Defining Anti-Catholicism


#1

Here is an interesting article on what Anti-Catholicism is. I think this rings pretty much true.

Anti-Catholic themes may be loosely categorized as follows:

[LIST]
*]attacking Catholicism as being un-Christian or a cult (in the pejorative and not the sociological sense);

*]ridiculing or misinterpreting Catholic doctrine or practice;

*]ascribing to the Catholic Church a sinister role in an anti-Christian or anti-American conspiracy;

*]distorting or taking out of context illegal or scandalous behavior (especially sexual misconduct) by Catholic clergy or laity.
[/LIST]

Some of the Protestant Apologists here have fit one or two of the catagories. Some Ex-Catholics here have distort our doctrines and practices. In any sense, they have no sense of trying to understand what we truly believe.

Here is the Article.

www2.trincoll.edu/~dcruzuri/anti-catholic/anti-catholic.html


#2

Fascinating, but sadly true.

Manny,
Is there also a corresponding Catholic perspective that we’ve seen as well that some have called an “anti-protestantism”?

I know I will engage anyone in the rough and tumble debate on the faith, but at the same time, I have seen some Catholics around here who add nothing useful to the debate and offer an almost mirror image of the same sort of vitriolic rhetoric and condemnation that we tend to get from many a-Cs.

I suspect that many of these Catholics are responding in kind to what they have experienced, and I certainly can understand that sometimes, but I guess my point is that both extremes should be avoided.

As for points that I believe qualify a person as anti-Catholic:

  1. The allegation that Catholicism is not Christian.
  2. Almost all of the following n-C religious groups:
    a) Seventh Day Adventists
    b) Jehovah’s Witnesses
    c) The World Wide Church of God (Armstrongism)
    d) Jack Chick Publications :rolleyes:
  3. Persons who flatly refuse to accept any Catholic sources in discussion/debate.

There may be other things that come to mind later but at this point this is my take on this.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.


#3

Thanks for starting this thread, manny. I have been wondering about this question myself lately. And thanks for the link. I am just looking over the History page on my other screen.

%between%


#4

#5

Hmmm…On the link you provided, the groups listed as “non-Christian” were just the JWs and Mormons. Both of these groups deny the Trinity. Both groups preach “another Gospel.”

Seventh-Day Adventists are merely called non-Catholic, which is entirely true. I think any SDA would be offended if someone tried to call them Catholic! :wink: No one said SDAs were not Christians, there very well may be Christians in the SDA denomination; unfortunately, SDAs would never say such a nice thing about Catholics. :frowning:


#6

[quote=Church Militant] [FONT=Arial][size=2]I know I will engage anyone in the rough and tumble debate on the faith, but at the same time, I have seen some Catholics around here who add nothing useful to the debate and offer an almost mirror image of the same sort of vitriolic rhetoric and condemnation that we tend to get from many a-Cs.[/size] [/FONT]
[/quote]

Let me just put the anti-Catholic points up on my screen so I don’t forget them.

[LIST=1]
*]attacking Catholicism as being un-Christian or a cult (in the pejorative and not the sociological sense);
*]ridiculing or misinterpreting Catholic doctrine or practice;
*]ascribing to the Catholic Church a sinister role in an anti-Christian or anti-American conspiracy;
*]distorting or taking out of context illegal or scandalous behavior (especially sexual misconduct) by Catholic clergy or laity.

[/LIST]I am thinking about this anti-Catholic list and I am thinking about the ‘mirror image’ anti-Protestant list which you raise, CM. My view is that, either way, it is a question of what a person believes is factual. This raises two problems imho:

[LIST=1]
*]What a person believes may not actually be factual, in which case it is then a question of whether or not it is appropriate and timely to correct that person’s beliefs.
*]What a person believes may in fact be factual, but not at all comfortable for the other person to hear.[/LIST]continued…


#7

So, a question of factual versus comfortable. Either way, there is a balance to be struck between:

[LIST=1]
*]When to cede to the sensibilities of someone who is genuinely searching, is misinformed, and is struggling with issues of betrayal or shame when confronted with ‘uncomfortable’ claims; and
*]When to conclude that someone is not genuinely searching, is not misinformed (knows better), and whose proselytizing, provocation, or even attempted ridicule of Catholics has nothing to do with ‘discomfort’ but quite a lot to do with frustration in the face of a well-substantiated refutation of his point of view.[/LIST][LIST]
*]Sometimes clarity is not comfortable.
*]Does that mean that we ignore elephants in the room?
*]If so, then when? [/LIST]
This is a genuine question. I would like folks to think about this. If I have worded it incautiously, then I apologize. It is not my intent to hurt or ‘one-up’ anyone.

continued…


#8

CM, you mention ‘vitriolic rhetoric and condemnation’. This morning a poster suggested that one of my posts had been hateful toward a historical figure. In fact, I hold no hate toward this figure; nor do I believe any hate was inadvertantly expressed in my post. I thought that I might hold a difference of opinion from the one expressed by the other poster. Therefore, I articulated my difference of opinion.

What often happens is that what people say is not what other people hear. People may put forward information that may be new and ‘uncomfortable’ for another person to hear. Or sometimes people believe that anything which calls their own point of view into question is vitriol and condemnation. (And I am not suggesting that you do this)

Thus an effective communication often includes requests for clarification and responses with clarification. As well as some willingness to tolerate ‘discomfort’ and some willingess to self-examine with respect to that new and ‘uncomfortable’ information.

I have found that there are posters here with whom I simply disagree. Nonetheless they post referenced lines of reasoning, so fair enough. I feel that they are participating to the discussions and I have no problem with that.

There are others who rarely reference anything, who imho post with little regard to the rules of logic, and who tautologize their strawmen til the cows come home. I feel that those kinds of posts often disrupt discussions. Some very stimulating threads have imho gone down the tubes as a result of that behaviour.

continued…


#9

In conclusion, I believe that anti-Catholicism or anti-Protestantism hinges on the acceptance of claims to be factual. Once having been informed, however, there is no back door. A person may start out saying that Catholics worship idols. Once having been informed, there is no excuse for tautologizing that claim and that claim becomes an attack. I can’t think of an example for anti-Protestantism, but the same holds true for them.

Many folks have pm’d me and emailed saying that it was clarity which started them questioning their Protestant beliefs and started them on their journey across the Tiber. That surprised me because I thought people’s issues with the Catholic Church were more personal and less informational.

continued…


#10

Sometimes, however, I feel like I am walking on eggs. The number of elephants in the room has increased for me and the number of subjects on my no-go list has also increased.

Obviously in the light of what folks are saying about their need for clarity, I wonder about the usefulness of ignoring the elephants in the room and lengthening the no-go list.I also wonder if expecting the elephants in the room to be ignored is not a tactic to marginalize Catholic apologetics.

If enough of a fuss is kicked up over an ‘uncomfortable’ doctrine or period of history, maybe some of us will simply add those topics to our no-go lists and another elephant will enter the room.

Thoughts? Do other people have no-go lists? Have other people noticed any elephants in the room?


#11

Well that would be in your opinion (not that I am disagreeing). But like the above poster indicated, it appears --what one feels is fact-- is important.

i.e. You say not believing in Trinity is not Christian.

They say that is worshiping a 3 headed god. They say…

One group determining what is “non-christian” and then labelling those groups as “anti” whatever because they turnaround and attach those same statements to the RCC does apprear to be hypocritical.


#12

that would make catholics anti-jehovah’s witness and anti-mormon and anti-seventh day adventists

but they cannot ascert that catholics are non-christian?

hypocracy.Well…if you haven’t decided to post under your other name now! Didn’t think I’d make the connection with the similarity of posting styles and content didya;) Malachi_a_Serva?

As for hypocrisy…Are you going to have the nerve to sit there and tell me that you and your own particular faith community don’t consider 2 of the 3 groups you name the very same way?

People can assert anything they want to. The bad news…for those who try to assert that Catholicism is not Christian is that history, the Bible, and everything that we teach proves that they’re talking out their hat.


#13

I’m with ya Ani…I try to keep herding the elephants out…:shrug:


#14

hypocrite hyp·o·crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ [hip-uh-krit] noun- a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess. :hmmm: I’m not sure I see where you think hypocrisy is taking place here.

Jesus founded One Church, upon the Rock of Peter, and promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

The main premise of both Mormons and JWs is that the early church soon after Jesus ascended went apostate, off the rails, lost sight of the Truth, what-have-you. When taken to its logical conclusion, this means that they believe Jesus LIED. If Jesus lied, then that would mean He sinned. I was pretty sure that the Bible said He didn’t.


#15

Can you find an article on who qualifies as an Anti-Protestant?

And then any article explaining how Anti-Catholicism is evil, while being an Anti-Protestant is good, would be great.


#16

?

And then any article explaining how Anti-Catholicism is evil, while being an Anti-Protestant is good, would be great.Man…why don’t you just every now and then make some effort to contribute to a conversation instead of finding fault.

Did you even read post # 2?

I looked up “anti-Catholic” in the dictionary just now, and guess what? It had your picture by the entry.http://bestsmileys.com/tongs/3.gif


#17

Anti-Catholic = Anti-Jesus

Anti-Protestasnt = Anti-Non Fullness of Truth

One is an act of hate.

The other is an act of love.


#18

Thank you for going out of your way to seek to offend me. I understand where you are coming from now.

My point stands.


#19

LOL.

That is exactly what I thought.

Thank you.

One bigotry is accepted, embraced and encouraged, while another is vilified.

I would absolutely love to hear William Donohue say what you just said live on CNN or Larry King…but alas I will not hold my breath that any would be that forthcoming.

Such would clear up tons of misconceptions for sure and really cut to the heart of the matter.


#20

I wouldn’t define anti-Protestant quite like that. I prefer what Thomas Howard says:
*
‘I may say that every yearning, aspiration, hope, and desire that marked my life as a most earnest Protestant Evangelical, and then as an Anglican, has been fulfilled a thousand times over. I have come home. I have dropped anchor. I have taken my place in the Church of the apostles, Fathers, confessors, martyrs, bishops, saints, and all the Catholic faithful. I have nothing to “protest”.’*


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.