Here are three examples of anti-Catholic action taken by the government.
• A California law (the Women’s Contraception Equity Act) requires Catholic Charities to include prescription contraceptives in its health insurance plan. Catholic Charities believes that artificial contraception is sinful.
• The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care will not license adoption agencies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in doing adoptions. Catholic Charities had to give up its license because of its stand on gay marriage.
• The California Court of Appeal has held that a Catholic hospital is guilty of medical malpractice if its emergency room won’t provide information about and access to the morning-after pill. The hospital viewed the morning-after pill under some circumstances as a form of abortion.
Anti-Catholicism is a form of bigotry. This prejudice is based on falsehoods about the Catholic Church. It dates back to the polemics of the Reformation and the Black Legend. It is the last acceptable prejudice permitted in our society.
To call your three examples anti-Catholic action is a gross exaggeration.
Example 1: the requirement you mentioned is not just for Catholic charities but for any charity organization. So, you cannot call it an anti-Catholic action when it is not specifically directed against Catholics. Strike 1.
Example 2: Adoption agencies provide a public service. A public service cannot discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation,... And the public doesn't necessary have the same values as the Catholic church. Based on this requirement, an agency that would practice discrimination cannot be endorsed by the government (by the Catholic church does the same thing when she asks the faithful not to vote for such and such because the candidate represents values that are not hers). Also, this requirement for licensing is for everybody, not just the Catholic church. So to call it an anti-Catholic action is misleading. Strike 2.
Example 3: in the same reasoning as above, hospitals are supposed to provide a public service and the public doesn't necessarily have the same beliefs and values as the Catholic church and people should not have to adopt Catholic beliefs and values in order to be treated. So maybe the Church doesn't like the morning-after pill (which is understandable) but she cannot impose her values to the rest of the country. I can understand that this is a difficult position for a Christian organization that doesn't want to be involved in morally questionable practices but at the same time the public find itself in situations where the only available hospitals are Catholic hospitals. To prevent such situations, the Catholic church should avoid buying all the hospitals in a particular region, allowing the public to choose. if there is a choice, the court would not be able to force the Catholic hospital to practice what they don't want to do. This being said, to call this an anti-Catholic action is misleading since the regulations involved in this case concern any hospital and not just the Catholic hospitals.
Strike 3.
So, sorry Lady Dragon, your examples don't hold water.
Still, so the US government begins to single out a Christian church for its beliefs. It starts to demand that Catholic institutions and organizations act against their own faith, or else. If they did this to you I bet you would claim it was a Jesuit conspiracy. The ONLY reason you don't mind this is because it is aimed at Catholics, and of course Adventists don't mind killing unborn babies. Your response is an fine example of anti-Catholicism.
Though, as you mention, the examples cited by Lady Dragon don't specifically mention the Catholic Church, the laws in question don't HAVE to specifically target the Church in order to achieve its intended effect. The effects of those laws are to force those groups, the Catholic Church being the largest and most influential of them, to change their beliefs and values to match with the beliefs and values of the state. Let me use an example you can relate too.
Lets say that the United States adopts a law that says "ALL businesses and its employees must work and function on Saturday".
According to your line of thought, this type of a law is neither anti-Adventist nor anti-Jewish. The majority of North Americans work and conduct regular business on Saturdays anyways. So, is it wrong to make those who don't conform to this law? According to you, it's perfectly acceptable. However, we can see that this type of a law would be "Anti-Jew" and "Anti-Adventists" though it doesn't outright state so.
"Though, as you mention, the examples cited by Lady Dragon don't specifically mention the Catholic Church, the laws in question don't HAVE to specifically target the Church in order to achieve its intended effect."
Jon, it is true that the Catholic church is impacted by these laws but as inconvenient as they may be, we cannot say that it is an anti-catholic action. These laws are on the books to ensure the "welfare" of the public (please, note the quotes, because defining what is good for the public is another story) not to target the churches in particular.
The parallel that you were trying to make with all the businesses and their employees forced to work on Saturday is not very appropriate as it is not really the same situation and the same kind of issue.
Don't forget that many hospitals that were not built and managed by Catholics were bought by the Catholic church (or people/structures close to the Church) to be added to her network of health institutions and, overnight, the people around these hospitals found themselves denied some services they used to have before. And, in addition to this, there are some places where the only few available hospitals, or even the only one, belongs to the Catholic church. Do you think that it is fair for the population around - which is not necessary Catholic - to receive the cares they want based on values that are not necessarily theirs? I am sure that many people think it is not. If the Catholic hospitals are only for Catholic people maybe they would have a case in court. But if the Catholic hospitals also provide cares for the general public then they cannot impose to the general public what is considered personal spiritual values.
After all, what would you say if all the stores would serve only the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP) with no Catholic allowed? You would be the first to cry that they are "anti-catholic".
As I said before, I understand the position of the Church regarding morally questionable practices. A solution for that dilemma would be for the Church to ensure that when she buys hospital somewhere there is still some alternative hospitals for those who don't share her values.
It's just a phrase. It's meaning depends on the context.
For example, within some traditions there is a catholic "high church" party and an evangelical "low church" party. A catholic must necessarily be in some ways anti-evangelical (or logically he could not be distinguished from evangelicals) and an evangelical must necessarily be in some ways anti-protestant for a similar reason. Of course most people nowadays don't like to be called "anti-" anything because of the contemporary emphasis on being "positive." Also, in the case of the catholic/evangelical labels, many explicitly embrace the idea that they are both evangelical and catholic in the fullest sense. If there are two ends of a theological spectrum, and assuredly there are, if we don't label the two ends "catholic/evangelical" we need to label them in some way and the labels once chosen would logically produce two "anti's"
The Women's Contraception Equity Act, the Early Education and Care act, and the malpractice court decision are not anti-catholic they are anti-life and anti-human. Let's not mince words, lets just be frank and call those things satanic and genocidal attacks on humanity itself and outright warfare by the state against it's own people. A generation ago we would have thought it could only happen in a totalitarian state. Maybe the Union is rapidly becoming totalitarian.
"Anti-Roman-Catholic bigotry" should most clearly be called just that. "Anti-Catholicism" is too ambiguous a label to use when introducing the subject, though it may be used as a shorthand for the former term in a discussion once the subject is introduced, as long as neither of the two parties in the discussion strenuously disagree.
"Still, in other words I hit the nail on the head and you have no response."
Another example of irrationality: someone who thinks that when he says any gratuitous things he hits "the nail on the head".
Cestusdei, compare your answers to what the other people have said. We may not all agree and see things the same way but you will notice that we (but not you) have tried to bring arguments and support to what we said. You didn't. The only thing you did was writing gratuitous affirmations and second-guessing people ("The ONLY reason you don't mind this is because it is aimed at Catholics, and of course Adventists don't mind killing unborn babies"
As for your last sentence ("Your response is an fine example of anti-Catholicism."), it is irrational. There was nothing anti-Catholic in my answer to Lady Dragon, unless, of course, you consider that disagreeing with a Catholic is to be... anti-Catholic, which is, again, irrational.
I would say that the most basic definition of "anti-catholicism" would necessarily be that form of Christianity that teaches or practices contrary to the established catholic Tradition. Thus, Protestantism and Evangelicalism would necessarily be "anti-catholic" in substance. It could also apply to the religion of Islam since it arose out of a mixture of Jewish and Christian theologies and practices with some ideas of Mohammed sprinkled in, thus making Islam a kind of Christian heresy cult. After all, the Koran does teach that Jesus is the Messiah, though it attaches no special significance to that designation.
However, I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the prejudice of "anti-catholicism", which would of course be quite different. I would say anything, whether speech or action, that seeks to denigrate or otherwise attack catholicism on ideological or practical grounds, can be referred to as "anti-catholic". Though, admittedly, "anti-catholicism" is a rather broad label that is certainly open to a variety of interpretations. However, it should be noted that your primary concern would be Roman Catholicism, which is a particular brand of "catholicism" that you apparently (judging from this blog) have subscribed to. Therefore, your concern isn't so much "anti-catholicism", but rather "anti-Roman Catholicism".
Still, it is indisputable that anti-Catholicism exists. Adventists play a big role in that. The government has aimed to shut down Catholic Charities and force Catholic institutions to violate their faith. What if the government forced Adventists to work on your Sabbath? National Sunday Law? Would you protest? You bet you would. So why is it different when Catholics are discriminated against?
Like someone said it before here, it depends on what you call anti-Catholicism. Some people will say that the mere fact of disagreeing with Catholicism anti-Catholicism (which is a little bit extremist according to me) while others will say that anti-Catholicism implies a harsher stance against the Catholic church.
A question for you: when Catholics criticize the Catholic church (like many do), do you call them anti-Catholic?
Still, I posted the definition. There is a big difference between saying you disagree with a Catholic doctrine and saying the Pope is the antichrist. The later is anti-Catholic bigotry.
"There is a big difference between saying you disagree with a Catholic doctrine and saying the Pope is the antichrist. The later is anti-Catholic bigotry."
Sure, it is bigotry because you don't like it. And you don't like it because you are at the receiving end. This is understandable. If someone had said that speaking of the Muslims you might have not reacted the same way (you might even have agreed with it maybe) but in this case the Muslims would have called this bigotry too.
Don't forget that it is the Bible that mentioned antichrist, so antichrist does exist but you can be sure that he will try to hide his tracks.
A duck quacks and waddles and swims. If you see a bird quacking and waddling and swimming, you say, "oh, look at the duck." Just because the bird is too dumb to know he is a duck, doesn't make him any less a duck.
Oh, I see Lady Dragon. So if these Catholics who criticize the church don't consider themselves anti-Catholic it is because they are too "dumb" to realize that they are anti-Catholic (I realize that you used "dumb" for the bird only and that for a human being you would have surely used another adjective like "blind" or "misguided").
But what does give more weight to your view of anti-Catholicism compared to the view of another Catholic who doesn't consider himself or herself anti-Catholic when criticizing the church?
The reason I am writing all of this is to show that there is a part of subjectivity involved when judging that this or that is anti-Catholicism or not (of course, we can replace Catholicism by Adventism, Americanism or any -ism) and we have to take this subjectivity into account.
Just because the Church refuses to support things that she deems to be sinful does not mean she is imposing her values on the public. If they do not like it, then they should go to another hospital, adoption agency, get a different health insurance policy, etc. All these things are possible to do. Just because somebody else thinks it's morally okay to smoke marijuana does not mean I'm going to go out and buy them a bag of weed or provide them with information on how they can do so. Of course I would not! Because I believe it to be wrong. If it is not a government run company, then the government has no place in telling it how to run its ministry (because that's what these things are intended to be--ministries). Under the new health care bill, all companies that provide health insurance to its employees must cover contraceptives and (I believe) sterilization procedures. This is regardless of whether or not they receive government aid. The only way to get around it is to both employ and serve only people of a particular faith. And like I said, these are ministries. There is no point of running them if you are unable to serve all people. Not even Jesus himself would qualify for this supposed "religious" exemption. That is wrong and, yes, so blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-(insert any religion that disagrees with these things). The government is working at pushing Christianity out in general, but the Catholic Church is taking an especially hard hit at the present moment. This bill, if not repealed, will be just the beginning of taking away our religious freedom in this country.
Another thing. It is bigotry for anyone to accuse anyone else of being the anti-Christ. We do not know who it will be. The Bible says there will be an anti-Christ, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it is bigotry to pinpoint the Pope as said anti-Christ. Furthermore, the anti-Christ cannot and will not come out of his Church. I am open to the theory that he could possibly come out of the Muslim faith or another faith outside of Christianity, but I emphasize the words "could" and "possibly." To state as fact something that would slander another religion when I have no ability to know for certain would be an exercise of bigotry. There is a big difference between saying, "you never know, it could be..." and saying, "the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon and the Pope is the anti-Christ!!!" or, "the anti-Christ will be Muslim!!!" There is a big, big, very big difference. It has nothing to do with my being on the receiving end or not. It has to do with making statements of intolerance toward other peoples' faiths. Disagreeing with another faith and standing up to testify for your own is much different than making statements that slander another faith or a person of another faith and create a divide. There are ways of evangelizing and standing up for right and wrong without having this effect. I think Adventists generally don't mean any harm, but most do not realize how hostile their statements can come off to other people. They don't realize how closed minded they are being. They say that people in other faiths may be saved if they are truly ignorant, but they fail to acknowledge the genuine Christians in those faiths that have heard this message and simply do not believe it. They fail to acknowledge that many of these other faiths are very pleasing to God because it is the best place for that person in that moment in time--maybe if they were to try to accept and practice another faith that may be a more correct form of worship, they would fall away completely. As a Catholic, I feel that God would ideally like for all people to be Catholic since it is the church he founded, but I also recognize that some people are much more devout and loving Christians as Adventists or Baptists than they ever could be in the Catholic Church because of their mindset or certain stumbling blocks that they may have. We have to be very careful not to make blanket statements about particular religions because that is where disagreement can turn into bigotry very easily. It is far better to focus on what we have in common and to lead by example to make people curious about our differences than it is to make hurtful accusations regarding points of disagreement. At the same time, we need to call a sin a sin--relativism is not what I am implying. But there is all things must be done or said tactfully and out of love rather than out of condemnation or presupposed notions about the opposing position. If a point cannot be adequately made in this manner, the person will not be very receptive to what you are trying to say and will be perceived as bigoted whether or not you actually meant it in that way.
24 comments:
Here are three examples of anti-Catholic action taken by the government.
• A California law (the Women’s Contraception Equity Act) requires Catholic Charities to include prescription contraceptives in its health insurance plan. Catholic Charities believes that artificial contraception is sinful.
• The Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care will not license adoption agencies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in doing adoptions. Catholic Charities had to give up its license because of its stand on gay marriage.
• The California Court of Appeal has held that a Catholic hospital is guilty of medical malpractice if its emergency room won’t provide information about and access to the morning-after pill. The hospital viewed the morning-after pill under some circumstances as a form of abortion.
Anti-Catholicism is a form of bigotry. This prejudice is based on falsehoods about the Catholic Church. It dates back to the polemics of the Reformation and the Black Legend. It is the last acceptable prejudice permitted in our society.
Lady Dragon,
To call your three examples anti-Catholic action is a gross exaggeration.
Example 1: the requirement you mentioned is not just for Catholic charities but for any charity organization. So, you cannot call it an anti-Catholic action when it is not specifically directed against Catholics. Strike 1.
Example 2: Adoption agencies provide a public service. A public service cannot discriminate based on gender, race, sexual orientation,... And the public doesn't necessary have the same values as the Catholic church. Based on this requirement, an agency that would practice discrimination cannot be endorsed by the government (by the Catholic church does the same thing when she asks the faithful not to vote for such and such because the candidate represents values that are not hers).
Also, this requirement for licensing is for everybody, not just the Catholic church. So to call it an anti-Catholic action is misleading. Strike 2.
Example 3: in the same reasoning as above, hospitals are supposed to provide a public service and the public doesn't necessarily have the same beliefs and values as the Catholic church and people should not have to adopt Catholic beliefs and values in order to be treated. So maybe the Church doesn't like the morning-after pill (which is understandable) but she cannot impose her values to the rest of the country.
I can understand that this is a difficult position for a Christian organization that doesn't want to be involved in morally questionable practices but at the same time the public find itself in situations where the only available hospitals are Catholic hospitals. To prevent such situations, the Catholic church should avoid buying all the hospitals in a particular region, allowing the public to choose. if there is a choice, the court would not be able to force the Catholic hospital to practice what they don't want to do.
This being said, to call this an anti-Catholic action is misleading since the regulations involved in this case concern any hospital and not just the Catholic hospitals.
Strike 3.
So, sorry Lady Dragon, your examples don't hold water.
Still, so the US government begins to single out a Christian church for its beliefs. It starts to demand that Catholic institutions and organizations act against their own faith, or else. If they did this to you I bet you would claim it was a Jesuit conspiracy. The ONLY reason you don't mind this is because it is aimed at Catholics, and of course Adventists don't mind killing unborn babies. Your response is an fine example of anti-Catholicism.
Still, I disagree.
Though, as you mention, the examples cited by Lady Dragon don't specifically mention the Catholic Church, the laws in question don't HAVE to specifically target the Church in order to achieve its intended effect. The effects of those laws are to force those groups, the Catholic Church being the largest and most influential of them, to change their beliefs and values to match with the beliefs and values of the state. Let me use an example you can relate too.
Lets say that the United States adopts a law that says "ALL businesses and its employees must work and function on Saturday".
According to your line of thought, this type of a law is neither anti-Adventist nor anti-Jewish. The majority of North Americans work and conduct regular business on Saturdays anyways. So, is it wrong to make those who don't conform to this law? According to you, it's perfectly acceptable. However, we can see that this type of a law would be "Anti-Jew" and "Anti-Adventists" though it doesn't outright state so.
cestusdei,
Your reaction is a fine example of irrationality.
Jon wrote:
"Though, as you mention, the examples cited by Lady Dragon don't specifically mention the Catholic Church, the laws in question don't HAVE to specifically target the Church in order to achieve its intended effect."
Jon, it is true that the Catholic church is impacted by these laws but as inconvenient as they may be, we cannot say that it is an anti-catholic action. These laws are on the books to ensure the "welfare" of the public (please, note the quotes, because defining what is good for the public is another story) not to target the churches in particular.
The parallel that you were trying to make with all the businesses and their employees forced to work on Saturday is not very appropriate as it is not really the same situation and the same kind of issue.
Don't forget that many hospitals that were not built and managed by Catholics were bought by the Catholic church (or people/structures close to the Church) to be added to her network of health institutions and, overnight, the people around these hospitals found themselves denied some services they used to have before. And, in addition to this, there are some places where the only few available hospitals, or even the only one, belongs to the Catholic church. Do you think that it is fair for the population around - which is not necessary Catholic - to receive the cares they want based on values that are not necessarily theirs? I am sure that many people think it is not. If the Catholic hospitals are only for Catholic people maybe they would have a case in court. But if the Catholic hospitals also provide cares for the general public then they cannot impose to the general public what is considered personal spiritual values.
After all, what would you say if all the stores would serve only the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP) with no Catholic allowed? You would be the first to cry that they are "anti-catholic".
As I said before, I understand the position of the Church regarding morally questionable practices. A solution for that dilemma would be for the Church to ensure that when she buys hospital somewhere there is still some alternative hospitals for those who don't share her values.
It's just a phrase. It's meaning depends on the context.
For example, within some traditions there is a catholic "high church" party and an evangelical "low church" party. A catholic must necessarily be in some ways anti-evangelical (or logically he could not be distinguished from evangelicals) and an evangelical must necessarily be in some ways anti-protestant for a similar reason. Of course most people nowadays don't like to be called "anti-" anything because of the contemporary emphasis on being "positive." Also, in the case of the catholic/evangelical labels, many explicitly embrace the idea that they are both evangelical and catholic in the fullest sense. If there are two ends of a theological spectrum, and assuredly there are, if we don't label the two ends "catholic/evangelical" we need to label them in some way and the labels once chosen would logically produce two "anti's"
The Women's Contraception Equity Act, the Early Education and Care act, and the malpractice court decision are not anti-catholic they are anti-life and anti-human. Let's not mince words, lets just be frank and call those things satanic and genocidal attacks on humanity itself and outright warfare by the state against it's own people. A generation ago we would have thought it could only happen in a totalitarian state. Maybe the Union is rapidly becoming totalitarian.
"Anti-Roman-Catholic bigotry" should most clearly be called just that. "Anti-Catholicism" is too ambiguous a label to use when introducing the subject, though it may be used as a shorthand for the former term in a discussion once the subject is introduced, as long as neither of the two parties in the discussion strenuously disagree.
Still, in other words I hit the nail on the head and you have no response.
cestusdei wrote:
"Still, in other words I hit the nail on the head and you have no response."
Another example of irrationality: someone who thinks that when he says any gratuitous things he hits "the nail on the head".
Cestusdei, compare your answers to what the other people have said. We may not all agree and see things the same way but you will notice that we (but not you) have tried to bring arguments and support to what we said. You didn't. The only thing you did was writing gratuitous affirmations and second-guessing people ("The ONLY reason you don't mind this is because it is aimed at Catholics, and of course Adventists don't mind killing unborn babies"
As for your last sentence ("Your response is an fine example of anti-Catholicism."), it is irrational. There was nothing anti-Catholic in my answer to Lady Dragon, unless, of course, you consider that disagreeing with a Catholic is to be... anti-Catholic, which is, again, irrational.
I would say that the most basic definition of "anti-catholicism" would necessarily be that form of Christianity that teaches or practices contrary to the established catholic Tradition. Thus, Protestantism and Evangelicalism would necessarily be "anti-catholic" in substance. It could also apply to the religion of Islam since it arose out of a mixture of Jewish and Christian theologies and practices with some ideas of Mohammed sprinkled in, thus making Islam a kind of Christian heresy cult. After all, the Koran does teach that Jesus is the Messiah, though it attaches no special significance to that designation.
However, I'm pretty sure that you're referring to the prejudice of "anti-catholicism", which would of course be quite different. I would say anything, whether speech or action, that seeks to denigrate or otherwise attack catholicism on ideological or practical grounds, can be referred to as "anti-catholic". Though, admittedly, "anti-catholicism" is a rather broad label that is certainly open to a variety of interpretations. However, it should be noted that your primary concern would be Roman Catholicism, which is a particular brand of "catholicism" that you apparently (judging from this blog) have subscribed to. Therefore, your concern isn't so much "anti-catholicism", but rather "anti-Roman Catholicism".
Still, it is indisputable that anti-Catholicism exists. Adventists play a big role in that. The government has aimed to shut down Catholic Charities and force Catholic institutions to violate their faith. What if the government forced Adventists to work on your Sabbath? National Sunday Law? Would you protest? You bet you would. So why is it different when Catholics are discriminated against?
cestusdei,
sure, anti-Catholicism exists but if you've read the title of this post, it is precisely about defining what constitutes anti-Catholicism.
If you want to rant and rave, wait for someone to create a post about Catholic conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile, try to participate to the conversation rather than just throwing gratuitous affirmations right and left.
Still, I don't have to wait. They get posted all the time.
Anti-Catholic themes may be loosely categorized as follows:
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.
http://www2.trincoll.edu/~dcruzuri/anti-catholic/anti-catholic.html
I don't have to wait for conspiracy theories. Ellen White provides them.
Cestusdei,
Like someone said it before here, it depends on what you call anti-Catholicism. Some people will say that the mere fact of disagreeing with Catholicism anti-Catholicism (which is a little bit extremist according to me) while others will say that anti-Catholicism implies a harsher stance against the Catholic church.
A question for you: when Catholics criticize the Catholic church (like many do), do you call them anti-Catholic?
Still, I posted the definition. There is a big difference between saying you disagree with a Catholic doctrine and saying the Pope is the antichrist. The later is anti-Catholic bigotry.
Cestusdei said:
"There is a big difference between saying you disagree with a Catholic doctrine and saying the Pope is the antichrist. The later is anti-Catholic bigotry."
Sure, it is bigotry because you don't like it. And you don't like it because you are at the receiving end. This is understandable. If someone had said that speaking of the Muslims you might have not reacted the same way (you might even have agreed with it maybe) but in this case the Muslims would have called this bigotry too.
Don't forget that it is the Bible that mentioned antichrist, so antichrist does exist but you can be sure that he will try to hide his tracks.
Calling something bigotry doesn't make it so.
Still wrote: A question for you: when Catholics criticize the Catholic church (like many do), do you call them anti-Catholic?
Absolutely.
Still wrote: A question for you: when Catholics criticize the Catholic church (like many do), do you call them anti-Catholic?
Lady Dragon answered: Absolutely.
Now Lady Dragon, do you think that these Catholics who criticize the Church consider themselves anti-Catholic?
Still:
A duck quacks and waddles and swims. If you see a bird quacking and waddling and swimming, you say, "oh, look at the duck." Just because the bird is too dumb to know he is a duck, doesn't make him any less a duck.
Oh, I see Lady Dragon. So if these Catholics who criticize the church don't consider themselves anti-Catholic it is because they are too "dumb" to realize that they are anti-Catholic (I realize that you used "dumb" for the bird only and that for a human being you would have surely used another adjective like "blind" or "misguided").
But what does give more weight to your view of anti-Catholicism compared to the view of another Catholic who doesn't consider himself or herself anti-Catholic when criticizing the church?
The reason I am writing all of this is to show that there is a part of subjectivity involved when judging that this or that is anti-Catholicism or not (of course, we can replace Catholicism by Adventism, Americanism or any -ism) and we have to take this subjectivity into account.
Still,
Just because the Church refuses to support things that she deems to be sinful does not mean she is imposing her values on the public. If they do not like it, then they should go to another hospital, adoption agency, get a different health insurance policy, etc. All these things are possible to do. Just because somebody else thinks it's morally okay to smoke marijuana does not mean I'm going to go out and buy them a bag of weed or provide them with information on how they can do so. Of course I would not! Because I believe it to be wrong. If it is not a government run company, then the government has no place in telling it how to run its ministry (because that's what these things are intended to be--ministries). Under the new health care bill, all companies that provide health insurance to its employees must cover contraceptives and (I believe) sterilization procedures. This is regardless of whether or not they receive government aid. The only way to get around it is to both employ and serve only people of a particular faith. And like I said, these are ministries. There is no point of running them if you are unable to serve all people. Not even Jesus himself would qualify for this supposed "religious" exemption. That is wrong and, yes, so blatantly anti-Catholic and anti-(insert any religion that disagrees with these things). The government is working at pushing Christianity out in general, but the Catholic Church is taking an especially hard hit at the present moment. This bill, if not repealed, will be just the beginning of taking away our religious freedom in this country.
Still,
Another thing. It is bigotry for anyone to accuse anyone else of being the anti-Christ. We do not know who it will be. The Bible says there will be an anti-Christ, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it is bigotry to pinpoint the Pope as said anti-Christ. Furthermore, the anti-Christ cannot and will not come out of his Church. I am open to the theory that he could possibly come out of the Muslim faith or another faith outside of Christianity, but I emphasize the words "could" and "possibly." To state as fact something that would slander another religion when I have no ability to know for certain would be an exercise of bigotry. There is a big difference between saying, "you never know, it could be..." and saying, "the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon and the Pope is the anti-Christ!!!" or, "the anti-Christ will be Muslim!!!" There is a big, big, very big difference. It has nothing to do with my being on the receiving end or not. It has to do with making statements of intolerance toward other peoples' faiths. Disagreeing with another faith and standing up to testify for your own is much different than making statements that slander another faith or a person of another faith and create a divide. There are ways of evangelizing and standing up for right and wrong without having this effect. I think Adventists generally don't mean any harm, but most do not realize how hostile their statements can come off to other people. They don't realize how closed minded they are being. They say that people in other faiths may be saved if they are truly ignorant, but they fail to acknowledge the genuine Christians in those faiths that have heard this message and simply do not believe it. They fail to acknowledge that many of these other faiths are very pleasing to God because it is the best place for that person in that moment in time--maybe if they were to try to accept and practice another faith that may be a more correct form of worship, they would fall away completely. As a Catholic, I feel that God would ideally like for all people to be Catholic since it is the church he founded, but I also recognize that some people are much more devout and loving Christians as Adventists or Baptists than they ever could be in the Catholic Church because of their mindset or certain stumbling blocks that they may have. We have to be very careful not to make blanket statements about particular religions because that is where disagreement can turn into bigotry very easily. It is far better to focus on what we have in common and to lead by example to make people curious about our differences than it is to make hurtful accusations regarding points of disagreement. At the same time, we need to call a sin a sin--relativism is not what I am implying. But there is all things must be done or said tactfully and out of love rather than out of condemnation or presupposed notions about the opposing position. If a point cannot be adequately made in this manner, the person will not be very receptive to what you are trying to say and will be perceived as bigoted whether or not you actually meant it in that way.
Post a Comment