Posted on 10/29/2009 3:45:12 PM PDT by NYer
October 29, 2009
The following article was submitted in a slightly shorter form to the New York Times as an op-ed article. The Times declined to publish it. I thought you might be interested in reading it.
FOUL BALL!
By Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan
Archbishop of New York
October is the month we relish the highpoint of our national pastime, especially when one of our own New York teams is in the World Series!
Sadly, America has another national pastime, this one not pleasant at all: anti-catholicism.
It is not hyperbole to call prejudice against the Catholic Church a national pastime. Scholars such as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. referred to it as “the deepest bias in the history of the American people,” while John Higham described it as “the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.” “The anti-semitism of the left,” is how Paul Viereck reads it, and Professor Philip Jenkins sub-titles his book on the topic “the last acceptable prejudice.”
If you want recent evidence of this unfairness against the Catholic Church, look no further than a few of these following examples of occurrences over the last couple weeks:
Of course, this selective outrage probably should not surprise us at all, as we have seen many other examples of the phenomenon in recent years when it comes to the issue of sexual abuse. To cite but two: In 2004, Professor Carol Shakeshaft documented the wide-spread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our nation’s public schools (the study can be found here). In 2007, the Associated Press issued a series of investigative reports that also showed the numerous examples of sexual abuse by educators against public school students. Both the Shakeshaft study and the AP reports were essentially ignored, as papers such as the New York Times only seem to have priests in their crosshairs.
True enough, the matter that triggered her spasm -- the current visitation of women religious by Vatican representatives -- is well-worth discussing, and hardly exempt from legitimate questioning. But her prejudice, while maybe appropriate for the Know-Nothing newspaper of the 1850’s, the Menace, has no place in a major publication today.
I do not mean to suggest that anti-catholicism is confined to the pages New York Times. Unfortunately, abundant examples can be found in many different venues. I will not even begin to try and list the many cases of anti-catholicism in the so-called entertainment media, as they are so prevalent they sometimes seem almost routine and obligatory. Elsewhere, last week, Representative Patrick Kennedy made some incredibly inaccurate and uncalled-for remarks concerning the Catholic bishops, as mentioned in this blog on Monday. Also, the New York State Legislature has levied a special payroll tax to help the Metropolitan Transportation Authority fund its deficit. This legislation calls for the public schools to be reimbursed the cost of the tax; Catholic schools, and other private schools, will not receive the reimbursement, costing each of the schools thousands – in some cases tens of thousands – of dollars, money that the parents and schools can hardly afford. (Nor can the archdiocese, which already underwrites the schools by $30 million annually.) Is it not an issue of basic fairness for ALL school-children and their parents to be treated equally?
The Catholic Church is not above criticism. We Catholics do a fair amount of it ourselves. We welcome and expect it. All we ask is that such critique be fair, rational, and accurate, what we would expect for anybody. The suspicion and bias against the Church is a national pastime that should be “rained out” for good.
I guess my own background in American history should caution me not to hold my breath.
Then again, yesterday was the Feast of Saint Jude, the patron saint of impossible causes.
You wrote:
“Yikes! Did you forget the sarcasm tag there?”
Nope.
“My sister is Baptist and more conservative than me.”
Politically maybe. Religiously, if she is Protestant, then she can only be a Liberal.
“My sister-in-law is Charismatic and militant conservative”
I never said anything about conservative. The opposite of Liberalism - in the religious sense - is not conservatism. It is orthodoxy.
“My brother-in-law and his wife are Evangelical and conservative militant Pro-Life”
And they’re still Liberals - religiously. It cannot be any other way.
“My niece-in-law is from an independent “Bible Church” and conservative.”
No, she is a Liberal no matter how conservative her political views. I never said anything about conservative political views.
“I would say that I know as many Protestant conservatives as Catholic conservatives.”
I never mentioned conservatives.
I’m not vouching for this website, but they at least have the book Liberalism is a Sin posted there:
http://www.liberalismisasin.com/
Then, I, as a very conservative, non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern/Oriental Orthodox - but Christian still - kindly request a correction to your statement that I am therefore a liberal. You are quite WRONG on that point!
No Catholic who takes his religion half-way seriously should subscribe to the NYT.
Well, Archbishop Dolan has no control over the others, except for his considerable personal influence. The Catholic conference has been in a something rebellious state since 1968.
Hilariously, this thread has proven the very point Archbishop Dolan was trying to make, as some of FR’s very own regularly (indeed, in the case of one of them, CONSTANTLY) ranting anti-Catholic posters have wasted no time jumping right in!
Nice going, guys!
The NY Times is run by a cabal of deranged, Marxist fairies. What else would you expect from them?
You wrote:
“Well, good, I see you are backtracking a bit and now saying you were not talking about “politics”.”
I’m not back tracking one bit. My comments have been consistent throughout and always are.
“It is STILL a dumb statement and especially as a reply to a paper about political liberals trashing Catholics.”
It is not a dumb statement and is grounded in the wisdom of the Church. And religious Liberalism is linked to political liberalism.
“Is it okay to trash other Christians?”
Correct descriptions trash no one.
You wrote:
“Then, I, as a very conservative, non-Roman Catholic, non-Eastern/Oriental Orthodox - but Christian still - kindly request a correction to your statement that I am therefore a liberal.”
My statement was not incorrect in the least and you deserve exactly no change of statement.
“You are quite WRONG on that point!”
I am not wrong in the least.
Somehow I get the feeling Ted Kennedy voted for Obama. He was obviously a real Catholic, since he was served the Eucharist in Roman Catholic churches. And since the Roman Catholic Church sez he was a Catholic, FR opinions on his not being a real Catholic are moot.
My understanding is that although Ted Kennedy went to Mass regularly, he did not present himself for Communion. At least he didn’t at the Papal Mass.
If voting for Obama or McCain or any of the political clowns is definition of liberal/conservative, then indeed there are plenty “liberal” communion-receving Catholics. But if you look at the political philosophy that comes out of Catholicism you will find that the very idea that getting someone elected constitutes legitimate government is laughable. It is a very Protestant idea, same kind of mental infection that is your private interpretation of the Holy Scripture. Protestantism is a form of liberalism. Vladimir is absolutely right.
Pro-murder Democratic Roman Catholic politicians partake in the Eucarist. Since they are not forbidden, but welcome to the table they are "real Catholics." That was my point.
Now, which Christian group would that be, that holds to the big lie that individual judgement in the area of interpreting the Scripture may supercede and even publicly protest the judgement of the Church?
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.
Say Amen?
So who would that be?
Not I, according to many RCs here.
Trent, they have said, only applies to those who lived in the time of the decree.
So why haven’t the pro-murder politicos been booted.
Someone who pings the moderator as much as you probably shouldn't make that comment.
MUWAH HAHAHAHAHA
************
One might expect that someone would have the integrity to at least use the full quote before commenting.
The condemnation of private interpretation of the scripture, that I quoted, is an infallible decree for all times.
Regarding excommunications, the Church does not do that in haste. Remember, Christ came to heal those who are sick, not to condemn them.
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.