I was just thinking along these lines: if you're a faithful Catholic, in love with the Lord and with an avid interest in the mission of the Church, you have access to an expansive Catholic world of thought--from the Web (i.e. CatholicCulture.com) to TV (EWTN) to books (Paulist Press). It seems that there is a certain safe-haven of well-guarded, orthodox, published material and media. It's prolific, it's varied, and it is Catholic through and through.

But it is also largely invisible. The barrier between all of this good material, and the vast badlands beyond the castle gate, seems rather impermeable. Of course, this is somewhat to be expected, with actively anti-Catholic media tycoons running most of the show, from AOLTimeWarner to MSNBC to the New York Times (and I think that covers just about every major news agency in existence).

Yet it seems strange that, in a purportedly "free" country with "equal opportunity" employers, the wall preventing the dissemination of authentically Catholic media is so thick.

I think this is a major credibility problem, because a cynical, deconstructionist US public will very rarely believe pro-Catholic news from a consistently pro-Catholic news source (e.g., Zenit). I've had a lot of difficulty using overwhelmingly pro-Catholic sources (like First Things) to support Catholic positions in public life, because these sources are unabashedly (and rightly) pro-Catholic.

Arguments tend to be lit ablaze with fresh credibility when they are reported by unlikely sources. For example, when Dr. Robert Spitzer, the Jewish atheist psychologist who declassified homosexuality as a disorder, recently reported that homosexuality is changeable, it rings truer in the ears of skeptics.

Even when they shouldn't, most people strongly trust sources like Time and Newsweek and USA Today and the NY Times. Seems like the lay Catholic community should be mobilizing more to seek jobs in the mainstream press, as one important step toward curbing anti-Catholicism.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 16, 2005

Answers

"Yet it seems strange that, in a purportedly "free" country with "equal opportunity" employers, the wall preventing the dissemination of authentically Catholic media is so thick."

Didn't stop Mel Gibson, did it?

"Seems like the lay Catholic community should be mobilizing more to seek jobs in the mainstream press, as one important step toward curbing anti-Catholicism."

You can't curb anti-Catholicism. The world is always going to be at emnity with Catholicism. Christ Himself didn't try to curb the opponents of His message, and ultimately succumbed to death at their hands. In fact, He said to rejoice when they mock you and revile you and utter every kind of slander against you for His name's sake, because the reward is so great.

He didn't say to try to curb them. It can't be done anyways. You have to be crucified with Christ.

This kind of activity will prevent or stop anything. Only prayer and penance and keeping the Faith will triumph over antiCatholicism. The Kingdom of God is not established by the ingenuity of human strategy.

"With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice." --Pascendi Dominic Gregis

-- Emerald (em@cox.net), January 16, 2005.

“I've had a lot of difficulty using overwhelmingly pro-Catholic sources (like First Things) to support Catholic positions in public life, because these sources are unabashedly (and rightly) pro- Catholic.”

I’m not clear why you intend to use the material. If you plan to use pro-Catholic material to promote Catholicism, there is no problem. However, if you use pro-Catholic material as unbiased reporting… then you have a problem.

Just as you wouldn’t expect to have a fair representation of the Catholic position on church polity from the Bob Jones University, or a balanced view on dangers of gun ownership from the NRA, or a dispassionate report on the British point of view in Northern Ireland from the Irish Voice – neither can “pro-Catholic” reports or news sources give a balanced presentation of issues because they are “promoting” a particular position. In short, they “cherry pick” and lift up as significant the information that supports their point of view – and at the same time down play or disregard information that contradicts their point of view – regardless of the credibility of the information. Journalists (along with civil authorities and elected officials) can take information from those sources to help them understand the position of the various groups, but they can’t depend on them to be the sole source of information for an objective report or secular policy.

It is not anti-Catholic to report that Catholic policies and piety are not supported by social and scientific research in regard to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of STDs, and it is not anti fundamentalist Protestant to say that scientific research cannot support the claims about “Intelligent Design” or the earth being created in six days.

Thus, it is not anti-Catholic for the secular government to provide condoms to people in high risk groups for HIV and it is not anti- Fundamentalist for the SAT’s to limit scientific questions to those that conform to evolutionary concepts.

The government is not requiring the Catholic Church to change policies or piety for Catholic members and the government is not requiring fundamentalist preachers or their Sunday Schools to read and believe Darwin.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 19, 2005.

Robert

you are driving us all towards the meandering mean. is our understanding of Christ a function of time?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), January 19, 2005.

Robert, anon wasn’t talking about government condom policies, but about how the majority of influential commentators in the supposedly “neutral” media have a semmingly automatic bias against Christianity in general and against the Catholic Church in particular. So much so that any unsupported rumor or report which casts the Church in a bad light is generally reported as fact. Oh sure they get a quote in response from a Church spokesman, but it’s nearly always reported with a tone of “yeah, right, we know he doesn’t really believe that!”

Almost INVARIABLY, the Church’s position on every issue is misrepresented and distorted, and then that distortion is criticized and lampooned as if the Church itself produced it. It would be OK if they reported what the Church actually teaches and does and then criticized that, but they generally don’t. We don’t necessarily need more Catholics in the media, just more people who are willing to honestly and impartially report about the Church and its beliefs and practices.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 19, 2005.

Dear Ian;

I am not sure what you are driving at...

Dear Steve;

Before you get too upset with the secular (I assume meaning - liberal) media and commentators being ignorant about Catholic (or Protestant) doctrine and teaching, I remember when Sean Hannity first arrived in New York and was starting on the local WABC radio station. He was expressing the perennial whipping boy of the winter holidays of “Crèche vs. Menorah.” During his diatribe, he began to say that all things religion should be taught in the public schools.

(I am paraphrasing)… “Why people are even afraid to talk about the immaculate conception of Jesus. It is a matter of Christian faith and others should know how important it is to us.” It was not a slip of the tongue. He kept at it for about 10 minutes until a Catholic priest called up and told him to stop talking, suggesting that he return to classis to distinguish between the Immaculate Conception, which all Christian churches do not affirm, and the Virgin Birth, which all Christian churches do affirm.

I was painting my dinning room and almost fell off the ladder laughing.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 20, 2005.

You had no right to be laughing. Despite the brashness of Hannity; who often makes statements about the faith (he's Catholic) on shaky ground.

Every protestant lives in some degree of religious error. It's inherent in a sectarian denominational existence. I'll grant you don't personally broadcast it to a vast audience. But there are scores of non-Catholic preachers on the air spouting plain nonsense every day. REAL poor religion!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

Dear Gene;

Obviously, we will agree to disagree as to the validity of each other’s particular doctrinal claims… but, my point was that secular commentators or reporters – liberal and conservative – do not always understand what they are talking about, but it is not because they are “out to get” one religious group or another.

I don’t pay too much attention to TV Preachers (Protestant or Catholic). Theology aside, there is something missing… a disconnect if you will… about preaching the gospel to people and not be part of their life experiences.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 20, 2005.

Anon stressed one point too: That more qualified Catholics ought to become mainstream journalists and join the media; supporting our holy faith whenever appropriate. Instead of simply cringing at the bias that is never absent in the reporting today.

Whoever denies this bias needs to pay closer attention. You said: ''Secular commentators or reporters – liberal and conservative – don't always understand what they are talking about, But it is not because they are “out to get” one religious group or another.'' But anon cites a few ''--actively anti- Catholic media tycoons running most of the show, from AOLTimeWarner to MSNBC to the New York Times,'' who can definitely be pointed out as anti-Catholic. It comes with the territory; a lot of these powerful figures being of Jewish extraction. Maybe not ''out to get'' us; but not very warm friends.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

Reverend Fretz

I happened to listen to Hannity that day, and like you I could not believe what I had heard. I believe that he is a product of what is taught (or not taught), in today's Catholic high schools.

I attended a first communion and the lector said to each child, "Come to the table of the Lord". It does not sound Catholic.

If he said" Come to receive Our Lord" it would have had much more impact.

-- John Smith (A@A.com), January 20, 2005.

Please, Mr. Smith; with all due respect:
Don't fault the educational arm of the Catholic Church. We here know your agenda, Sir. That's short-sighted. Good schools may teach the truth, and poor students don't always connect with it when they're green and running with their gang. I saw such students in high school. So have you.

Moreover, HOME is where God is worshipped with devotion and constancy. Schools have rarely been so creative or persuasive that a Sean Hannity automatically graduates as a Catholic scholar. But if he learns from Catholic parents, his faith can't get any stronger. I'm one who can say this truthfully.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2005.

Dear Gene;

It is often easy to write something in these abbreviated comments that do not truly reflect one’s thinking… I am assuming that is the case in regard to your comment about the “Jewish Extraction” of editors and owners of the press. I am sure you did not intend it to mean what it implies, particularly as we approach the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz - that started with a real ghetto.

The news media reports the news and not our particular press releases we like to see about ourselves in the media. For the most part, the media doesn’t say much (positive or negative) about churches or religious groups – particularly when it deals with beliefs - because they know that it can be a “third rail” that will cost them readers, viewers, and advertisers.

However, when there is bad news to report the media is all over it. Not because they are anti religious, but because there is a social expectation (which we endorse) that religious groups are supposed to teach, preach, and live a higher ethical standard than the secular community. When we fall – it is big news, whether it was about priests with altar boys, Amish drug rings*, or Jim and Tammy Baker ripping off the people who bought time shares in their religious amusement park.

Many religious people get defensive when they hear critical analysis about their particular tradition after their religious community decides it should get involved in political life. They feel their tradition or organization should not get the same kind of scrutiny as other PACs or political parties. That kind of insulation from the media is not going to happen – and it shouldn’t. The media will (or should) follow the money, check the facts (or misinformation), look at personal and professional associations in the leadership, and look at the line that gets crossed between secular politics and religious doctrine. For the media to do less would be to fail their responsibility which was given to them in the 1st Amendment as a free press.

*PS What is “clomp, clomp, clomp, clomp, bang, bang, bang, clomp, clomp, clomp?”

An Amish drive by shooting.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 21, 2005.

I've loved Jews all my life. If I had Jewish blood I'd be proud of it.

Above all, Jesus and our Blessed mother, all the apostles, many saints-- all are jews. I say ARE, not were. They live and they're Jews in heaven.

So it's not racial bigotry, but impartial observation that leads me to some conclusions. Many Jews of immense wealth and power do control media and entertainment; nobody can deny it. Hollywood, for instance; where Mel Gibson has been reviled for his great film. And that's an insignificant example.

It's outright fashioning and manipulation of the news which some have invested gazillions of dollars into. It's a strategy aiming at government policy and diversion of taxes where they further some liberal agenda or pander to a particular lobby. One is abortion. You never see the media treating the subject of abortion impartially. Ask yourself why?

Who pays for that? Mainly the producers; and after them the sponsors. And, if just some of these want the Catholic Church neutralized, they exert that power.

They don't believe in Jesus Christ, after all. Nor are they taught to love Jesus in any of their synagogues. SO: I shall always love them. But I won't fool myself that they're all friends of the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.

Gene;

I’ve decided not to continue this conversation. I am sincerely disappointed in your response.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 21, 2005.

I'm willing to let you disagree, and let you go.

I don't hold anything against you, and there's no hard feelings.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.

However, I've forgotten to mention something very important. I didn't mean to imply the practice was consistent or even frequent. It may not affect all the media all the time. But we see it all too often.

Nor are all producers or financers of programs and news involved. Certainly there are many who are honestly doing the best they know how.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 21, 2005.

Eugene, you also omitted to mention that the “Jewish” anti-Catholics in the media are nearly all purely NOMINAL Jews who do not practice their religion, but merely identify with their ancestors’ cultural heritage. Anti-Catholics in the media are mainly atheist/agnostic, with a large proportion of EX-Catholics.

Robert, we don’t object to people having non-Catholic points of view or reporting the genuine “Bad news” about the Church’s members. What we object to is people constantly MISREPRESENTING the Church’s views. In many cases this misrepresentation is obviously deliberate rather than out of ignorance, and is apparently intended to spread disinformation and hatred against the Church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 23, 2005.

With all that I've said above; it's a serious sin to denigrate Jews or think vile things about their faith. Catholics should know they live the spiritual inheritance of Our Lord the Holy One of Israel.

My remark above only refers to how news & entertainment media exert great moral influence on the world at large. This can be impartial or slanted, decent or hedonistic, materialistic, etc., Once it was aimed against the left, nobody denies it. At this juncture it's basically controlled by Jews. I'm not imaging this.

Today what seems prevalent is a leftist liberal bias. We understand the majority of American Jews are blameless for things done for money in the media; and/or political influence. But even they often grow up within a culture of great distrust and aversion to Christian society, owing to their millenia of grievances. Even if the individual grew up in an atheistic or secularly oriented Jewish community. Some actually expect the ''goy'' to be unjust. One of the typical Religious Right caricatures, especially. To these persons, a devout Catholic is the right- winger par excellence. It shouldn't come as a surprise that once he becomes powerful, a man of that background will hardly be sympathetic to the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2005.

In my personal experience, it is generally those Jews who are most fervent about practising their own faith who have the most respect for and knowledge of the Catholic faith.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 23, 2005.

Dear Steve;

Please cite your sources - which articles from the NY Times, Newsweek, Time, etc.. which broadcasts from ABC, CBS, and NBC... misrepresented Catholic doctrine, belief, or piety.

Since it is so common, you should be able to cite at least 10 expamples (about 10% of articles). Guessing there are about 100 articles and broadcasts per month across the country regarding activities of the Catholic Church, you shouldn't have a problem pointing to specific times the "liberal media bias" gave an untrue report against the Catholic Church or its beliefs.

Statistically, to be a bias "against" an issue or organization, a media organization should be above 50% negative 'opinion - editorial' or mis-statements about that organization.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 24, 2005.

Dear Robert:
The quantity wasn't in dispute, until you ask for a stat. It's the prevalence over time. You may downplay how some network news have demonized a Christian presidential candidate, because you see eye to eye with them. Or the distrust and contempt shown by many Jews (as well as atheists) in Hollywood, with not only Bush but anybody who denounces lechery, free love and abortion. See how these people bashed the President at their fund-raisers. Vile, crude attacks every day, and in public. He's not a catholic, but he espouses most Catholic ideals. They ridicule his faith. The studio heads particularly.

My personal feeling (remember, my HUNCH) about the deep animosity displayed by almost every Jewish commentator and critic for Mel Gibson is--

He showed millions a view of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ with startling realism. It awakened new compassion and love for Our Lord among mostly believers. --However, it seems fair to estimate hundreds of thousands of Jewish viewers would see something life-changing, which they'd not experienced before. This potential for conversion has to have alarmed a rabbinical minority at least. How many Jews might see Jesus in a new light, thanks to Mel Gibson?

Therefore the disgust so many critics displayed. No good reviews; except by the conservative few. Roger Medved, a Jewish critic, was probably the sole example of fair commentary. Even Charles Krauthammer, one of our country's sharpest minds, called The Passion Of The Christ ''blood libel'' and Jew-baiting. I don't think all are speaking for themselves. Some are under orders from production and industry heads.

But I'm rambling. If you don't agree with me, it's OK.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.

Gene;

I wasn’t going to get into this with you again, but you prove my point – there is no explicit or implicit anti catholic bias in the media. To cite that being for John Kerry as being anti Catholic hardly proves your point. As far as criticism of Gibson’s film – he was the one who declared that those who criticized it were being anti Catholic. It was a move to protect his film and sensationalize it the same way that D.W Griffith did with ‘Birth of a Nation.’

When the NAACP sought to boycott ‘Birth of a Nation’, Griffith was offended that there would be people who would question his honor and patriotism. Being the first film to be shown in the White House, people like Woodrow Wilson and other political leaders declared that this is ‘history as it was.’ They promoted the idea that those who criticized the film sought to undermine (white) American society. It was a brilliant strategy for Griffith.

People attended or did not attend “The Passon” on its own merits (I chose not to see it on the basis of the promotional clips and advertising by Gibson’s production company – I prefer Franco Zeffirelli’s “Jesus of Nazareth” ). But, at no time did Time, NBC, CBS, or any other major media outlet said or implied, “Gibson’s film is proof that the Catholic Church is bad.”

If writers and commentator’s such as Krauthammer thought it carried a Blood Libel, I would be inclined to listen to their reasoning. After all, they can point to the real ghettoes where that libel was turned into blood, Jewish blood.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 24, 2005.

Opps...

"But, at no time did Time, NBC, CBS, or any other major media outlet said or implied, “Gibson’s film is proof that the Catholic Church is bad.”

Should read:

"But, at no time did Time, NBC, CBS, or any other major media outlet say or imply, “Gibson’s film is proof that the Catholic Church is bad.”

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 24, 2005.

We have no way of knowing; although I have to concede your point. It wasn't my aim to show any perverse vendetta against the Church or even religion; on the part of the news and entertainment media.

I didn't even stress Mel Gibson, except to mention the animosity he aroused.

You may consider the media elite as impartial. Go ahead; it's your privelege. The only thing my post suggests is that Jews in the industries are no friends of Christianity. They may otherwise be very honorable men. Or, when they unite against a Christian such as BUSH, the real worry in their mind-set is that candidate's religious faith. Anybody on the ''Right'' is suspect, to the Jews in America. They're associated with Christ; whether in a Catholic or in a fundy Christian capacity. And to them it means anti-semitism.

Do I see this reflected in Time and Newsweak? Not every day. More so in Hollywood; and in politics.

Do I regret the many injustices done against Jews in our past? naturally. More than they could guess. My heart goes out to them; not least because I consider them all a figure of Jesus Himself. And they've been a light to the Gentiles. Jesus said so Himself.

In His parable of the Prodigal Son, we see the Gentiles as the son who was dead, and now is alive to their father.

And the elder son who complains to Father; that is Israel, the Jews, after the coming of the New Covenant.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.

Robert, “liberal media bias” is your phrase, not mine. Many of the misrepresentations come from conservative sources. I don’t agree with Eugene’s sweeping implication that all Jews are “liberal” and all Catholics are “Right-wing”.

“Statistically, to be a bias "against" an issue or organization, a media organization should be above 50% negative 'opinion - editorial' or mis-statements about that organization.”

Nonsense. Unless you’re making the preposterous assumption that all articles which are not biased against the Church are positively biased IN FAVOR of the Church. If only 1% were biased against and 99% were fair, balanced and neutral, that would be an unacceptable bias.

Specific examples? You’re surrounded by them. Try http://www.catholicleague.org/2003report/media2003.html

But that’s just a few of the most egregious examples of deliberate and obvious Catholicophobia. Far more common are the casual snide attacks, which most people don’t even recognize as attacks, because they see them so often they assume they must be true. Things like mentions in passing that the Church has targeted and killed millions of peaceful non-christians, scientists, heretics, witches; that the Church “condemns homosexuals”; that it opposes abortion, contraception etc because it is opposed to people enjoying themselves and/or wants to keep women in subjection; that it is run by megalomaniac and fabulously wealthy dictators who ruthlessly harangue and harass people to increase their power; that every time a Catholic publicly expresses views which are opposed by the commentator, he must be gagged because he is trying to impose his religion on others/the State; that it wants to reverse all scientific, political and social progress made in the last several centuries; that it wields immense power over national governments, etc. etc. These are simply presented as truisms. Catholics are rarely given a chance to respond to these calumnies, except for the purpose of lampooning the response.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 24, 2005.

Steve--
You ''-- don’t agree with Eugene’s sweeping implication that all Jews are “liberal” and all Catholics are “Right-wing” -- ''

Did I make that sweeping implication? Show us, please. In first place, we aren't talking about all Jews. I even contemplated the fact that Christ is Jewish; His holy mother, the apostles. And in our day, I'm referring to the wealthy and powerful Jews who influence public opinion; not Jews at large. Not any more than I pointed to Catholics at large.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.

Sorry Eugene I must have misunderstood the implication of your statement "Anybody on the ''Right'' is suspect, to the Jews in America. They're associated with Christ; whether in a Catholic or in a fundy Christian capacity. And to them it means anti-semitism."

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 24, 2005.

May I define this as their pre-occupation about us? Not the factual place where Catholics stand; either to the left, center or right? The term Religious Right in fact strikes fear in many Jews' hearts. They associate it with rural militias, fascists, the Klan and pogroms overseas.

To be fair, all of these have a ''Christian'' facet; despite being unjust. Jews rarely distinguish our wheat from our chaff; particularly in the political arena. That's why they reject Republican candidates out of hand. That's why Hillary Clinton of Arkansas was accepted as a real New Yorker. Her opponent for the Senate was qualified; but he was ''one of those fascist Republicans''. I've actually HEARD those words bandied about by an otherwise brilliant Jew. This isn't imaginary. Jews don't trust many Christians in this country.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2005.

Fair enough, but isn’t Hillary Clinton a Christian? Aren’t there just as many (or maybe only slightly fewer) Christians among the Democrats as among the Republicans?

And I'm sure you'll think this is just political correctness, but I really think you need to be a lot more careful with your broad declarations about what "(all) Jews" think, vote, or are brought up to believe. Jews argue among themselves just as much as Catholics do.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 25, 2005.

Once more you're interpolating the word ''all''. I didn't suggest that at ALL. This is their general mind- set: Jews are angered and frightened by any suggestion of fascism. (Who's blaming them?) To New York Jews, even a carpet-bagger was preferable to the Republican candidate (Who, if I recall correctly is a Catholic?) And, to call Hillary Christian is dubious enough. There is not even a shade of the fascist in her; but rather the socialist; making her OK with New Yorks Jewish community.

But, come on; you must know all this. Argue with somebody else if you must.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.

Steve;

Where to begin?

I will agree that there is ‘anti-Catholicism’ in the way some people behave. It is usually expressed to me regarding worship by my traditionalist church members who get upset if we use music, art work, or liturgical forms that seem “too Roman.” But, I have seen similar concerns regarding worship on this board between those who like and dislike the changes of Vatican II. That is about the extent that the non-Catholic laity or society in general cares what Catholics believe in regards to their faith, piety, and worship.

As to history and facts – no one likes misinformation being passed around about themselves or the faith they embrace. More often than not, misinformation is passed along as fact because the person who is doing the communicating is lazy, not malevolent. However, non- Catholics don’t have a lock on passing along misinformation. One example is constantly lifted up on this board regarding the “divisions” within the Protestant Churches. 20,000 – 30,000 – 50,000 churches with differing theologies have been cited. (I can’t wait until the number hits 100,000) This “fact” has been identified, clarified, and corrected numerous times… but continues to be repeated as “proof” of the unreliability in Protestant Churches.

Misstatements on this board have also been made about the lives of Martin Luther, John Calvin, George Washington (being a closet Catholic), Freemasons, and associating traditional Reformation denominations with fringe sects like Christian Identity and the KKK.

It has been said many times on this board and by commentators like Bill Donahue and Richard John Neuhaus that the media surrounding the abuse scandals is unfair and being promoted by the ‘anti-catholic’ media. Aside from the normal ‘blood in the water’ feeding frenzy that is associated with any scandal, this has been long-lived because 1) the high moral standard and spiritual authority that the Catholic Church claims for itself, 2) the fact that Catholic Church administrators and bishops covered up the problem in various ways that made their dioceses liable to civil penalties. The bishops seemed to help throw themselves off the very high pedestal on which they perceive themselves to be standing. It is newsworthy.

Finally, when reviewing the list you provided from the Catholic League regarding anti Catholic bias in the media… you seem to prove my point that there is no overt bias by our major media outlets. Citing a few bad films, Cindy Adams, and the Philadelphia Trumpet (do you even know that that is?) reminds me of the fable of the Princess and the Pea. “Me thinks thou doest protest too much.”

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 25, 2005.

Dear Rbt,
Your last is a ponderous post, numbering so many unreasonable things it's hard to know how to contest it. You are probably gone for the day; I hope you see this later.

You gave us: ''Misstatements on this board have also been made about the lives of Martin Luther, John Calvin, George Washington (being a closet Catholic), Freemasons, and associating traditional Reformation denominations with fringe sects like Christian Identity and the KKK.''

We're not always right here, but neither are we seen by the public as the regular news. Those outlets that distort the truth almost daily about religious faith (not just the Catholic Church) have a responsibility to investigate, check, verify --what they offer the public. Leaving all that aside, you still make some misleading statements about this forum.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, George Washington (being a closet Catholic), Freemasons, et al, have been treated very fairly by Catholics here. The George Washington item was only presented as conjecture; we have no reason to insist on that one. By that criterion, it's not a ''misleading statement.'' The other ones we can substantiate for you, if you need something certain from us.

We have no false premise to build upon any so- called ''association of traditional Reformation denominations with fringe sects like Christian Identity and the KKK.'' They are only examples of how so many Christians are totally blinded to the truth, following self-ordained ministers. Are you somehow unable to see this? It's no misleading statement.

We don't believe every sectarian church (you call them traditional Reformation, a misnomer) falls to the corrupt level of the KKK, or the Branch Davidians, or Rev Jim Jones' Kool-Aid Christians. But, in fact these bow-wows share one indisputable characteristic with your church, don't they? Sola Scriptura; the Bible only for your rule of faith. Which, to tell the truth isn't taught anywhere in the Bible! They also reject the Catholic faith and the Popes; same as almost all of your ''traditional'' Reformation sects do. These are two major pitfalls for non-Catholic Christians, on the way to reunion with the Church of the apostles.

As for: ''[Our] passing along misinformation. --lifted up on this board regarding the “divisions” within the Protestant Churches. 20,000 – 30,000 – 50,000 churches with differing theologies have been cited. (I can’t wait until the number hits 100,000) This “fact” has been identified, clarified, and corrected numerous times… but continues to be repeated as “proof” of the unreliability in Protestant Churches.''

I can see where this would crush your feelings, Robert. It's unflattering, all right. But-- Even if we should say with greater charity and understanding, only 500; a mere 500 --differing sectarian groups had been distilled from the great efforts of Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, et al; --That would still be a blot on them all. There could never be 500 distinct churches claiming to teach the truth without any ties to the Church of the holy apostles. --Nor 500 (cull that down, 100-- ) distinct and differing TRUE interpretations of the Holy Bible's truth be acceptable to anybody who is open to Jesus Christ's infallible authority. We KNOW there are easily 20,000 non-Catholic assemblies today, all intent on teaching what Christ taught. The denominations descended in history from 1500 A.D. roughly. They can't be called ''the Church''.

But the Catholic Church rightly claims nearly 2,000 years as the Church of the Holy Gospel; our Universal Church. She has been saving souls for Christ since the days of Augustus Caesar. Where is the rationale for raising any other church in her place?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 25, 2005.

Dear Gene;

Sorry for the length of the last post but it was in response to Steve on Jan. 24. I will attempt to make this summary as short as possible.

I have never denied that there are separate entities within the Protestant communities, and yes, some divisions occurred because of less than enlightened reasons (example: When the Southern Baptists left the American Baptist Convention over the issue of slavery). But, there is a commonly repeated maxim applied from Catholics to Protestants that equates different polities to different and antagonistic theologies – and that is not the case.

There is one fundamental Reformation foundation that is based upon Luther’s five point summary. Note that polity is not part of that summary.

There are three theological ‘wings’ if you will, built upon that foundation – Lutheran (or proto-Reformation Church), Reformed ( influenced by Calvin), and the Anabaptist. Note these three wings use different descriptions regarding theological concepts and have differing worship and piety expectations. They do not contradict the foundation indicated by Luther.

Polity was not a Reformation ‘ultimate’ concern. Even when Luther and Calvin wrote of united Reformation Churches replacing the Catholic Church as the “true” church, there was little interest or effort to recreate a multinational uniform polity.

The different polities of the Reformation Churches reflect national and cultural identities as much as theological distinctions (example; The Church of England maintained the traditional Catholic forms of worship and national polity but its theological statements were decidedly Reformed in content). Protestant traditions are unified in that their polity is by council (Acts 15). And while Reformation Churches do grieve over antagonistic Christian disunity, they do not find a solution in organizational uniformity. An example of this can be seen in our various interdenominational councils.

While it has not been automatic, many historic Reformation Churches within the United States recognize each other’s clergy ordination and sacraments while maintaining their particular polity and raditions.

I do not expect you to change your mind as to the “correctness” of the Reformation but simply seek to clarify its historic process and different theological priorities.

As far as the unifying feature of Koresh, Jones, Moon and the like… it was not “scripture only” that they demanded. Rather, they sought to create a uniform group of followers with an unquestioning and unswerving allegiance to their teaching and authority – a decidedly un-Reformed belief and polity.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 26, 2005.

Sorry... missed this "...while maintaining their particular polity and traditions...

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 26, 2005.

Robert,
When Christ gave to Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, wasn't He leaving the Church to him, in this world? Later on, promising to send the Holy Spirit, who would teach His Church all the truth; was Jesus over-reaching?

You may be correct; ''There is one fundamental Reformation foundation that is based upon Luther’s five point summary. Note that polity is not part of that,'' --underlying all those diverse denominations and making of them one reformed Church.

If only we saw in the gospels, or the epistles and writings of the early Fathers, a prophetic warning; that with time, Peter's keys would no longer open or close anything. Indeed, as one out-cropping of the ''fundamental Reformation'' there would be real Christian sects coming; ready to call Peter the Anti- Christ and the Church Christ founded; to whom He sent the Holy Spirit --would be called the whore of Babylon.

That's quite a fundamental reformation! They're Bible Christians, Robert. Just like Lutherans and Methodists and Calvinists and ''non-denominational'' assemblies.

Isn't this all unnatural, from the roots upward? Whereas, the Church hasn't abandoned Peter. Peter is the same Rock; and actually only ONE of a legion of saints and holy martyrs. All whom stand opposed to a fundamental reformed ersatz Christian faith. We are ONE faith; confirmed even before the NT scriptures themselves. And Christ wants us to be one faith; not a myriad.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 26, 2005.

Gene;

You know as well as I do, hyperbole is not the sole possession of the Protestant churches. The Vatican, writers on this board, and Ask Jesus use overblown language to push their point. “Invincible Ignorance,” “the sin of Americanism” and calling the United States a “faithless land” (a real surprise for those who think the founding fathers formed a Christian nation?) are just some of the comments from Rome over the last two centuries that may have official internal meaning but calls into question whether the Vatican would be a genuine partner in the process of “healing our divisions.”

While I have never seen or heard St. Peter being called the anti- Christ, that term was equally shared for the leaders of the opposing sides during and after the Reformation. The “whore of Babylon” was also directed towards Geneva by Rome. I wouldn’t be surprised if London was also a target of Rome’s verbal flourish during those early years of the Reformation.

As to unification or unity: for Catholics – it appears the “keys to the kingdom” is power ultimately dependant on the polity to which allegiance is demanded; for Protestants – “the keys to the kingdom” is the Gospel preached which opens the heart and soul for God’s elect. Failure to preach the Word closes the gates of heaven. Polity does not confer salvation.

Besides, I think most people (Protestant and Catholic) would agree that dealing with the realities of polity (church politics) either at the local or synod level has the ability to sap the life out of you. It reminds me of the jackets Vietnam vets used to wear: “When I die I will go straight to heaven because I spent my time in hell: Viet Nam.” Ours would simply read, “When I die, I will go straight to heaven, because I spent my time on the Property and Grounds Committee.” … that’s a joke, Gene.

I have to leave the office now, so have a good day.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 26, 2005.

Thanks Robert for your posts.

I would like to direct your attention to a couple simple facts: the Church Jesus Christ founded was not to be national - but international. So the mere fact that Protestant churchs broke apart along ethnic and racial lines ought to tell you something...

Similarly, the Church founded by Jesus Christ was to be composed of people who were taught by the apostles (*not a book) to obey ALL his commands, not just those they chose to accept.

The Acts of the apostles is pretty clear in painting the picture of the problems men get themselves into while misinterpreting scripture (cf. Antioch) and their need to bring their arguments to those who have the gift of teaching authority for resolution (the apostles).

Since that's the way it was throughout the New Testament and we see nothing about the apostles' mission being accomplished by the death of St John, or some marvelous event whereby their private letters were magically made self-interpeting and authenticating (*Philemon), we have to conclude that this teaching authority resides in their living human successors, not in any dick or harry who calls himself Pastor and reads the bible as translated by an English King.

To claim therefore that Luther discovered some aboriginal Christianity that was based on sola scritura and sola fide is to engage in wishful thinking. Such extra-biblical and extra-traditional beliefs don't reflect what we know both in scripture itself and from tradition of the early Church fathers... none of the early councils were attended by proto-protestants but by Bishops whose theology was remarkably like our own - as like a sapling is to an adult oak.

For Catholics - it is simply impossible to believe there are two Churches of Christ... we distinguish between rites and spiritualities...differences of language, culture, and method, but hold to the idea that we share the same orthodoxy...

the How we live our faith may differ, but the WHAT we believe must be the same or we're either schismatics or heretics.

Amazingly though, Protestants seem to not have a problem with differences in orthodoxy. Perhaps that's just my opinion...but then, please explain how a man who believes Jesus brings his grace to souls through sacraments is really believing the same thing as a man who believes there are no such economies of grace involving outward signs...?

Or the man who believes that there is no difference in meaning among the words: Salvation, Redemption, and Justification...and the man who does hold that major differences exist conceptually between them.

Could both be right? If the Churches they found hold these views as essential, are both right?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), January 26, 2005.

Joe:

Most Reformation Churches work within councils so there is no problem coming together to resolve the issues you speak of as done in Acts. The early church had territorial limits on their bishops (that surprisingly coincided with national, city, and cultural boarders) and the bishops were elected by the Christian community they oversaw. If I recall correctly, bishops were not allowed into the territory of another bishop without the host bishop’s permission. Most Reformation Churches work within one variety or another of those limited polity. (Except the travel restrictions).

The Reformation Churches have no difficulty with orthodoxy of the Apostles, rather it is what gets added to the theological bag after the fact. Instead of clarifying, the faithful are weighted down like Pilgrim during his journey. From our point of view, less is more because we are not distracted from the Gospel proclaiming salvation… more than that is devotional at best and superfluous at worst.

Just what do you demanded of orthodoxy? Regarding the sacraments, it appears the holistic unity (following the Hebraic unity of body and soul) of doing Baptism and Communion/Eucharist (which was the specific command of Jesus) is superseded by a presumed – but unasked for - uniformity describing the (Greek) metaphysical function of the sacraments. Even St. Paul’s instruction to “discern the body” (or “Lord’s body” in some manuscripts) is done in context of self examination so the sacrament is shared with other believers in a worthy manner – not whether we think the bread is an avatar for Jesus.

Finally, living with multi-layered meaning is not unknown to the early church. Take another look at the explanation of the Trinity… a paradox… a mystery?

Each uninspected, unconditional, and unnecessary item we claim to be orthodoxy becomes a stone in the wall that separates us. I suppose it comes down to the same dilemma Robert Frost posed in “Mending Fences;” Do you believe good fences make good neighbors or is there something that doesn’t love a wall?

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 26, 2005.

"Just what do you demanded of orthodoxy"??? Even grammar check didn't get that one. Good night, I'm going home

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 26, 2005.

This kind of blarney won't get my answer, Robert. How you can muddy the waters!

I only hope that on the last day you can bargain your way into heaven by this manner of argument; if Jesus finds it amusing. It was to be expected you'd have no sound rationale.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 26, 2005.

Robert, you know we’re not talking about the fact that some protestants don’t like to use liturgies which are similar to Catholic ones. They’re entitled to their point of view. That’s a totally separate issue.

“As far as the unifying feature of Koresh, Jones, Moon and the like… it was not “scripture only” that they demanded. Rather, they sought to create a uniform group of followers with an unquestioning and unswerving allegiance to their teaching and authority – a decidedly un-Reformed belief and polity.” Sounds very “Reformed” to me, in fact it’s exactly what Luther, Calvin, Knox etc, did.

“The “whore of Babylon” was also directed towards Geneva by Rome.” If this ever was said in an official statement I’m sure it hasn’t been said for centuries. OTOH there are STILL plenty of official public statements by protestant leaders TODAY calling the Catholic Church “the whore of Babylon”.

“when reviewing the list you provided from the Catholic League regarding anti Catholic bias in the media… you seem to prove my point that there is no overt bias by our major media outlets. Citing a few bad films, Cindy Adams, and the Philadelphia Trumpet (do you even know that that is?) reminds me of the fable of the Princess and the Pea. “Me thinks thou doest protest too much.”

You seem to have missed what I said immediately after giving you that reference: “But that’s just a few of the most egregious examples of deliberate and obvious Catholicophobia. Far more common are the casual snide attacks, which most people don’t even recognize as attacks, because they see them so often they assume they must be true. Things like mentions in passing that the Church has targeted and killed millions of peaceful non-christians, scientists, heretics, witches; that the Church “condemns homosexuals”; that it opposes abortion, contraception etc because it is opposed to people enjoying themselves and/or wants to keep women in subjection; that it is run by megalomaniac and fabulously wealthy dictators who ruthlessly harangue and harass people to increase their power; that every time a Catholic publicly expresses views which are opposed by the commentator, he must be gagged because he is trying to impose his religion on others/the State; that it wants to reverse all scientific, political and social progress made in the last several centuries; that it wields immense power over national governments, etc. etc. These are simply presented as truisms. Catholics are rarely given a chance to respond to these calumnies, except for the purpose of lampooning the response.”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 26, 2005.

Steve;

While you are pointing to my splinter, might I suggest you deal with your log.

You have just done what you are crying foul about in the paragraph equating Koresh and the like to the initial leadership of the Reformation. It is a caricature which is historically and theologically untrue. It is no truer than saying that Jews used the blood of Christian children for Passover matzo.

As far as name calling, please find a single reference by an elected or appointed leader of an historic Reformation communion that has used the phrase, “Whore of Babylon” to identify the Catholic Church. This includes the National Council of Churches of Christ- USA, the World Council of Churches, and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches.

On the other hand, I would suggest you look at the work of Cardinal Ratzinger in August 2000. "DOMINUS IESUS" was a boulder placed in the path of Ecumenical Christian dialogue, damning with faint praise. (If you find one or more… or even a few thousand individual ministers or freelance commentators who have equated Rome and Babylon, allow us the same caveat claimed regarding some of your wayward priests – The sins of individual priests or bishops (in this case, ministers) do not diminish the good work of the church.)

Finally, I have yet to hear or read a single non-catholic tell Catholics what to believe, what discipline to follow, or what pious behavior must be observed to be good Catholics. No one really cares if a Catholic must follow the Pope, decline to use birth control, restrict homosexual partners, and prohibit abortions. Please remember St. Paul, “For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge?” (1 Cor. 5:12) If you deem certain behavior and beliefs “un-catholic”, so be it.

But, when you (or I) attempt to push our particular disciplines beyond our congregations into the secular and political world – expect that the gloves are off. If you believe the cause is worth it (as the Civil Rights movement was) then the churches and synagogues take their lumps and live with it. But, don’t get into the fight and then complain that someone hit back and attribute it to “Catholicphobia.” That’s ranks with WASP’s complaining about university minority slots as reverse discrimination. And, if your feelings are hurt when comedians or political cartoonists lampoon the church… comfort yourself with the old Hollywood maxim, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”

Peace

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 27, 2005.

There's much to approve of in your rather lengthy post, Robt.

Certainly we ought to accept the good fortune of being God's holy people with the poor fortune that comes with it. Jesus Christ warned us the way would be hard. ''But I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you . . .'' and, ''No servant is greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you also; if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.''

That's the lesson we must learn as we live in the world.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 27, 2005.

Also; "Keep your left up."

Good night all.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 27, 2005.

Robert, I didn’t “equate” Luther, Calvin and Knox with "Koresh and the like". I merely said that they also “sought to create a uniform group of followers with an unquestioning and unswerving allegiance to their teaching and authority”. Maybe “an historic Reformation communion” as you define it doesn’t use such invective these days, but other protestants certainly do. I get leaflets using the phrase “whore of Babylon” dropped in my letterbox quite frequently. Sorry I can’t tell you which protestant denomination they are from, as I have thrown them out. OTOH the worst criticism you can make of Cd Ratzinger re protestants is that his praise of ecumenism is too faint.

“I have yet to hear or read a single non-catholic tell Catholics what to believe, what discipline to follow, or what pious behavior must be observed to be good Catholics.” And what’s this got to do with anything?

“No one really cares if a Catholic must follow the Pope, decline to use birth control, restrict homosexual partners, and prohibit abortions.” Really? There is a massive push by governments, media commentators, “celebrities” etc, to encourage Catholics to “ignore the Pope” on these issues, or else lobby the Pope to “change his outdated teachings”. (They seem to think that they might be able to get a Pope to say that contraception, abortion, sodomy etc are OK, as if morality was just a matter of the whim of the current Pope!)

Yes I CAN take a joke and I don’t mind my feelings being hurt by people who hate the Church. I just find it annoying that so many people in the media PRETEND to be fair and impartial while presenting an extremely partial slant against the Church. I’m not complaining about the existence of this hatred. Christ warned us “you will be hated by all men on my account”. I just find it incredible that you seriously maintain that the hatred doesn’t exist.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 28, 2005.

Steve; Keep working on that log.

I’m surprised that you have equated the authority and significance of "DOMINUS IESUS" by Cd Ratzinger with some guys in your neighborhood passing out obnoxious flyers.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 28, 2005.

I’m sure it’s not just in my neighborhood Robert. It’s everywhere if you open your eyes. I’ve lived in several States, in cities and the country, and have found the same sort of thing. While I don't agree with everything Cd Ratzinger says, he certainly doesn't heap this sort of abuse on protestants.

Anyway there's no need for you to be so defensive. As I said above, most of the anti-Catholic content in the media comes from atheists and agnostics, not protestants.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 28, 2005.

Actually far from hating protestants, wasn't it Cd Ratzinger who publicly condemned the recent shocking case of Christianophobia in Sweden, where a protestant pastor was convicted of "hate crime" for merely reading out in his own church, verses of the Bible which mention that sodomy is a sin?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 28, 2005.