Here's an article by Joe Sobran. It discusses and debunks a variety of myths that anti-Catholics cling to. This is dedicated to those posters who need for a scape-goat to blame all the world's problems on.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 10, 2002

Answers

top

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 10, 2002.

Mateo

This is a good , NO, Excellent article and one that Chris Coose needs to read. The last paragraph tells the whole story perfectly and are my feelings too.

I want to thank You for giving it to us all. Blessings.(MANY)

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 10, 2002.

I dont know where I got this from, its hardly groundbreaking but sort of supports your angle Mateo.

The reason it has taken centuries for the Church to admit it has made mistakes is apparent to any student of theology. The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility and the Church's incredibly conservative hierarchy means that any progressive idea is modified and slowed to the speed of molasses before it is ever considered or implemented. As many observers have noted, this is the Catholic Church's greatest strength, but also its most glaring weakness.

Yet the symptom of intolerance inherent to papal infallibility is clearly witnessed in many Christian denominations that do not hold that doctrine. Indeed, intolerance and its tragic fruits are seen in every religion. Many people make the logical jump that religiosity breeds fanaticism and intolerance and therefore religion itself is harmful. Yet atheist ideologies have an equally abhorrent track record. The Catholic Church may have been silent during the Holocaust, but it was a Christianity despising Adolf Hitler that perpetrated the mass killings of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and mentally handicapped individuals. Joseph Stalin and his communist cohorts were directly responsible for the killings of millions upon millions of peasants that made the Holocaust look like a meager version of genocide. Meanwhile, the Culture Wars in China more than matched the bloodshed in Germany and Russia, proving that white Europeans did not have a monopoly on evil. Intolerance, hate and violence are apparent everywhere one might look, no matter what race, religion or ideology. So then, where does it come from? Any self-righteous person can point the finger, but blame lies in everybody. It is human nature to passionately believe in an ideal and it is that same nature that commits tragic injustices in the name of God or equality or ethnic purity. Every person at some point sins against his neighbor, but the problem does not lie in a particular religion, dogma, ideology or philosophy. It is fundamental for humans to believe and have faith in something; as a preacher might assert, there is a God-shaped hole within every person's soul. Faith and passionate zealousness are not traits to be discouraged but rather promoted. The problem is that many people presume faith and knowledge to be synonymous. The belief that one is right, whether that be in opinions religious or political, is not dangerous in and of itself. But when strong beliefs transform into a feeling of superiority the sense that a perceived monopoly on the truth permits one to violate the natural, God-given rights of others (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) then brutality and the other fruits of intolerance develop. Unfortunately, this willingness to violate somebody's rights because that person has the incorrect viewpoint dwells in all strongly opinionated people on all sides of every issue, whether in religion and morality or politics and public policy.

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 10, 2002.

Courtenay,

You bring up a whole bunch of interesting challenges that the human condition presents us--I think you're asking the most interesting questions--the ones that we as a species really haven't gotten our arms around.

You wrote:

"Unfortunately, this willingness to violate somebody's rights because that person has the incorrect viewpoint dwells in all strongly opinionated people on all sides of every issue, whether in religion and morality or politics and public policy."

Some people try to pretend that we should make a justice system that strives to enact and enforce laws only to protect from one person infringing on the rights of another--"live and let live" (Libertarian) justice. They argue that morality should not be dictated by laws. By avoiding these laws, we would get away from one "opinionated viewpoint" determining laws that restrict "freedom." There's a huge list of situations that challenges even the ability to determine when one person's rights end and another person's rights begin. Here are some examples:

1) Slavery--The South fought against the North to protect slavery as integral to its economy. By losing slavery at the end of the war, the North's "strongly opinionated people" imposed a ban on slavery in the South. In 2002, it's easy to side with the North on this, dispite the terrible economic suffering that the South deals with even to this day.

What's more interesting is to compare the morality of the North to the South in the 19th century. Slave owners, on the whole, valued their slaves (at least as investments) and made sure to keep them in decent living conditions (for the time, at least!). Move a few hundred miles north to Chicago and look at how Northern industry treated people--they were treated as animals. And, in contrast to the South, the Northern industries had no "investment" in their workers. Pick up a copy of "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair, and read it through. It describes the terrible conditions of the meat-processing plants in Chicago (late 19th century). It's Communist propoganda theme spoils the end of the book; but, when you get to the end, I wonder whether you'd rather be a slave in the pre-Civil War South than a "free worker" in the North.

2) Abortion--Same argument as slavery. The humans (babies instead of slaves) are denied personhood so that others (women instead of plantation owners) may not suffer economically. Would some women suffer economically if abortion were outlawed? Yes...just as Southern plantation owners suffered economically, emotionally, and politically when the unjust practice of slavery was outlawed.

3) Divorce--Here's an interesting one. Catholicism and the Bible teach that divorce is immoral. This doesn't really translate into laws forbidding divorce, but look at the fruits of divorce. Children since the 1960s bore the brunt of the divorce explosion. Their rights to a healthy family life were trampled on by parents who divorced. The divorce-generation contributed to a rise in depression in their offspring. This is a cross-generational crime, and there's no law on the books that could prosecute one generation's weak moral stand on marriage/divorce when it infringes on the rights of the next generation.

4) Homosexuality--Another interesting topic. There are plenty of anti-sodomy (homosexual) laws on the books that aren't being enforced--frankly, I don't know how anyone would enforce such a law! :-) Yet, if homosexuality is to be accepted, this walks away from the recommendations of just about every established religion. According to this "new, open-minded view", marriage is supposed to be gender-blind--any two people may be able to be "married" in the future by the government, if the pro-Homosexual trend doesn't reverse.

The theory is to give more "freedom" in marriage choice...but if gender isn't an important issue for the government's marriage formula, why should the government only marry couples? Why not have five people "marry" eachother. Why not twenty people? This is the slippery slope that I doubt many people want to acknowledge.

I may sound a bit alarmist here. There are groups of people who think that they are sooo smart that they are trying to give human civilization a make-over and turn it into their own secular Utopia. Some "forward-thinking" people want effect changes and abandon the moral standards (not just in Christianity) that have been critical in making society work. The problem is that they're ignoring all of the advice of hundreds of generations people before them. It's a youthful pride that leads a new generation to make the same mistakes of the past--humanity seems to be expert in repeating history's errors.

When I was in highschool, I went to my friend's Baptist Church for a Bible study. I learned from the Baptist minister that January was named after the two-headed pagan god Janus. Some scholars interpret that the two heads represent our need to look back on the past with one "head," and look forward toward the future with another. This is yet another opportunity for us all to find the proper balance...but humility demands that we spend the effort to study the past and find the wisdom that it offers us.

Enjoy,

Mateo

PS--did you author your post? I'm just curious.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 11, 2002.

Once again thankyou Mateo I will try and get a copy of the book you mention. I cannot locate the author but will do so. You are correct in picking up the libertarian tone as Ayn Rand and the compelling arguments for egoism intrests me greatly. Ive gotta go but would love to explore this a bit further with you. One final request! Do you know of any Catholic based critique's of objectivism?

-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

Courtenay,

Here's the Amazon.com page for "The Jungle." They actually have a "buy two books" deal for "Fast Food Nation," a modern-day equivalent of "The Jungle." I'll repeat my advise that, although the book is worth the read, it is a bit of a propoganda piece. According to one of the Amazon customers:

"The novel's central story is what happens to an immigrant family working in the Chicago stockyards in the early 1900s. Some reviewers have blasted the book's pro-Socialism, anti-capitalism slant. I think that is a bit silly; the last few pages are somewhat of a Socialist manifesto, but it doesn't interfere with the rest of the novel being an interesting read."

I'd agree with these comments.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 11, 2002.

http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/dt/V139/N41/section-v.shtml Mateo the article I quoted from can be found at this address. I dont know how to create links sorry. God Bless

-- Courtenay (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

Courtenay,

Check out the user FAQ. The first QA should give you the instructions on inserting a link.

I've got some more I want to post, but it's cake-testing day!

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), May 11, 2002.

It's always amazed me that people so easily call themselves or their new ideas "progressive" simply because they are new ideas and the people accepting them do so in opposition to some "old" idea.

Well?

Just how in the world does one prove an idea truly leads to "progress"?

Progress towards WHAT exactly? If your idea, ideal, moral "lifestyle" or habit of mind or will leads you away from virtue and faith...if it becomes more and more approximate to the ways of the world - of the pagan world...where is it leading you towards? And could this destiny be "progress"?

Not every new idea is a) truly new and b) a good one. But you can only judge something if you actually know what came before and see an idea or lifestyle's fruit in the lives of real people.

How many protestant churches are thriving and exploding in numbers and converts because they have women pastors?

How many protestant churches are thriving and exploding in numbers as they lower the moral standards of behavior, weaken marriage, weaken social and moral restraint in the name of "freedom of choice"?

Eventually they water themselves down to the point there is no real point of being Christian as "human fulfillment" is called something to be seized by the individual doing "their own thing" - no matter what this "thing" is!

Progress = anarchy? radical individualism? moral autonomy? Every-one- make-up-morality-as-you-go?

If you don't know where you are going, how can you know whether you are "progressing" towards home or hell?

-- Joe Stong (joestong@yahoo.com), January 22, 2003.