Posted on 03/14/2007 6:37:02 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
The idea that anti-Catholicism is a significant force in American life today is a complete canard, perpetrated by theologically and politically right-wing Roman Catholics--a minority among the Catholic laity--and aimed at anyone who stands up to the Church's continuing attempts to impose its values on all Americans.
The people who scream "anti-Catholicism" at every opportunity use the same tactics as right-wing Jews who charge that any criticism of Israeli policies is anti-Semitic. And just as the Jewish Right attacks liberal Jews, the Catholic Right attacks liberal Catholics as well as liberal non-Catholics.
The major organization promoting the falsehood that there is significant discrimination against Catholics is the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, whose president, William Donohue, has conned the news media into treating him as a "spokesman" for all American Catholics.
One of the biggest blind spots in much of the press's coverage of religion is that it tends to treat groups like "Catholics" and "evangelicals" as if their members marched in lockstep. In fact, there are liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics, just as there are liberal Protestant evangelicals and conservative fundamentalist evangelicals. Liberal Catholics have much more in common with liberal Protestants than they do with the kind of Catholics whom Donohue's organization claims to represent.
The majority of American Catholics, as demonstrated in repeated public opinion polls, reject the league's arch-conservative views on such matters as the separation of church and state (the league wants as much religious intrusion into government as possible); abortion rights; and stem cell research....
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.washingtonpost.com ...
I believe that there is a rule on FR against thread-jumping.
Bravo!!! Wonderful post!
Well now if we have to fine tune our addressing the various and sundry Protestant sects, should the Catholics ask that the Protestants limit their critiques to this or that parish/diocese/order/deanery/bishop/organization? We could do without that all-encompassing "catholic" label.
Ah, but where's the article on obsessive behavior by the anti-Catholic crowd? Or those who post hit pieces at every chance?
Is this a national trend, or an individual (sorry) crusade to stigmatize a useful, if not perfectly precise, distinction?
I am much more likely to be angered by those claiming Catholicism who have been declared excommunicated or declared schismatic by Pope John Paul II's Ecclesia Dei, but that is an intramural Catholic vs. "Catholic" matter, a race in which you appear not to have a horse.
Sincere reformed Christians at Free Republic are probably not awaiting my advice, even if respectfully delivered, as to how they might change to Catholic. I am certainly not open to changing from Catholic. I am open as I hope all of my fellow Christians are to defending the unborn, defending marriage, defending appropriate liberties. I appreciate the welcome that Catholics have found in a nation largely founded by non-Catholics. I respect this nation's institutions and the many superb people who have not shared the Catholic Faith but have made room for it here.
I try not to be quick to take offense from those who are sincere in any faith other than my own which does not pretend (like SSPX) to be my own. When troubles occur in other faiths, I self-impose a limitation that concedes that it is none of my business and pray to our Father in heaven that His will be done (whatever it may be). He loves each of us so much more than we can love even ourselves.
God bless you and yours.
God bless you and yours.
Seems to me, living our faith creates power that draws us together, while words seem to push us toward recreating Babylon's confusion.
God bless you & yours as well & may He bless the work you do on behalf of His most innocent lambs.
Feel free to ping me to it, when you find and post one!
Yes, I used to live around there, too. Some Texas-sized egos on display, definitely!
To be fair, though, in recent history Texas has seen some Catholic bishops with Texas-sized heads, too :-).
While I don't agree with it, I do understand why non-Catholics deny certain Catholic beliefs like papal authority, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Purgatory, etc. However, I have NEVER UNDERSTOOD why they resist the truth of the Real Presense, I can see nothing in it that is "peculiar" and while it does require faith, it really doesn't require any more faith than Truths such as the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, Ascension and Pentecost.
I didn't either, but one of my (sorry) Protestant friends, the wife of a youth minister at a congregation designated "Community Church," told me that it's an issue not so much with the Real Presence, but the fact that it requires a priest to consecrate the Eucharist.
In other words, if you have the Body of Christ, you must have a priest to consecrate it. Then you need a Bishop to ordain the priest. Then you need an organization to appoint and ordain the Bishop. And before you know it, you've got a whole ecclesiastical structure (like the Catholic Church, for example :-), which some (sorry) Protestants, in the (sorry) Puritan/Congregationalist tradition, reject as "unBiblical."
As you said about some other beliefs, wagglebee, I don't agree with this position, but it makes a reasonable amount of sense, when considered with its particular historical context.
That still doesn't make sense. They had no problem saying that their ordained ministers can baptize, marry, etc. Most of them still have a form of communion. So, it seems that they still could have retained it, as Lutherans have (I won't even try to get into Lutherans' belief of Consubstantiation vs. Catholic/Orthodox Transubstantiation, because it confuses me).
The ministers can marry through the authority of the state, not the church. And anyone can baptize; Catholics agree. Their communion did not involve a consecration, but only a sharing in (I'm series) Pepperidge Farm goldfish and grape juice by the congregation.
They don't believe that Jesus did anything to the bread and wine at the Last Supper, other than offer a blessing as anyone could. Therefore, they can "commemorate" that occasion simply through the sharing of the congregation, no minister needed.
As I said, I don't agree, of course, but it seems internally consistent to me, except for the goldfish (which my friend mentioned because she thought it was appalling!).
Call me RCC any time.
May God continue to bless you and yours.
bookmark
It still seems that Protestants could have assumed the authority to consecrate the Eucharist.
I suppose, but that would be very confusing!
No it wouldn't, they could simply claim that any ordained minister could consecrate the Eucharist. It's far easier than claiming that John 6 is talking about symbolism.
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.