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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 1,041-1,059 next last
To: Mad Dawg

If more people walked the walk, it wouldn’t be a problem.


241 posted on 07/25/2008 12:50:32 PM PDT by Jaded (Does it really need a sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Where did I insert "all"? You said implied "some" and we challenged you by asking for "one", since "one" would establish "some".

Well then I am confused why you think 'generally speaking' disqualifies that. To me that would mean not only one, but most.

242 posted on 07/25/2008 12:52:52 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

“Looks like crow’s back OFF the menu, boys.”

Now you tell us! My whole house reaks of boiled crow. Kids ran outside barefooted holding towels over their faces, and I haven’t heard from the dog in hours.


243 posted on 07/25/2008 1:04:34 PM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; Alex Murphy

I responded in the same frame of reference as Alex had in his post quoting me, as a matter of knowing or not any given individual’s prospect of salvation. By using Alex’s name I was merely giving an example of such individual. I apologize if is sounded any more personal than Alex’s post. My post was not intended as a personal remark, Alex.


244 posted on 07/25/2008 1:13:59 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
The original statement.

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',

"Catholics have no problem...". What does that mean. It could mean NO Catholic has a problem. It could mean SOME Catholics have a problem, but others don't.

We went with "some" and asked if you could find ONE that did.

... Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church'

By definition, I would think, NO Protestant is in full communion with the See of Rome, which is what I took you to mean by "belong to 'The Church'." (We have already discussed how we think that all who are baptized with water and the use of a Trinitarian formula DO in fact "belong to "the Church," but I don't think you meant that.

Presumably, the hypothetical (and so far not proven to exist) Catholic who would be "telling Protestants they are going to hell because they don't belong to 'The Church'," would mean ALL Protestants, because, as discussed, not "belonging" to 'The Church' seems to define the class.


So I think I have shown that your statement could be understood to be equivalent to:

There is at least one Catholic who tells Protestants that ALL of them are going to hell because they are Protestants."
And I'd bet that maybe in Ireland or something there is one. But the context seemed to suggest that maybe there was a Catholic like that on FR who had actually said so in living memory.

Anyway, I see where in another post you are saying that

I just meant to make the point that both neither side is innocent, which I think the constant hounding on this thread proved.
I guess I object to "constant hounding". You said,"Catholics have no problem... ." You did not say,"all have sinned," but you assigned a specific sign to a class or genus. You have been "hounded" only if defending oneself against an unjust charge is hounding. Do you really think that it's somehow persecution to object to an accusation one thinks undeserved?

To continue with the exercise in pedantry: You did NOT say "SOME catholics have no problem," or "I know of a Catholic who has no problem ..."

The statement seemed to be about "Catholics" as a genus, that is, generally - which usually admits of exceptions. But I think that qualifies as "blanket".

Anyway, if you had said, "None of us (or, more precisely, "neither side") is innocent," I suspect you would have found lots of agreement.

But you made a charge, and were "hounded" with defenses against what was, whatever you really meant to say, an attack.

The moral would appear to be that in a hot medium we should all try to cut each other breaks while we choose our own words carefully.

245 posted on 07/25/2008 1:15:34 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; AnAmericanMother; big'ol_freeper; Mrs. Don-o; vladimir998; LurkingSince'98
your Catholic friends have been chiding us that no Catholic would ever say that sort of thing

And they were correct. My expectation of your conversion and consequent salvation is right in the post you quote from.

246 posted on 07/25/2008 1:16:42 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

So telling us generally speaking Protestants go to hell or purgatory or unsaved or whatever, we should be not take offense? I am confused.


247 posted on 07/25/2008 1:22:46 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I had a private exchange on this, and I want to mention one aspect that came up publicly:

The hurt feeling that some might feel learninig that there is no salvation outside of Catholic Church is mostly incomprehension and not ill will. The Protestants are trained to think that one is either saved or not saved NOW. The truth is, salvation is a process; but to them, statement of fact.


248 posted on 07/25/2008 1:24:05 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

Comment #249 Removed by Moderator

To: annalex

Exactly!


250 posted on 07/25/2008 1:40:06 PM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

And I was having all the neighbors over for Blackbird Pie, too! I hate it when y’all change the rules on my like this!


251 posted on 07/25/2008 1:55:29 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. Support your local reptile vet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Just throw some hollandaise sauce on it an tell ‘em it’s some fancy French dish. They’ll all be impressed!


252 posted on 07/25/2008 2:00:40 PM PDT by Jaded (Does it really need a sarcasm tag?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Jaded

Or, this could be the perfect occasion for the mango sauce with habanero peppers!


253 posted on 07/25/2008 2:02:35 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. Support your local reptile vet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
I have a question: When you witness to a non-believer, do you tell them that without accepting the same beliefs as you hold, that they will remain unsaved? And do you tell them this with concern for their salvation, not trying to offend, but knowing they might be offended in the process?

The law is for condemnation and it condemns all people as we all fall short. Jesus fulfilled the law by his sacrafice and offered salvation for those whom believe. The Catholic Church to me seems to want to invent new laws to replace the ones fulfilled by Christ. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants can believe Catholics are saved by their belief in Jesus, Catholics don't believe Protestants are saved. Now there are lots of Protestants who condemn Catholics because of the law, but they don't understand those laws have been fulfilled.

254 posted on 07/25/2008 2:06:15 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; sandyeggo
Catholics don't believe Protestants are saved

We don't believe anyone, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Hindu is either saved or lost while they are still living. Salvation is a process that continues through your life and IF at any point you convert to the truths of the Catholic Church either (better) formally or through a conversion of the heart, then you WILL BE saved (note conditional and the future tense).

This is why this entire display of hurt feelings is uncomprehensible to us; and if you read the explanations readily available on the subject from any informed Catholic, you would not have them.

See, for example,
SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING

255 posted on 07/25/2008 2:20:16 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

Comment #256 Removed by Moderator

To: Tax-chick

Alright, enough is enough...just put yer crow down nice and easy like...slowly back away...that way nobody gets hurt.


257 posted on 07/25/2008 2:28:51 PM PDT by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

Comment #258 Removed by Moderator

To: sandyeggo

Interesting, but seems like a lot of words just to say ‘we don’t know yet’. However, that seems to be a more appropriate response to fellow believers.


259 posted on 07/25/2008 2:38:31 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: sandyeggo
Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian.

That is debatable. Maybe he should have inserted " some". "Some Protestant Christians."

260 posted on 07/25/2008 2:40:49 PM PDT by LordBridey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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