All Comments (52)

Meth,

You didn't notice who the last post was from. 'Twasn't Candide.

Best wishes for your enlightenment.

No Candide, that is not the meaning.

A Troll is an internet provocateur who is ignorant and hatefilled and who loves to provoke controversy on forums such as this. It usually provides meaning in their otherwise empty lives.

Spew your fake tolerance and hate somewhere else.

SPEED123,

You called me a "troll figure."

That's fine with me. A troll is a "supernatural creature... variously portrayed as friendly or mischievious..." (American Heritage Dictionary).

Your use of the word "figure" means that my image in these threads is that of a "friendly or mischievious supernatural creature".

Good. That's exactly how I wanted to appear in these posts.

Better that than being one whose name suggests an elementary course in methamphetamine.

Regards.

For Reverend Thistlewaite. I am Roman Catholic. I believe (hope and pray) that you are correct. The general American population is no longer prejudiced against the *individual* Catholic but understandably prejudiced against the *R.C Church* as an institution because of the sex abuse scandal. I went to Catholic schools K through 12. Additionally, I was an Altar boy for 5 years. During those years, I never personally heard a hint of sexual impropriety. Most Catholic clergy were and are moral and upright. For all: You will not find 50 Americans who hate Catholics or Catholicism. You will find thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans who *JUST THINK* they know and understand Catholicism who hate Catholicism/Catholics.

Candide,

You are a TROLL - get a life!

If there is a God, how will he judge the Catholic church?

He will punish it for perpetrating a hoax on mankind in giving it a false Jesus, a false view of God, and a false theology.

The Rev. Susan agrees with something I concluded during the DaVinci controversy. The large number of Christians, Catholics particularly, who were intrigued by the DAVinci Code is proof that a large number of them do not believe the hokkum the Church teaches.

If we defined reality by what we see on the evening news our perspective would be far from accurate. Few of us do this since we know only the “News Worthy” makes it to the news. The typical, the mundane is the probable state of affairs, the news worthy is the rare and less likely state of affairs.

What we often hear and discuss about the Catholic church is the news worthy. This consists primarily of the scandal, the controversy, and the sensational. What never makes it to the headlines are the visits to the Priest that change someone’s life. The countless times individuals feel cleansed by experiencing a oneness with divinity at the Eucharist, the mundane Catholic charities that bless the lives of millions.

I am not a Catholic, but to define a religion by the evil that is bound to occur in an organization so vast, and ancient as the Catholic Church is unfair and prejudiced.

How many of us want to be defined by our worst?

I have no statistics, but I would guess the amount of suffering relieved, the amount of meaning provided, and the number of strong communities created by Catholicism strongly out numbers the pain caused.

We must recognize the evil in the world and in the Catholic church (and the church must be held accountable), but let’s understand it in the context of the genuine beauty and goodness that also exists. If we do not see the bad in the context of the good our view will be no clearer than that of the racist who negatively over generalizes based on a few bad experiences.

Religous intolerance spreads like a disease. First the Muslims were the targets, now the Catholics ..... who is next? There are groups in all societies who depend upon strife to give themselves life. Look for them. You will find them and know them. They might even be your friends and loved ones.

Hi Jihadist - sorry to go off on you; it was more meant for the NORRIE troll figure on this board.

Catholic are descriminated against in this world - even as a young, white male - I see it in conversation, but esp. in the media.

Whether Catholic or Muslim or any thing that holds traditional beliefs that are against the "enlightened," materialistic, socialist agenda of the media and corporations (non-religious spend more on consumer goods and less to charity - read "who really cares" by brooks) then you are considered a radical.

Susan,

You talk about the 'sexual abuse of children by priests and the "apparent" cover-up by church authorities'. Apparent? Give me a break. The church authorities were actively covering it up.

Deniers like yourself are another reason why the church has such a negative image.

Speed123

You said : "If you defend tradition, culture and human dignity like most good Catholics do then you are discriminated against by these fanatics that dominate the media and educational system in this and almost every western country."

Me : How and why? I had thought some so-called "bleeding heart liberals" do defend human dignity. They call it human rights.

As a Muslim, I would not even defend aspects of traditions and cultures that confused to be part of religion, including female genitalia mutilations and forced/arranged marraige.

So, which part of western tradition and culture are you refering to?

I can understand your frustration and anger with regard to vilifications of Catholics. As a Muslim I've read and heard too many about Islam and Muslims, including from your fellow Catholics too.

I'm all ears. After all, I went to a Catholic school for my primary and secondary education, and have no personal enmity towards Catholics. Only personal empathy as a believer whose faith is also misunderstood and misrepresented on faith and vilified for their beliefs.

Speed 123 and/or Anynomous :)

Get a life? Got one already. Just slumming here before I go to work. I live in a different time zone. Reading posts from people like you gets me charged up for my workday.

I noticed two things - those who have nothing to say tell others to get a life; and more entertainingly, to use unimaginative invectives or just plain slurs in place of thoughts.

So, Speed 123 and/or Anynomous, do you think Catholics are discriminated against?

Opus Dei's original sins were comitted in fascist Spain and in aiding Yugoslav Ustache Nazis to escape justice in the late 40's. The cult has done great harm to innocent people, and deserved the fictional portrayal in Davinci.
I wish there were a hell for them to rot in.

WHAT's going on? This is the third chat or blog thing in two days (in several papers)...talking about Catholics, or support of parochial schools (almost universally lauded for their work in urban areas)...or someother RC issues. AND with some of the same old posters showing up. Is there somewhere, at Propoganda Central, some nascent movement to take on the catholics? Next? On the way to what. See professor Fish on the Times blog...who follows "Is It Good for Jews", with this week's thing on separation of church and state.

Norrie, Jihadist get a life, would you?!

Norrie, Jihadist get a F-in life!

Norrie,

You shattered my illusions about Mother Teresa!:)

I do know about Mother Teresa other "human" qualities and nature. When in New York years before she died, she met the mayor who was in hospital and hustled him for free parking for her car in getting around the city for her visit programme. No doubt about it, she is a hustler, and an effective one. Such gumption.

I admire Mother Teresa for her single-mindedness in helping the poor and needy, just as I admire the Catholic priests in Latin America who are "populists" to the chagrine of the Vatican. Just too bad for her helpers who were not as driven and committed as she is. Most apparently wanted to bask in her reflected fame or were not quite competent in giving care.

And what is wrong in demanding recognition and sainthood for all those decades of working in hell on earth from the chaps in resplendant robes and splendid surroundings at the Vatican who had never seen a third world slum nor live in one?

"

"I do not myself observe a new pattern of discrimination against individual Catholics."

OK... so what was the point of this article?
"

Thank God this was the first comment. Does the writer even have an editor? Christ this is on par with most college newspaper stories.

I grew up attending a Franciscan Church and later I went to a Jesuit University. When I moved to Missouri I was totally unprepared for the amount of antagonism many other Catholics had for these religious orders. Apparently, I am not a real "Catholic". So anyway, Catholics are prejudiced against other Catholics.

While it is obnoxious to be told that I'm going to hell for worshipping the saints and believing that the pope is a God (?), I've also been told I'm going to hell because I'm from New York. It is mildly irritating but hardly a crisis situation.

Overall, Catholics are pretty lucky in the United States and shouldn't be indulging in the petty me too discrimination game because it takes attention away from groups that face real strucutural discrimination such as African Americans and Native Americans.

Say that the Catholic Church "imposes" its values on the greater society is mere stupidity on the part of the neo-liberal-facists on these chats (CANDIDE and NORRIE come to mind).

It is the Liberal "enlightened" revolution that is IMPOSING their philosophy on all parts of socitey and it is their attacks on religion and culture that are the real problem.

Get it straigh; the Church defends, it does not "impose" - it is the liberal, humanists fanatics that attack history and culture and impose their radical agenda.

If you defend tradition, culture and human dignity like most good Catholics do then you are discriminated against by these fanatics that dominate the media and educational system in this and almost every western country.

"Five of the nine members of the United States Supreme Court are Roman Catholic. Four of them vote as an authoritarian bloc. Juestice Scalia's comments suggest that he thinks the U.S. Government acts best when it acts as an arm of the Vatican. He himself would have made a fine consiglieri to the Holy Inquisition.

Discrimination against Catholics? This court discriminates against freedom, liberty, the concepts and ideas of the Founders, and individual rights, in favor of corporate and authoritarian interests, and most of all, in favor of sectarian religious interests."

This is laughable. Have you any clue about the opinions of Justice Scalia? He is an Orginalist, which means he believes the Constitution should be interpreted as the Founders intended. He is completely opposed to the idea of a "living and breathing" Constitution. The entire philosophy is to reduce government power, not increase it. He has spoken out numerous times about members of the court citing foreign law in court decisions. Foreign law has no place in the Supreme Court. It is amazing to me how you could be so ignorant.

As a Catholic myself, I am upset, outraged and despondent to see how the priests in the church behaved with vicious pedophiles. The bishops and up just don't get it. I saw a special on Maryland Public Television about some of the abuse stuff in Massachusetts - the bishops, archbishops and cardinals were lying and arrogant!

If the church would stop their ridiculous ban on married and female clergy, the church wouldn't have these problems.

The church hierarchy needs to apologize in a REAL way to the great numbers of people who were abused by priests all over the world, and the council of Bishops needs to have some self reckoning to see how they can regain the trust of devout and fallen away Catholics.

Otherwise, these evil and immoral people will cause the end of the church. Wake up and smell the coffee, Catholic Church!

I still go to mass, but I want answers and accountability!

Novak is an integrist catholic, that means a catholic who since the 18th century has wondered what went wrong with the Christian scheme. The answer they found was the Protestants, the Jews, the Liberals and the Free Masons. The Fascists found the same enemies.

Robert Novak is a fascist who has found his home appropriately in the fascist-like Catholic Church. The Catholic church was in Europe the antechamber of Fascism.

It's important not to view American Catholics and the Catholic Church as monolithic. Indeed, many of the questions and criticisms of the Church of late are being levelled by US Catholics.

It's unfortunate that some may take Hollywood as "gospel," but in that respect, I don't see Catholicism as suffering worse than many other faiths.

The one excepetion is that you let Bob Novak post as a Catholic. I'm ashamed that someone who professes so actively their Catholic faith would do so much damage to people risking their lives for the greater good (the sources and agents Ms. Plame assuredly cultivated over the years).

But as Catholics, we believe in forgiveness. I hope he's asked for his.

Michael J. Sullivan wrote, "Brown's book was a bad read and, thankfully, a terrible movie." Hardly. It was a great book and the only reason to criticize the movie was that it was too "talky" because they had to explain all the good stuff found in the book.

As has been stated here and everywhere else, it was just a book and not meant to question the legitimacy of anyone's religion. The Catholic church was most likely chosen as the scapegoat because it is the largest Christian denomination and, some would say, the most powerful. Any descrimination that might result from that book and movie is a tiny fraction of the injustices perpetrated by the Catholic Church on weaker victims over the course of history.

And finally, maybe the reason the book and movie spoarked so many questions is that the average Joe on the street, or in the pew, might have always questioned the notion that the current canon of Christian scripture is closed and there is no other information. Maybe someone has decided to open their eyes.

One of the asides regarding the Catholic Church and sexual abuse is the role of Pedophiles and the seminaries.
I read a brilliant book by an American theoligist discussing the changing church. One of the earliest problems of the church with enrolling new priest was the acceptance of known homosexual priests and the wilful ignorance of the conduct between homosexuals at the seminaries.
He noted that the church viewed sexual congress was banned but only for heterosexuals and not homosexuals. This leads to the obvious conclusion that, at least some, of the pedophilia was a result of this position.
The impact of suspicion has more impact on the Catholic congregation than on the general public at large.
Its hard to imagine discrimination against people who have already been discriminated against.
PS Brown's book was a bad read and, thankfully, a terrible movie. Pity Ron Howard did well up to then.

There are now five Supreme Court justices out of eight who are Catholic.

Take to the hills!

All religions, (three great faiths) discriminate naturally, as a matter of their charters. All preach and teach that some are not allowed into the kingdom of God, only those who do and not-do as they dictate. All others are sentenced to hell. That sets the stage for individual discrimination.

Anyone not fit for heaven is not fit to live. They may be deprived of life support on earth. Baptists boycot of Disneyworld for employing gays, folks definitely headed to hell by their rules being a prime example.

On the political secne religious discrimination is a given. The voter who straddles the fence can be pushed one way or the other by the faith of the candidates. A Baptist is more likely to vote for a good Baptist than a Catholic when all else is neutral or nearly so.

Senator Kerry was the victim of religious discrimination by his own faith when the bishop make a vote for him a sin. The ignorant of Catholic dogma don't realize that what the bishop said is binding. That puts good Catholics in the position of having to sin to vote for Kerry. Seems the same thing was true for Baptists with members of congregations being discharged by reason of their vote. Ecumenical?

I conclude that "religion is the great enemy of democracy." I put that in quotes because I saw it at http://www.hoax-buster.org and I agree 100%. All religions attempt to take over government and establish "the kingdom of God" run by them as they await the coming of God to personally rule.

Norrie

I am no expert on Catholic politics, but I get the impression you are correct, not just about Jesuits, but about all kinds of dissenters. I can't get too upset about it, because even the most theologically liberal of them -- even people like Crossan -- are essentially apologists for the absurd. And besides, it's their organization, they can do what they want as long as they don't claim privileges from the rest of us that they haven't earned.

Ralph,

I can disagree with Gen. Pace while supporting the right to speak his mind, as long as he makes it clear he is speaking only for himself and not the Marines or the entire U.S. military.

Personally, I don't understand why he or anyone else would find homosexuality to be immoral. I see homosexuality as like vegetarianism, a personal thing that poses no inherent harm to anyone else.

Ba'al,

In the past I liked Jesuits. Until Pope JPII reined them in, they were the fifth column of Catholicism, weren't they? Never knew what would come out of their mouths, did we?

Norway made a big mistake banning their entry into that country until 1956. Some of them might have turned into Lutheran leaders and revived that languishing religion.

Now, after the Papal crackdown, I fear that the Jesuits have become an indistinguishable part of the homogenized, McDonaldized mass of insipid Catholicism.

Ba'al, am I right?

Regards.

Jihadist,

Mother Teresa is widely considered to have been an unpleasant person who abused and mistreated her helpers and even some of her helpees.

And in death she used her sharp elbows, with the help of the Pope, to jump the line on her way to sainthood.

Best to you.

The writer sets a high standard for measurable discrimination against Roman Catholics, but in other sections of this site politicians are denouncing as hate Gen. Pace's personal opinion that homosexuality is immoral. To me this only serves to show that the politics of hate, morality, and discrimination are ultimately just politics as usual.

"There is probably nothing that annoys the last two popes more than the vast majority of American Catholics!"

Not long ago, Slate magazine predicted that the Catholic Church in America would probably spin off into a separate denomination within the next 150 years.

My favourite Reverend,

You wrote : "Many, many people, both Protestants and Catholics, ask me ‘what other secrets do you think they are hiding?’ This is a remarkable response to an otherwise unremarkable work of fiction."

It is not so much what Catholics or the Vatican are hiding. They are not. Everything they did and are doing is in plain sight and plainly written, be it Papal Bulls or this and that Latin worded justifications against witches, Jews or Muslims. Not to mention the Vatican's stance on gays, married priests, abortion, family planning, pedophilia etc. That is why non-Catholics are historically and currently wary.

As a person living in the third world, I fully emphatize with Catholics from Latin America, Africa and Asia. The burden of contributions to the church is a bit much compared to other Christian denominations, and the Vatican seems out of step with the realities, needs and demands of its flocks in the third world.

We really need to have a Pope to be from the third world, or really spent a lot of time there, not some theological universities. One who would fully understand the human condition (material and spiritual needs and desires) not to mention pain and poverty. Mother Teresa is my favourite Catholic. God bless her.

And like you, I look forward to reading from Catholics, be they as panelists or readers who posted their views, but most seems into defending dogma or otherwise, or to be talking about hellfire for non-believers.

Greg

There is probably nothing that annoys the last two popes more than the vast majority of American Catholics! Maybe that is why I have loved one more than I can say, and why I have such fond memories of the Jesuit university where I went to graduate school. (They were open to the idea of an ancient Canaanite fertility deity in their midst).

Halozcel,

What you don't like the idea of an "infallible" German with God's ear?

I can't imagine why.

Pope Ratzinger was enrolled in hitler youth when he was fourteen,

and he is,at this moment,representetive(vicar) of Prince of Peace.

All German youths were in that organization. It was either that or a bullet between the eyes, probably not a hard choice for most to make.

BA'AL, your comment was the understatment of the week, I've already seen the RC compared to the SS more than once and the question is still young...

LOL

"I think The Da Vinci Code simply tapped into the national revulsion over the fact that some in the hierarchy of the actual (i.e. non-fictional) Catholic Church were knowingly passing sex abusing priests from one unsuspecting church to another and keeping their history secret, thus increasingly the number of victims."

That's a helluva reach, in my view. I suspect the bulk of the book's readership were people who simply questioned Christian doctrine, without focusing on Catholicism or any other denomination.

In any case, America has a tradition of viewing all large organizations with suspicion, especially ones that practice secrecy. Having also read "Angels and Demons," I think it's possible that Dan Brown simply views the Catholic Church's power and secrecy as good material for thrillers.

Yes, the current Pope was in the Hitler Youth.

Big deal.

I don't think he was a Nazi so much as in the Hitler youth corp. , or something like that.........I'd have to look into it more.

Or maybe cause the new Pope is also a former Nazi...........?

"I think the net cultural result was an increasingly negative view of the American Catholic Church; at least that has been my unscientific observation."

This "net cultural result" is a result of the direct actions of the Church and not because of popular works of fiction.

"Many, many people, both Protestants and Catholics, ask me ‘what other secrets do you think they are hiding?’ This is a remarkable response to an otherwise unremarkable work of fiction."

Perhaps the Church is seen as secretive because it uses completely secretive means to select the Popes and secretely covers up the acts of pedophiles within throughout its organization.

Trying to make Dan Brown a scapegoat for negative feelings towards a corrupt organization isn't very compelling.

An interview with Susan: http://www.faithfullyliberal.com/?p=184

Prejuidice exists between each and everyone of else. Anti-Catholism is nothing new but it certainly should not be ignored. We need to go as far as to condemn it, as well as other types of discrimination.

Five of the nine members of the United States Supreme Court are Roman Catholic. Four of them vote as an authoritarian bloc. Juestice Scalia's comments suggest that he thinks the U.S. Government acts best when it acts as an arm of the Vatican. He himself would have made a fine consiglieri to the Holy Inquisition.

Discrimination against Catholics? This court discriminates against freedom, liberty, the concepts and ideas of the Founders, and individual rights, in favor of corporate and authoritarian interests, and most of all, in favor of sectarian religious interests.

Susan:

Actually, the Da Vinci Code is a world class suspense novel, far superior to anything Grisham ever wrote. It was a work of fiction designed to make money for the author. It worked, but it has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination against Catholics.

No, Catholic people are not discriminated against. The DaVinci Code was just a book. People ask questions about the things brought up in the book I imagine because of the general ignorance of the Christian religion by most Americans.

But discrimination? Not that I have heard of. Like most minorities, Catholics have never had so much power in the US as they do today.

The "sexual abuse" sanctioned by the Church and the subsequent cover-up is unforgivable though. Those monsterous priests should have been arrested as soon as the allegations were made. The Church did the opposite, in fact they assisted these criminal priests by merely transfering them to a new parish to continue their crimes.

Outrageous! The whole situation is simply intolerable and inexcusable.

The Catholic Church should be judged accordingly.

Institutions are made of people, but they are not people, and these collections of people exhibit a host of emergent properties, some good, some bad.

The Catholic church is no exception to this.

But I suspect this question is going to bring some really crazy people out of the woodwork.

"I do not myself observe a new pattern of discrimination against individual Catholics."

OK... so what was the point of this article?