attention to this important issue.

"This is an astonishing book. Most of us get used to the contempt heaped upon the Catholic church by nice, liberal people (as if such contempt were only to be expected), so we stop thinking of it as the gross deformity of soul it is. Jenkins, once a Catholic but no longer, quietly amasses evidence about more types of prejudice and bigotry against Catholics than most of us are conscious of. He is particularly good at diagnosing 'the black legends' about Catholicism which everybody 'knows' are true-the Crusades, the Inquisition, 'silence' regarding the Holocaust-and the inner agitation of 'anti-Catholic Catholics,' who have internalized the world's contempt. A serious, original, provocative study." --Michael Novak

[NYer]

Raymond Arroyo interviewed Philip Jenkins on last week's World Over Live program. Much of what I see in the press and media, bear out his assertions.

This homily makes some important points, in that regard.

It is hard to ignore that the media have a bias against Catholicism and that their repeated insinuations do have an impact on our young people. Some young Catholics wonder whether they want to belong to an organization portrayed as anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-democratic, anti-science, even anti-Semitic.

Something to ponder, for those who are not home schooling their children.

[american colleen]

Bump. I might just read this book. I keep reading about it everywhere!

It seems to me that anti-Catholicism is acceptible in some ways because some big name Catholic politicians seem to almost encourage it at times. Sometimes the only reason I know who is a Catholic politician is when they speak out publicly against a dogma they deem un-pc.

Of course the past two years have greatly helped anti-Catholicism. People I work with have no problem snickering and mentioning buggering priests to me.

[NYer]

Of course the past two years have greatly helped anti-Catholicism. People I work with have no problem snickering and mentioning buggering priests to me.

When the CBS Evening News lead off with its story on the 'secret vatican document' last night, I was simply amazed. Here it was less than 24 hours following the election of a divorced father of two, living an actively homosexual life - to the position of bishop!! Yet, he was now off the radar screen and the Catholic Church was back up there as their primary news story.

Nothing about the gay bishop on any other channels this morning ... done, gone, finished. Back to bashing the catholics. It is just sickening.

[american colleen]

And thanks for mentioning who was on last Friday with Raymond Arroyo. I missed it because I was away. I'll watch it on the ewtn archives.

A codicil, though. I don't want us to fall into the "victim mentality" mode of thinking. On the other hand, here in Massachusetts there was rampant anti-Catholicism in the 1840s until the 1920s or so. Including burning down of convents and parishes and not hiring Catholics (or worse, Irish Catholics). It would be nice to have a big-fat govermental check in recompence and a public apology from the government for holding us back and costing us money! ;-)

[NYer]

And thanks for mentioning who was on last Friday with Raymond Arroyo. I missed it because I was away. I'll watch it on the ewtn archives.

This week's program also looks interesting. His guest will be Archbishop John Patrick Foley, President, Pontifical Council for Social Communications (Vatican). The topic of discussion is Mass Media & the Church. Lol ... a continuation of the same theme?

BTW, did you watch the Installation Mass of Archbishop Sean? (I tuned in at work with the volume set low). You are indeed blessed to have him as your new archbishop. According to The Wanderer, O'Malley may be called to Rome in October to receive a red hat. My guess is they will have to drag him there kicking and screaming :-D

[american colleen]

When the CBS Evening News lead off with its story on the 'secret vatican document' last night, I was simply amazed. Here it was less than 24 hours following the election of a divorced father of two, living an actively homosexual life - to the position of bishop!!

I think this is because the media looks at the world much differently than we do. The elevation of an active homosexual who abandoned his wife and children for another man only alarms and saddens those who live "in the City of God" so to speak. God has no bearing on the secular world's outlook on life and the world they live in. Another reason the ECUSA debacle isn't news anymore is that it would be portrayed as homosexual bashing (if it is further fleshed out) in that "we" aren't inclusive and tolerent of the behaviour of others. Nothing is bad or wrong anymore if the behaviour makes one happy.

[american colleen]

Yes, the installation day was a beautiful beach day and I was down in Harwich, Mass at the beach. But I stayed in and tuned in. I loved his homily and thought it was appropriate at this time. He will deal with the multitude of other problems at the proper times.

I feel very fortunate that we have Bishop O'Malley here. I pray that we will eventually come out from the darkness and be a shining light. I hope I live that long! Lots of problems here!

[NYer]

Another reason the ECUSA debacle isn't news anymore is that it would be portrayed as homosexual bashing (if it is further fleshed out) in that "we" aren't inclusive and tolerent of the behaviour of others.

YES!!! You are so right!! Can't bash the homosexuals but the catholic church is a fine target, because of its 'intolerance'.

BTW, yesterday morning, anticipating that the newly crowned bishop would be making the rounds of the 3 major media, I watched him answer those "soft" questions on NBC, followed by the same questions on ABC and hesitated before turning on CBS. Big mistake! I caught the tailend of the bishop's answer to a "hard" question asked by Harry Smith. As I tuned in, the bishop was saying "... they weren't aware of it in those days." I screamed at the tv ... "aware of what????" and searched for a transcript to read Harry's question. Nothing.

If I were asking questions, mine would be "how do you reconcile your lifestyle which conflicts with scripture?" Alas, I may never know.

[american colleen]

"how do you reconcile your lifestyle which conflicts with scripture?"

AHA!!! You've hit on something crucial, I think. In these people's minds, there is no conflict as they interpret Scripture themselves. The other day I was looking for an answer to the exact same question you have and I came across a site (didn't bookmark it though) which "explained" all the Scripture passages dealing with homosexuality in a completely different way than has been Traditional Judeo-Christian teachings for thousands of years. The ancient words were described as having different meanings and of course, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for being "hostile to outsiders" and not for craven behaviour.

Makes me all the more appreciative of Scripture coupled with a 2,000 year old Tradition. Scripture coupled with personal interpretation is poison.

[Okies love Dubya 2]

'It is hard to ignore that the media have a bias against Catholicism and that their repeated insinuations do have an impact on our young people. Some young Catholics wonder whether they want to belong to an organization portrayed as anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-democratic, anti-science, even anti-Semitic.'

I have to admit that I struggled a lot with this in my later teen/early twenty-something years. It is hard to state that you believe an unborn baby has the right to life when you get shouted down by 'liberated women' who call you horrible names to make their point. I wondered if I was wrong in my beliefs--the ones my mother spent years teaching me and I had heard for years in Catholic schools. I became at best apathetic to my Church at times.

I am not sure where I came back to my faith...I think it began when my husband began RCIA during my first pregancy. Seeing his zeal for learning about the Church awakened something I hadn't felt in years.

The truth be told, it is still difficult to stand up for my beliefs, but I don't doubt them at all anymore. When I come across someone who is hostile to my values, I start to seethe, but then I remember what I went through and wonder if they aren't going through the same thing. That is why I always pray for those who have fallen away to come back--somebody must have done it for me at one time!

[american colleen]

I like your screen name! I use "St. Ives" liquid body wash in the shower. Some days I feel like it is my savior, like today when it is hot and humid. ;-)

Seriously, who was St. Ives? And... welcome to Freerepublic!

[american colleen]

You gotta read this gem by James Lileks.

Perhaps I the only one who winced at this: “God has once again brought an Easter out of Good Friday.' said Rev. Gene Robinson after his election as the first openly gay bishop. Good heavens, man, why don’t you just do the full James Cameron: hop up on the cross and shout I’m King of the Jews!

This story has irritated me from the start, and it has nothing to do with Rev. Robinson’s sexual orientation. The guy left his wife and kids to go do the hokey-pokey with someone else: that’s what it’s all about, at least for me. Marriages founder for a variety of reasons, and ofttimes they’re valid reasons, sad and inescapable. But “I want to have sex with other people” is not a valid reason for depriving two little girls of a daddy who lives with them, gets up at night when they're sick, kisses them in the morning when they wake. There's a word for people who leave their children because they don't want to have sex with Mommy anymore: selfish. I'm not a praying man, but I cannot possibly imagine asking God if that would be okay. Send them another Dad, okay? Until you do I'll keep my cellphone on 24/7, I promise.

Who are you to judge? is the standard response, and I quote Captain James T. Kirk when asked the same question by Kodos the Executioner: who do I have to be? I’ll tell you this: my nightmare is losing my daughter. The idea of leaving her on purpose is inconceivable, and I don’t care if Adriana Lima drove up the driveway in a '57 BelAir convertible, tossed me the keys and asked me to drive her to Rio, it ain’t gonna happen. I made a promise when I married my wife, and I made another when we had our daughter. It's made me rather cranky on the subject of men who don't stick around. They're letting down the side. They're reverting to type. They're talking from their trousers.

I know, I know, his daughters love him & support him now. So what. Hitler’s dog went to his funeral. (No, that doesn’t make sense, but it’s my favorite wrench to throw in conversations this week.) If he’d cast off his family to cavort with a woman from the choir, I’m not sure he’d be elevated to the level of moral avatar – but by some peculiar twist the fact that he left mom for a man insulates him from criticism. It’s as if he had to do it. To stay in the marriage would have been (crack of thunder, horses neighing) living a lie, and nowadays we’re told that’s the worst thing anyone can do. Better to bedevil other lives with the truth than inconvenience your own with a lie. Right? If others are harmed in the short run, eventually they will be happy because you’re happier. Right?

I don’t think it works that way with little children. I don’t think they understand why Dads leave – and so they make up their own reasons and spend years looking for evidence in other people.

Heard an interview with Rev. Robinson this afternoon, and he used a phrase that set my teeth on edge: he referred to partnerships as “life-intentioned.” A wonderful weasel word, that: intention. The escape hatch is built right in. It’s as if the intention to stay together is equal to the expressed promise to stay together. But it’s not. Everyone had a faithless lover who did you wrong, and usually blamed everything but free will. It just happened, you know. Wasn’t intending to cheat, but . . . it just happened, okay?

Tonight I told my wife that I now regarded our marriage vows not as a solemn promise, but an expression of my intentions.

Ever seen those “Bringing Up Father” cartoons where Jiggs flees the house, trailed by a fusillade of rolling pins and frying pans?

[RobbyS]

No accident that Luther supported Phillip of Hesse's bigamy.

[american colleen]

Sigh. It's always about sex in some way, isn't it?

[RobbyS]

Katie was the best thing that ever happened to Luther and he seems to have been a good husband and father. Why not, he was basically a good man. At the same time, his marriage reduced him from being a prophet to being a college professor. History seldom records how much public support this breaking of his vows cost him. His enemies could not say: see, see, it was lust that drove him!

[RobbyS]

"could NOW say.."