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:
“Calling names is much easier than thinking. But neither you nor Vlad impress anyone by doing so.”
Who did I call a name?
You wrote:
“Ok vlad, if you want to make a provocative claim, how about this one? Conservatives work hard.”
Assumption. I can think of two conservatives off the top of my head who do not work hard. I also can think of people who don’t have a conservative bone in their body who work very hard. Also, your points is already meaningless because my point was not about conservatives nor liberals, but Liberals.
“Hard work is sometimes referred to as a “Protestant work ethic”.”
No. Hard work could never be referred to as an ethic. A devotion to hard work could be referred to as an ethic. I could be wrong, but usually the idea of the “Protestant work ethic” is laid at the feet of Max Weber. It’s ironic that Weber developed a nervous disorder after the death of his father and became so ill he had to leave his job to recuperate. He left Germany, with its great work ethic, and traveled to Italy, where things moved at a much slower pace and became healthy again while living there for about 3 years. He then wrote his book.
“Since there is no such thing as a “Catholic work ethic”,...”
Who says? Apparently some would disagree with you: http://jobfunctions.bnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=260451
Common sense would dictate that those who invented hospitals, universities, and Gothic cathedrals certainly have a work ethic.
“I therefore infer that Catholics don’t work hard and must be liberals.”
Your inference is completely illogical as shown above.
“Now retract your statement Protestants being liberals.”
No. I never made any such statement. I said, Protestants are Liberals. I never said they were liberals. Thus, I told the truth, and have no reason to retract.
“It’s a dumb thing to say, you shouldn’t have said it.”
It’s an absolutely true thing to say, and I should have said it, and did.
Here’s the link some posters here are apparently ignoring: http://www.liberalismisasin.com/
You are acting as bigoted as you are acting disingenuous.
Simply retract the statement that you know is completely inflammatory. It is the right thing to do.
You know exactly what you are doing, and it is wrong.
So take the statement back like a man, or let it stand like a complete wuss.
Which are you?
You wrote:
“You are acting as bigoted as you are acting disingenuous.”
No, I am simply straightfoward and honest.
“Simply retract the statement that you know is completely inflammatory.”
I see no reason to retract the truth no matter how inflammatory someone believes it to be.
“It is the right thing to do.”
No, it is not.
“You know exactly what you are doing, and it is wrong.”
I have no reason to believe I am doing anything wrong. If the truth offends you, then I suggest you simply stop reading it.
“So take the statement back like a man, or let it stand like a complete wuss.”
So standing up to your personal insults and standing behind my statement that I know to be true makes me a “wuss” in your opinion? Honestly, your opinions - if that is an example of their formation - simply doesn’t concern me in the least.
“Which are you?”
I am the man standing behind my statement and allowing you to post yourself into embarrassment. Carry on.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Thank you!
If Protestantism somehow saved the Church, what are you doing outside of it now?
Never happened. Read the Church Fathers and compare. We are the same Church. You are the scatterers.
When did I do that? The Church is not government. It is authority, to be sure, but government it is not. It does not use force. Governments use force.
There is no legitimate purpose in the government preventing people from sinning according to religious authority.
I agree, but the moral issues such as abortion, gay "marriage" or no-fault divorce and not merely sins: they are crimes that somehow got legitimized by the American system, rendering it presently illegitimate.
Ludicrous.
The Church, when it had secular authority, was government and it used force.
The system you propose would have “religious authority” that had absolute control over such intimate decisions as marriage and divorce, without ANY input from the people, because you consider elections tyrannical and ridiculous.
How about birth control? Does that ALSO render our Government “illegitimate”? Because people are free to use birth control?
“If Protestantism somehow saved the Church, what are you doing outside of it now?”
I’m ok. The question is, why are you outside of it? Surely you don’t think your expressed opinions are part of it?
The Church should inform the government but not be a part of it. It never has been. All it does is, it forms a conscience. Man cannot be free without a formed conscience, won’t you agree?
Divorce can be legitimate if a spouse is abusive. Adultery, howeever, is quite often a tort as it has a victim.
Non-abortifacient birth control, such as condoms or interrupted intercourse, is a personal sin and therefore not a crime.
15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. 16 For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness. 17 For he received from God the Father, honour and glory: this voice coming down to him from the excellent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. 18 And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. (2 Peter 1)
As we read on, we find a prophetic condemnation of Protestantism's destructive liberalism as well:
19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. (2 Peter 1-2)
Don't be merchandise.
On the proper social order and desirability of democracy, the Church has no dogmatic teaching. Some Catholics are socially very liberal and some are very conservative. However, the Church firmly teaches that on matters of faith and morals, the majority does not rule, and if the majority usurps political power in order to promulgate evil laws, such power is illegitimate.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how bigoted and wrong it may be.
I was just surprised to see bigoted opinions parroted with such gusto on this thread by Catholics with no Catholic opposition.
The irony of these apparently Catholic opinions on a thread bemoaning Anti-Catholicism is particularly noticeable.
(here’s where I’ll get plenty of reaction)
America is tolerant of every faith - because America was founded on Protestant ideals. America could not have been founded by Catholics. The same “one true path” dysfunctionality exhibited on this thread precludes the freedoms that we enjoy.
South/Central America is probably the best we could have become if we were founded by Catholics.
You and other posters refuse to even acknowledge the value of Protestantism in advancing the human condition and in spreading God’s word. There is plenty to criticize about Protestants, the well-publicized follies of the Episcopalians being just one aspect.
The Catholic Church is not sole heir to Apostolic faith - some of you think you are, and that is fine. The Nicene (check your spelling) creed speaks of a catholic (small “C” in the Protestant version) and apostolic church.
The least that one can expect, on a thread bemoaning intolerance against Catholics is a little less finger-wagging at the Protestantism that you seem to hate so much.
Intolerance on the part of you and your partners in though on a thread like this begets more of the same of which you complain.
I hope you enjoy the stroll on the gilded “one true” path upon which you trod - hard to tell if it’s heading up or down at this point. You may be surprised to find more than a few Protestants in either place you find your eternal soul. You’ll doubtlessly find plenty of your fellow Catholics in both places, too.
So, a little Protestant temperance is called for on this thread, methinks, lest you give folks an excuse to be intolerant of your church.
It's nice to see the honest way you post your anti-Catholic hatred.
Hilarious.
“It’s nice to see the honest way you post your anti-Catholic hatred.”
If the Catholic way worked in the new world, South and Central America would be a paradise, and Protestant North America would be emigrating to the southern utopia.
I’m sorry you see it as hatred. It is not. It is an observation devoid of hate.
But now that you are here, you can express the same indignation on the hatred toward Protestant faith that is on this thread. I’ll look forward to seeing it.
“Hilarious.”
Ok, make it less funny.
Of course you're going to say that.
“Of course you’re going to say that.”
I’m glad you see that I don’t hate the RCC, now that I have explained it to you.
Everyone has the capacity to see reason.
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.