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 ...
Reading the mind of another poster is a form of "making it personal."
Sure enough.
Didja notice that I have my own personal style consultant? You don't hire them. Rome assigns them to you.
bump
Well done. You should always read my posts, ask for clarifications, and have an easy access to them. There are personal database programs, such as Microsoft Access to help with organizing references to my posts. Even a simple flat file would do on limited budgets.
AnAmericanMother is, of course, perfectly correct as well. I know, for example, that as an anti-Catholic you cannot go to heaven, but I don’t know whether by the grace of our sovereign Lord Jesus Christ you convert to Catholicism at the hour of your death if not sooner. For which conversion I don’t cease to pray to Our Lady most Holy Mother of God Mary.
bump
Attributing motives or reading minds of another poster is a form of "making it personal."
For some of us
they assign a whole platoon of them
to wail and whine and throw dust and white hankies in the air.
I apologize.
Neither is anti-Protty-ism dead around here, Sarge. Not by a long shot.
And not one has been shown, yet. The last candidate had the word generally, which implies exceptions.
I have to point out that we seem to be being asked to defend two charges. Please pick one. Have we or some of us said that NO non-catholics can get into heaven, as initially charged (and initially -- and still -- denied), or have we or some of us written nasty posts, as initially and still admitted.
I will say again. This making a charge and then pressing the attack on quite another matter seems to be a common tactic. You still have not presented a single instance of the charge you made. We have admitted that we are sometimes far less than gracious. So why go back to that second point when the first point is what you brought up?
What is funny about that is Catholics have no problem telling Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church', ...
annalex: You are hell bound, generally speaking, yes, by the fact of your being separated brethren.
annalex: I know, for example, that as an anti-Catholic you cannot go to heaven
Thanks for spelling it out down to those street-level specifics, annalex. For two days, your Catholic friends have been chiding us that no Catholic would ever say that sort of thing, and now a double-witness has been provided, for all to see, that some would. A lot of FRCatholics should be eating crow right about now, only I know it'll never happen. Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays.
By all means annalex, you go right on praying to Mary for my "conversion". I'll just keep praying to Jesus Christ for yours.
I thought post 187 covered that. I am sure you can split hairs on that, but IMO it did.
It wasn't my statement, nor did I (or do I) agree with it generally speaking. And as soon as I see some Catholics on this board publicly disagreeing with annalex' statements (and cite authoritative Church teachings against his opinions), then we might find something to talk further about.
That said, I'd like say something about your previous post to Always Right:
We have admitted that we are sometimes far less than gracious.
Where exactly have those admissions been made - and who was pinged to them? Always Right reprinted one of my posts, which coincidentally I had reposted to you almost a year ago. I've never seen an admission or an apology from that responsible party of those comments being "over the line", with just one single, notable exception. On the contrary, on this very thread those comments were excused as being likely replies to "anti-Catholic comments".
No sale, MD. Rebuke your own, publicly and by name, for not posting their own admissions of guilt "less than graciousness" to us.
Please calm down...maybe drink a glass of water or something.
Alex,
You wrote:
“By all means annalex, you go right on praying to Mary for my “conversion”. I’ll just keep praying to Jesus Christ for yours.”
The problem is Annalex - although imperfect like us all - is converted, while you show only a meanspiritedness in attacking the Church every day and even going way out of your way to do it.
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.