« Monsignor Wurtz of Buffalo | Main | To the West »
December 28, 2005
Again with the Camauro
Of course, because it's still winter. I think what makes it look kind of odd (sorry), is that the fur trim is too wide. In the paintings I've seen of previous popes wearing it, the trim is much thinner. But, ah well, little things. Because the pope has more important, newsworthy things to do like, as the shocked headline-writer at MSNBC would have us know, "affirm that he sees embryos as "complete" humans - (their quotation marks). Shocker, that. Text from AsiaNews.
The subhead on the MSNBC article reads "Roman Catholic Church stance against abortion, embryo research stressed." Well, no, not exactly, if I might disagree with the gods of journalism. What was stressed was the passionate, all-embracing love of God for the human beings he creates. But I guess that doesn't translate into a headline. Especially your senses screen out anything non-political when you process information.
Oh, and if you want a sense of what we're up against, read this thread at the Huffington Post. First, note how the Pope's Christmas message is spun. Very funny - as if the Pope was condemning intellectual and technological progress. And then proceed to the comments,which take the spin at face value, and combine that with virulent hatred. It is, as usual, a scary little corner of the world.
The more I think about it, the angrier this HuffPost business makes me. It is just like the stuff you find on Daily Kos, of course, but as risible as HuffPost is to a lot of us, it is widely linked and an official blog of Yahoo News, I think, featured there. Why should this bigotry be allowed to stand?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3926813
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Again with the Camauro:
» Pope Fiction* from The Curt Jester
From a promotion for ABC's Primetime. "Diane Sawyer takes you on the trail of a passionate mystery. Just as intriguing... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 28, 2005 3:35:51 PM
» Pope Fiction* from The Curt Jester
From a promotion for ABC's Primetime. "Diane Sawyer takes you on the trail of a passionate mystery. Just as intriguing... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 28, 2005 6:12:02 PM
» Intellects Abound Out There from COSMOS-LITURGY-SEX
I am often times astounded by the intellectual acumen of the anti-religious, anti-Christian, anti-Catholic crowd. Open Book posted a thread from the Huffington Post criticizing the B16 for having the nerve to say that we must be careful not to make ou... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 28, 2005 6:45:26 PM
» The Church is Young! from The Anchoress
Pope Uncle Benedict said those words in one of his first pronouncements as pope.
Gerald has a really nice, heartfelt look back at the biggest Catholic events of 2005.
And you can read the text of Benedicts homily for the Midnigh... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 29, 2005 3:46:11 AM
» Pope Fiction* from The Curt Jester
From a promotion for ABC's Primetime. "Diane Sawyer takes you on the trail of a passionate mystery. Just as intriguing... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 29, 2005 5:38:28 PM
Comments
Wow! Scary stuff. Where does all that vitriol come from?!
Posted by: CBM at Dec 28, 2005 10:11:30 AM
There is a sense of moral, intellectual, and social superiority amongst certain factions in American society (mostly left-leaning individuals).
They see anything and everything even remotely conservative or religious as somehow "oppressive" of individual liberty and against their code of moral relativism - hence the spin on the Pope's Christmas message. Portraying Benedict XVI as "condemning intellectual and technological progress" is their way of saying, "See, the Catholic church wants to throw us back to the dark ages!" This also leads to their anger and vitriolic nature.
I pray that their hearts will be moved to see the importance of progress in light of respect for life...
Posted by: Amy Pawlak at Dec 28, 2005 10:46:44 AM
That was just bare-headed bigotry, with very little thought behind it. Very intolerant, to be sure. It seems itellectually we have very little to fear from this ilk, but they would probably slit our throats in a heart beat. The barbarians are inside the wall!!
Posted by: Renee at Dec 28, 2005 10:54:01 AM
In a strange way, it is refreshing to be reminded of how the Catholic faith is viewed when people have a forum in which they can freely express their views, without the constraints that normally bound polite discourse. And so, two days after the memorial of St. Stephen, we see that little has changed since his martyrdom. As Benedict said on Tuesday: "How not to see that, even in our times and in various parts of the world, being a Christian requires a martyr's heroism? How not to recognize that everywhere, even where there is no persecution, living the Gospel coherently carries a high price?" I am afraid that increasingly this type of opposition and visceral hatred will become the norm, no matter how utterly brainless it may be.
Posted by: TDM at Dec 28, 2005 11:12:08 AM
As Fr. Richard John Neuhaus often likes to say,
"Thinking with the Church requires thinking."
But first one has to stop jerking other parts of the body, such as the knee.
Posted by: CV at Dec 28, 2005 11:15:24 AM
Those people are demented by hate.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Dec 28, 2005 11:27:38 AM
Wow. Where does one even begin to deconstruct?
Prayers for them all, whose hard hearts--if they remain unchanged--will never know what real joy is.
Posted by: Cathleen at Dec 28, 2005 11:33:05 AM
"Wow! Scary stuff. Where does all that vitriol come from?!"
Probably they are drinking from the same well of hatefulness that the peanut gallery at CWNEWS and some other St. Blog's combox squatters regularly drink from.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 28, 2005 11:33:55 AM
I scanned some of this. "Scary stuff" is right.
It's very anti-Catholic, but it's worth noting that the tone and the level of discourse are about what you'd expect from the bellowings of some orc.
As I read through this stuff, that's what I couldn't help picturing: a gathering of angry orcs.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 28, 2005 11:39:02 AM
Gracious!
Amy! You should have warned us to put on our boots-
I have never had to wade through so much male bovine feces in my life.
Posted by: Joe Gloor at Dec 28, 2005 11:39:46 AM
This bigotry goes most unchallenged because it is the core religious belief of a small but immensely influential group of Americans.
Posted by: Gregg the obscure at Dec 28, 2005 11:44:01 AM
. . . er "mostly unchallenged"
Posted by: Gregg the obscure at Dec 28, 2005 11:44:45 AM
I flagged many of the posts as abusive. I left those who disagree with my point of view but which are expressed in a civil fashion.I also flagged the coarsely expressed antihomosexual post as it was crude, offensive, and irrelevant to the thread, and the weird one about the pope being Jewish.
However it appears that abusive posts are par for the course in that forum.
Still, maybe we could have some sort of effect if we all went there and flagged truly offensive posts as abusive, making sure we didn't flag any half way civil ones just because they disagree with our point of view.
It seems to me that if these folks were really secure and comfortable that their views are true and their lifestyle OK, they would not get so mad at the Pope. He would just be irrelevant to them. They have to be so angry because on some level they know there is truth to his reproach of their lifestyle. Even reproaches he didn't make in this speech. They know what he stands for and it rebukes them even when he isn't making a rebuke. That has to be where the vitriol comes from.
Susan F. Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Dec 28, 2005 11:45:15 AM
I'd wager that none of those spewing hatred of B16 have ever actually read anything he wrote and know next to nothing about his life (aside from the Hitler Youth thing) yet they are extremely content to mock him. How tolerant they are. How progressive.
Anyone who thinks the anti-catholicism of the elites is dead (the kind of anti-catholicism that we are told over and over again that Kennedy's election ended) needs to just read some of those comments.
Posted by: jack bennett at Dec 28, 2005 11:50:00 AM
Just finished the same thing as Susan. Flagged all the offensive stuff.
Scary is not the word for such hatred.
Posted by: Tim Johnson at Dec 28, 2005 12:02:26 PM
To parphase a familiar quote, "Yes, Virginia, there are people who hate you because you're Catholic". Once the hatred read that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. This opinion still exist in some of the darker corners of the Bible Belt. Now it reads that the Catholic Church is the enemy of humanity. Such hatred is indeed a scary little corner of the of the world.
How do we respond? Perhaps we can take our cue from some quotes from the recent CBS mini-series about JPII. When the young Karol Wojtyla asked a cardinal if he should fight against the Nazi occupation of Poland, the reply was, "Fight them with the weapons they fear the most, your intellect and your faith". Later, Wojtyla says that the Christian should respond to an "abyss" of hate/evil with an "abyss" of love. Good words to live by in our time.
Posted by: Fr. Bryan at Dec 28, 2005 12:14:07 PM
Ever listen to "Air America"? When the Church is being discussed, a tone similar to that on the Huffington Post is used. I remember well the Air America program I heard on the morning of the first Friday of April, 2005, when the Pope was known to be dying (he died the next day). The hosts of Air America paid tribute by telling anti-Catholic jokes and accusing Pope Pius XII of being indifferent to the Holocaust.
I am outraged but not at all shocked by what is in the Huffington Post. The reality is that the anti-Catholic sentiment that is reflected there is widespread among liberals and leaders of the cultural left.
Posted by: Dan at Dec 28, 2005 12:16:21 PM
Arianna Huffington. She was a self-absorbed nitwit when she was a conservative, and she remains a self-absorbed nitwit as a born-again leftist. The calibre of commenters she attracts to her latest circus act comes as no surprise to me.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Dec 28, 2005 12:27:06 PM
The HuffPo comments remind us that ignorance is a prerequisite for bigotry. There is some humour in the fact that these posters condemning the "medieval" and "anti-intellectual" Church are themselves demonstrating a palpable ignorance of the nature of Roman Catholicism and repeating nonsense that was manifestly false when it was first uttered by others -- over a thousand years ago.
Posted by: frank sales at Dec 28, 2005 12:32:42 PM
Really, is this at all a surprise? I read a similar thread at Atrios soon after the current Pope was elected. Actually, it was much worse. I've linked to it above, if you're curious. But please remember, that it's awful, ugly stuff.
Posted by: TheLeague at Dec 28, 2005 12:44:32 PM
Marion said, above:
"It's very anti-Catholic, but it's worth noting that the tone and the level of discourse are about what you'd expect from the bellowings of some orc."
Brilliant! Give Marion a Guinness!
Donald said:
"Arianna Huffington. She was a self-absorbed nitwit when she was a conservative, and she remains a self-absorbed nitwit as a born-again leftist. The calibre of commenters she attracts to her latest circus act comes as no surprise to me."
Dead on. I was working in Washington, in right-wing politics, when AH-ree-AH-na blew into town, and tried to make a splash on the right. I had a roommate -- a good guy -- who went to work for her; unfortunately, I lost touch with him. I'd love to hear his comments. But the impression I had then was of someone who had a lot of money to throw around, and had been married to a not-very-conservative Republican Congressman, and . . . uh . . . um . . . hold on, I'm trying to think what else she had to offer . . . well -- I'll get back to you . . .
My point is, I can't recall any specific cause she was trying to promote -- not even superficially. Rather, it was "Hellooo, I'm AH-ree-AH-na, and I'm here to help the conservative mooove-ment..." I think a perfect consort for her would be the Fernando character Billy Crystal created for SNL.
With all that fabulousness going for her, all that glitter and style, it is all the more -- shall we say, piquant? -- that her readership is so, well, UNfabulous.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox (Septimus) at Dec 28, 2005 12:57:33 PM
I have two suggestions for papal headgear.
Someone said that "Freistaat Bayern" is translated as "The Lone Star State," since Bavaria is to Germany what Texas is to the US.
So someone send the Pope a white Stetson.
Which would be better than a Bavarian Tracht hat complete with feather, since these don't come in white or red.
He looks happy that his head is warm.
Posted by: Socius at Dec 28, 2005 1:05:29 PM
I'd never participate on a thread like the HuffPo one myself, since judging from the puerile commentors I'd likely be arguing with a bunch of teenagers. Whatever happened to the ideal of maturity?
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Dec 28, 2005 1:17:07 PM
It is interesting to read all those posts and mentally substitute "Martin Luther King, Jr." or "Bill Clinton" and think how the very same folks who write in HuffPo would howl "hatemongers"
If they could only see themselves!
Posted by: Momma K at Dec 28, 2005 1:26:20 PM
"Arianna Huffington. She was a self-absorbed nitwit when she was a conservative, and she remains a self-absorbed nitwit as a born-again leftist."
Absolutely. I once saw her participatee in a debate on Firing Line with Camile Paglia and some others on feminism. Huffington took the anti-feminist positione. Her anti-feminist argument was so intellectual vapid that it could have been fairly summarized as "why be liberated when you can have diamonds?" Charming in a Eva Gabor sort of way, but nonetheless an embarrassment.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 28, 2005 1:34:17 PM
Words "They" used to describe "Us":
irrelevant
goon
hypocrites
rapist
tyrannical
fascist
bigots
morons
glitzy (!)
ignorant
barbarous
stupid
hollow
barren
Words "We" used to describe "Them":
orc
nitwit
vitriolic
intolerant
bare-headed
barbaric
demented
hateful
scary
abusive
angry
ignorant
ugly
awful
Posted by: Mike at Dec 28, 2005 1:52:38 PM
I said that I flagged posts as 'abusive'-their word, and they asked readers to flag same. I did say they, the writers of the posts, were angry. I think this is amply displayed in what they wrote.
There is also a difference between using certain words as part of some kind of reasoned assertion and simply hurling invective.
Also there is the question of whether the characterization is merited by the speech, writing, or behavior, of the one being characterized.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Dec 28, 2005 2:15:11 PM
Great summary, Mike, thanks for pointing out the obvious. They hate the Pope and Catholics with all the peace, love and open-minded tolerance we've come to expect from Leftists, and We can describe Them aptly.
Posted by: TheLeague at Dec 28, 2005 2:35:29 PM
Mike wrote: "Words 'We' used to describe 'Them': orc . . ."
Mike, for the record, no one here described any person or persons as orc-like.
I compared the tone and the level of discourse at that site to that which one might find in company with orcs.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 28, 2005 2:38:08 PM
italics off.
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 28, 2005 2:54:37 PM
"I'd never participate on a thread like the HuffPo one myself, since judging from the puerile commentors I'd likely be arguing with a bunch of teenagers. Whatever happened to the ideal of maturity?"
I wouldn't be so sure about the ages of the posters. A recent poll (last 4-6 weeks or so) done over at democraticunderground.org (an equally loony liberal site) revealed that only 9% of the members are under 30. The most heavily represented age group was the 50-60 one. The same age group that makes up most of the dissident groups.
Posted by: chris at Dec 28, 2005 3:14:28 PM
I find Chris's information very interesting!
Also, love the Stetson idea. I think it would be so much more becoming. A man with a brow that heavy should not be wearing a hat like that with the heavy fur line right above his eyes. I would love to see Papa Benedict in a Stetson, but maybe that's just cuz I'm from Texas.
Posted by: cw at Dec 28, 2005 3:28:00 PM
Ever listen to "Air America"? When the Church is being discussed, a tone similar to that on the Huffington Post is used.
Dan is correct. Just last night, an Air America host (Matt Malloy, maybe?) made a crack about Benedict having been a member of the Waffen SS. When someone off-mic "corrected" him, he chuckled and said, "Yeah, that's right, Hitler Youth. He wasn't old enough yet to join the SS."
Posted by: PMC at Dec 28, 2005 3:29:46 PM
I'm so past being tired of the old Nazi canard.
Nazi-Schmazi.
Body-bag for body-bag any one of the various Communist regimes - Pol Pot and Stalin and Chairman Mao - have old Adolph beat by a country mile.
I'm beginning to think the Left don't even know who or what the Nazis were or what they did, or would much care even if they did. "Nazi" and "Hitler" are just their shorthand words for "double plus ungood".
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 28, 2005 3:43:28 PM
As we all here know, we are battling not flesh but principalities and powers,... and this group is channeling the powers that don't have much time left. Thus the super spewing of hatred. With 1 in 3 births these days ending in abortion, there are an awful lot of people trying hard to eliminate anything that reminds their consciences of dreadful deeds, hardening their hearts to a point of no return. These are the ones who will cheer on any New World Order coming from the EU such as this:
http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/brussels122705.htm
What a good preview of what hell could be like...each one spewing the lowest kind of vile screams, surrounded by more like themselves doing the same...and for all eternity. Of course, while there is still time, the good must pray even more strongly for the possibility of some, at least, to come to the light. And that can only make things worse for those already committed to continue their hard heartedness into eternity.
Posted by: chris K at Dec 28, 2005 3:53:40 PM
Like Susan Peterson, I too flagged a lot of the posts -- disgusting, obscene, and often just plain rotten writing, roughly at the level of a high-school dropout. Ick ... reading it was indeed like wading through world-class B.S. God help them -- they do indeed need a lot of prayer. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Posted by: Patricia Gonzalez at Dec 28, 2005 4:00:21 PM
Kevin Jones
It is pointless attempting to post comments which go against the prevailing orthodoxy of those who run the Huffington Post.I recently twice attempted to post factual information illustrating pitfalls in Embryonic Stem Cell Research on this site.Surprise, surprise neither post was subsequently displayed.I assume that my comments did not pass the censor who is in place.I do not even visit the site anymore as I do not wish for my "click" to be registered.The level of debate was laughable and (judging by the comments above) nothing seems to have changed very much.
Posted by: Paul at Dec 28, 2005 4:05:56 PM
Mike? Is that the dude who equated "prayer for the conversion of Jews" to "hate" in a comment here a few weeks ago? As in, if I remember the quote aright, "please pray for the conversion of the Jews in your own time. Hate has no place at Mass."
Posted by: Charles A. at Dec 28, 2005 4:58:10 PM
The camauro is much more interesting than stale anti-Catholicism.
Has no one examined earlier examples? There is one currently displayed on Blessed Pope John's head, for goodness sake. It does not have a puffy round shape, but keeps to the contours of the head. Also the color of red should be darker.
And the Holy Father has been indulging in some very strange sartorial combinations. I saw a picture today with the tabarro over the greca and topped by the camauro -- what a mess. I suggest appointing Msgr. Wach as papal valet. You could be sure then that everything would be "comme il faut".
Posted by: David Kubiak at Dec 28, 2005 5:10:22 PM
Thanks, Susan, just got done flagging what I found abusive.
These rants remind me that the catechism says that original sin darkens the intellect and weakens the will. There's lots
of anti-intellectual darkness in all this anger. I tend to think, though, that people like these are closer to conversion than the lukewarm who Jesus said he would vomit out of his mouth.
"Thou dost protest too much." Wm. Shakespeare
Posted by: Judy at Dec 28, 2005 5:24:39 PM
There is too much misinformation and paradigmatic rigidity to respond to in turn at that site. As far as flagging the ad hominem as abusive speech, I was going to but then thought the better of it.
I think that “discussion” should be left to stand as a testament to it’s own hatred. Hatred for Christians and Christianity shouldn’t be erased from the media record, because it’s unlikely to be reported into the media record. If all of the posts with any amount of bile are censored, then all that will be left will be the sanitized and seemingly reasonable misinformation.
Posted by: mcmlxix at Dec 28, 2005 5:43:40 PM
I think the Holy Father is being eminently sensible in his outerwear. I'd definitely want something a bit warmer to keep out the cold and the damp, and a cloak (simar?) over a coat (grecca?) would definitely cut the cold. Also, it's a sin not to wear a perfectly good woolen hat with fur, if it's in your closet.
So all that needs to be done is to make a camauro in a red that matches the cloak.
Or buy the Pope some CuddleDuds, of course. But the problem with wearing long undies is that it's not the work of a moment to take them off again, and you can get seriously overheated in the meantime. Not a small consideration for a guy who's getting up there in years. So layering is the way.
PS. I liked the black beret that he wore in that Vatican City documentary while he was still a Cardinal. Maybe he needs a Pope beret.
Posted by: Maureen at Dec 28, 2005 5:54:21 PM
Patricia, I appreciate your charity, but they do know what they're doing. They are considerably educated and older group than you might think. Most of these folks are in their 50s and 60s.
They know exactly what they're doing. They just don't care.
Posted by: TheLeague at Dec 28, 2005 6:28:50 PM
I have mixed feelings about trying to respond to bigoted attacks on the Church and Catholicism. On the one hand there is a duty I suppose to resist what is false and evil. On the other hand responding to bigots seems fruitless and is almost always dispiriting, and brings to mind the advice Jesus gave to the Apostles as to what to do when people would not hear what they had to say: "Shake the dust off your feet" (which I understand in Jewish custom was a way of showing disrespect).
Posted by: Dan at Dec 28, 2005 6:32:04 PM
Hmmm, never read the Huffington Post before, thanks for the edjumahcation. It is nice to see such intellectual banter with well reasoned arguments based upon a through understanding of the issues and the use of unimpeachable facts. I was especially touched by the commitment to free speech and the charitable exchange of ideas. I think I will return there often as the open hearted souls who frequent the site seem ripe for evangelization. I cannot think of any more profitable use my time, well other than maybe trying to evangelize an Orc. That's it, I will be back to HuffPost as soon as I convert my first Orc.
Posted by: David at Dec 28, 2005 6:34:00 PM
TheLeague wrote, " . . . they do know what they're doing. They are considerably educated and older group than you might think . . ."
I don't know. Educated? Knowing what they're doing? The level of discourse is just shocking:
"Pope say Mungo not do certain things. . . Pope hurt Mungo's feelings. . . Mungo no like Pope. . . . Pope bad man . . . To hell with Pope."
Posted by: Marion (Mael Muire) at Dec 28, 2005 6:41:01 PM
Well, what do you expect? Paradoxically, I think that what makes leftists especially bitter and venomous these days is the fact that they realize that a large segment of the population no longer automatically accords them the moral high ground and it drives them insane. Leftists really do believe that they are more caring and noble and compassionate than the stupid dolts surrounding them (believe me, I've known more than a few leftists who fit into the classic mold of supposedly loving humanity, but not liking their neighbor very much) and when the dolts don't acknowledge the moral superiority of the Left, the mask slips pretty quickly.
I'm speaking as a former Democrat who was pretty left-wing back in the '80's, so I can understand their rage to a certain extent. I can't relate to the vitriolic anti-Catholicism though. When I was a lapsed Catholic, it was because of boredom and laziness, not anger, and when I met a bigoted non-Catholic, I quickly turned into The Defender of The Faith (to the great amusement of my friends, who knew I never darkened the door of a church. Hypocritical? Maybe - but my feeling was that you don't let an outsider dis your Mother, even if you're an inattentive and wayward daughter.)
Maybe I was an exception, though, because without a doubt, the most hate-filled and bitter anti-Catholics I've ever met are ex-Catholics. Angry ex-Catholics can make Jack Chick look like sweetness n' light. I work in a Catholic hospital, have a young and devout Catholic co-worker, and yet, Catholicism is a dangerous topic to bring up when our supervisor is around. She (the supervisor) was a cradle Catholic, attended Catholic schools, and is pleasant enough - except when Catholicism (and Bush) are brought up. She gloated when JPII died, and she relishes (really, there's no other way to describe it) any news about misbehaving priests. We have a statue of the Virgin directly opposite our office and one of the days, I'm half-expecting her to lose it entirely and smash it on the ground.
Posted by: Donna V. at Dec 28, 2005 7:01:33 PM
BTW, don't waste your time writing any rebuttals in the Huff's com-boxes. It will only be deleted, no matter how reasonable and civil you try to be.
The same is true at DU and Daily Kos. I have no problem with bloggers who ban "trolls" - those who are deliberately abusive and insulting, use foul language, derail threads and so on. But I find it ironic, to say the least, that the same folks who brought you the "Free Speech Movement" during the '60's are now quick to suppress opinions they disagree with on college campuses and the Internet.
"Offensive speech is fun! Break all taboos! There are no sacred cows - except for our sacred cows!"
Posted by: Donna V. at Dec 28, 2005 7:10:09 PM
Donna V., I know (as we all do) about the angry ex-Catholics. But I can assure you that the anti-Catholic bigotry is not limited to ex-Catholics or even primarily an ex-Catholic thing. It generally corresponds to where a person is on political and social issues. The more liberal a person is the more likely the person is to be a Catholic-basher. I have a history similar to yours -- I voted Democratic in the 1980s and though never angry at the Church was lax (to put it midly) in the practice of the faith. Not coincidentally my return to the Church coincided with my departure from the Democratic party.
Posted by: Dan at Dec 28, 2005 7:16:32 PM
The Huff Posts proves Peter Viereck's point when he said "Anti-Catholicism is the Jew-Baiting of Liberals."
Posted by: Jonathan Carpenter at Dec 28, 2005 7:19:59 PM
The Huff Posts proves that Anti-Catholicism is no longer just "The Pornography of the Puritans." This crap is being perpetuated and some of our so-called "Conservative" leaders in the MSM and blogs say nothing about this until now. They spend their time harping for the 400th time of church corruption or debating the artistic merit of films like "Brokeback Mountain." It shows where some people's priorities are.
Posted by: Jonathan Carpenter at Dec 28, 2005 7:32:37 PM
It generally corresponds to where a person is on political and social issues. The more liberal a person is the more likely the person is to be a Catholic-basher.
Oh, I agree, Dan. The foaming-at-the-mouth ex-Catholics I know are all extremely liberal politically.
Those liberal practicing Catholics who voted for Kerry and tell us that "social justice" issues and opposition to the war should take priority over abortion and other pro-life stances should take note - no matter how many left-friendly pronouncements the U.S. Bishops might make, it matters not one whit to leftist Catholic-haters.
I think it's because, in the end, many (not all) leftists are less concerned about poverty and the war than they are about threats to their personal "freedom." The freedom to abort, the freedom to off oneself (or a burdensome relative)with the help of a friendly doctor, the freedom to carve as many notches in the bedpost as possible thanks to condoms, the freedom to marry a person of the same sex, the freedom to experiment with other human lives so we can all become eternally youthful and disease-free: the Church says "No, that's not right" and it maddens the Left. The Pope is standing in the way of their Utopia.
(I note, however, that Islamic republics also take a rather dim view of same-sex marriages, girls "hooking up" with guys for an exciting evening, sexually explicit movies and so on. But Islam is, of course, safe from criticism on the left - partly because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and partly because - well, the Pope doesn't issue fatwas, but mullahs certainly do.)
Posted by: Donna V. at Dec 28, 2005 8:29:22 PM
Bigoted ? Yes. Educated ? Yes. As someone once put it, "You can take a bigot and educate him, and all you'll get is an educated bigot."
Posted by: Ed at Dec 28, 2005 8:31:57 PM
While I thought I was shockproof in terms of anti-Catholicism, having been brought up in LA., I found otherwise when I read these vile and ignorant posts. What makes this even more outrageous is that these same pedophile-condemning folks would likely view the abusive priests as sexually repressed victims of the Church, instead of the spineless, self-indulgent liars that they are. These priests turned their backs on sacrifice and obedience to the Church, and we are left holding the bag when anti-Catholic bigotry is published on HuffPost in the guise of humanistic common sense.
Posted by: Jane at Dec 28, 2005 10:07:29 PM
"BTW, don't waste your time writing any rebuttals in the Huff's com-boxes. It will only be deleted, no matter how reasonable and civil you try to be ... the same folks who brought you the "Free Speech Movement" during the '60's are now quick to suppress opinions they disagree with on college campuses and the Internet."
That seems untrue: a number of contrary comments, such as those by Tom Haessler, have been up for most of the day. In my observation, the right wing sites are much more likely to either not allow comments or delete dissenting ones.
Posted by: sj at Dec 28, 2005 10:18:41 PM
sj: Either they've changed their policy or one of Ariana's minions is asleep at the wheel. On two different occasions, I attempted to argue (civilly) with commenters there and my posts were deleted within a half hour.
I have read that liberals who post at Free Republic get the boot pretty fast. (I am not a "Freeper" and can't verify that.) However, it's been my experience that leftists who "troll" conservative sites get banned because they come in swinging and insult everyone in sight as "fascist warmongers" or some other endearing term.
I'm not denying that conservatives can get nasty too. There are foul-mouthed keyboard jockeys on both sides.
Posted by: Donna V. at Dec 28, 2005 11:10:59 PM
Blessed are ye when they shall revile you and persecute you and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:
Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.
Matthew 5:11-12
Posted by: ubi_deficiunt at Dec 28, 2005 11:35:45 PM
I'm generally leftist but have gone on Eschaton, Obsidian Wings, and other left blogs and argued the Catholic position on stem cell research and Terri Schiavo and have not gotten banned. Free Republic does seem to ban pretty quickly. I'm registered there but haven't come close to testing the limits.
Yeah, "foul mouthed keyboard jockeys on both sides" is putting it mildly. I have to believe that the set of people who post on political sites is not representative of the public as a whole, or even of people of their leanings.
Posted by: sj at Dec 28, 2005 11:41:29 PM
FWIW . . .
I got banned from Free Republic with my first post, because I criticized President Bush as not conservative enough. That strikes me as being rather brittle.
Posted by: Fr Martin Fox (Septimus) at Dec 29, 2005 9:30:29 AM
As ugly as some of the HuffPo comments were, I am ashamed to admit that they could have been written by me, and not so long ago. But, by the tremendous grace and infinite mercy of God, I have been converted. Thank God I no longer carry around that bitterness and hatred. I say that not with the hubris of the Pharisee (or so I hope)or to make myself seem holier-than-thou, but with the humility of a sinner who has been given a gift of inestimable worth -- the True Faith. I will pray for the conversion of those who wrote these comments, whose hearts are so hard and empty, that they will be granted the peace of Christ.
Posted by: Gretchen at Dec 29, 2005 11:19:42 AM
Gretchen, thanks for reminding us that Faith is a gift freely, often mysteriously and sometimes dramatically bestowed. I'm awed by your humility and honesty. As a former hate-filled Catholic basher, can you give us any insight on reaching these people - or do you think prayer for their conversion is the only answer??
Posted by: Judy at Dec 29, 2005 11:43:33 AM
In defense of HuffPo, they have Greg Guttman.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Dec 29, 2005 12:05:03 PM
Whoops. THat should be Gutfeld
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Dec 29, 2005 12:11:55 PM
I have read that liberals who post at Free Republic get the boot pretty fast. (I am not a "Freeper" and can't verify that.)
I guess I'm a long-time Freeper. It used to be much more free-wheeling, before the site's administration decided to lick the boots of the GOP and the Bush candidacy. Not only liberals, but Buchananites and "paleo" conservatives are frequently banned-on-sight. Like National Review, it has adopted ideological purges as its preferred method of showing disapproval.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Dec 29, 2005 12:38:10 PM
Judy - to this day, I don't know exactly how my conversion came about. It would be hard to get further away from the Church than I was, or to find one whose life was more marked by sin, sadness and almost virtual hopelessness. Through it all, though, I never gave up entirely a belief in God. Perhaps that minute bit of openness on my part, coupled with copious prayers from others (some of whom I'm sure didn't even know me) along with God's mercy, were what did the trick. So, yes, I believe in prayer - now, I pray that others may be given the gift that I have been given (and for myself, I pray that I keep it and treasure it until the end of my days)_
Posted by: Gretchen at Dec 29, 2005 1:01:10 PM
Has anyone considered whether the "Evil One" -- i.e., the Devil -- has overtaken those who are commenting on HuffPo?
In an address entitled "Confronting the Devil's Power" given on November 15, 1972 to a General Audience, Pope Paul VI considered the following question: "Are there signs, and what are they, of the presence of diabolical action?" The answer he gave is in part as follows:
"We have to be cautious about answering [this] question, even though the signs of the Evil One seem to be very obvious at times. We can presume that his sinister action is at work where the denial of God becomes radical, subtle and absurd; where lies become powerful and hypocritical in the face of evident truth; where love is smothered by cold, cruel selfishness; where Christ's name is attacked with conscious, rebellious hatred, where the spirit of the Gospel is watered down and rejected where despair is affirmed as the last word; and so forth."
The above works pretty well as a description of some liberal blogs.
Posted by: Dan at Dec 29, 2005 4:48:49 PM
Kevin,
Who's been purged by NR lately? Ann Coulter wrote a column that I didn't think was that bad, the editors decided was untoward, and LOTS of people in St. Blogs would have pooped themselves over had they read it (e.g., Chris Sullivan).
Pat Buchanan was assessed as making anti-Semitic statements while not actually being anti-Semitic, and he left after that. The only Purge I can think of was of the Birchers, and that was a Long Time Ago.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Dec 29, 2005 4:53:33 PM
And if you're referring to THEIR blog, well, there are no comments at all.
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Dec 29, 2005 4:55:04 PM
What anti-Semitic comment was Pat Buchanan "assessed" as having made? If the statement was in fact anti-Semitic, why was he absolved of "being" anti-Semitic?
Posted by: Dan at Dec 29, 2005 5:04:42 PM
When I was a boy, I was taught that "bigots" (who, of course, lived ONLY in the south) were silly people who were so stupid as to hate Negroes, Jews and Catholics.
Some time when nobody was looking, Catholics were declared fair game again.
Posted by: Will at Dec 29, 2005 10:06:37 PM
When I was a boy, I was taught that "bigots" (who, of course, lived ONLY in the south) were silly people who were so stupid as to hate Negroes, Jews and Catholics.
Some time when nobody was looking, Catholics were declared fair game again.
Posted by: Will at Dec 29, 2005 10:07:41 PM
"Like National Review, it has adopted ideological purges as its preferred method of showing disapproval."
Really? Then why the hell is Derbyshire still around?
Posted by: JonathanR. at Dec 30, 2005 9:17:12 AM
