Non-Catholics for Church 'Reform'

jerseyshorejohnny

Well-known member
Non-Catholics for Church ‘Reform’

By ROBERT P. GEORGE / Wall Street Journal

Oct. 13, 2016


Arthur Schlesinger Sr. said that anti-Catholicism is “the deepest bias in the history of the American people.” I don’t know if that’s true anymore, as I don’t run into much anti-Catholicism from ordinary Americans.

Yet I can’t say I’m surprised by the noxious anti-Catholic bigotry contained in emails exchanged between leading progressives, Democrats and Hillary Clinton operatives. These WikiLeaks-published emails confirm what has been evident for years. Many elites, having embraced secular progressivism as not merely a political view but a religion, loathe traditional faiths that refuse to yield to its dogmas.

John Halpin of the Center for American Progress, writing in 2011 to Democrat bigwig John Podesta, was exercised over the fact that Rupert Murdoch and Robert Thomson, then-managing editor of The Wall Street Journal, “are raising their kids Catholic.” The horror!


“Friggin’ Murdoch,” Mr. Halpin went on, “baptized his kids in Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus.” He evidently has a problem with Mr. Murdoch wanting his kids to be baptized where Jesus was. But Halpin’s complaint went further: “Many of the most powerful elements of the conservative movement are all Catholic (many converts) from the [Supreme Court] and think tanks to the media and social groups.”

Mr. Halpin also offers his half-baked theory of what draws people to Catholicism. “They must be attracted to the systematic thought and the severely backwards gender relations.” Surely something must be done about those backward Catholics.

Mr. Halpin, in another message, this one to his Center for American Progress colleague Jennifer Palmieri, continues the tirade: “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they are talking about.”

Thus does Mr. Halpin dismiss what Cornel West, a man of the left but one who is admirably critical of anti-Catholicism, describes as “a deep and powerful tradition of thought.” Mr. Halpin also tosses aside an idea, subsidiarity, that Catholic and non-Catholic political theorists have long found compelling. Though it isn’t shocking that progressives are threatened by a principle of decentralization which posits that decisions should be made where possible by non-governmental institutions of civil society or local rather than central governments.

Ms. Palmieri wrote, “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.” Apparently it is inconceivable that people become or remain Catholics from honest reflection. The contempt Mr. Halpin and Ms. Palmieri exhibit for faithful Catholics is matched only by their loathing for the faith itself—and perhaps their maligning of evangelicals as uncouth bumpkins.

But what about Mr. Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman and himself a Catholic? Another email went to him, this one from Sandy Newman, founder and president of the liberal activist group Voices for Progress. “There needs to be a Catholic Spring,” the non-Catholic Mr. Newman ordered, “in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church.”

Was Mr. Podesta offended by Mr. Newman’s effrontery? Did he rise to defend the honor of the faith he professes to hold? Did he protest the proposal to subvert its teachings? To instigate a rebellion for political reasons?

Mr. Podesta endorses the suggestion and even assures him that organizations bearing the name “Catholic” (but, of course, unapproved by the church and outside its authority) have been created. He claims that the “Catholic Spring” Mr. Newman has called for is already being planned, though it’s not quite ready for execution:

“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.” Mr. Podesta and his associates had already set up and funded the front groups to foment the rebellion that they hoped would whip the Catholic Church into line.

Speaking to a trusted colleague, Mr. Podesta felt no need to hide the fact that these groups are political operations constructed to masquerade as organizations devoted to the Catholic faith. He and his allies created them to subvert the church’s teachings and witness—produce the rebellion—not advance them. The groups are progressive and Democrat—not Catholic.

Where do you suppose Mr. Podesta and his friends went to get the money to fund the phony “Catholic” groups? The Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights discovered, to no one’s surprised, that the effort was backed by progressive billionaire George Soros, another non-Catholic.

The bigotry on display in the emails is that of people who claim to perceive bigotry everywhere, even where it does not exist. Some on the left have perfected the technique of smearing their political opponents by dismissing dissent from the dogmas of secular progressive ideology—on, say, abortion or marriage—as bigotry. This tactic has only bred more hatred toward traditions of faith that uphold traditional moral values, such as Catholicism, evangelical Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism and Orthodox Judaism.

Neither presidential candidate has an admirable record of respect for religion. Mr. Trump has been rightly called out for whom he associates with, and Mrs. Clinton should be held to the same standard.

She vowed in the second presidential debate “to be the president for all Americans,” regardless of politics or religion. Given her closest advisers’ animus toward faithful Catholics and evangelicals, millions of Americans ought to be skeptical—especially if they’re unwilling to put politics before faith and common decency.

Mr. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, was chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (2013-14 and 2015-16).
 
Incredibly accurate, well written article. The mere fact that Catholics aren't outraged by these obvious attempts not only to silence church teachings, but to refute and distort them. Clearly the liberals in control of the Democratic party are deeply angered by the fact that the Church has moral teachings which conflict with their party views. Its been several years now, but the Democratic party changed the rhetoric, calling far left liberals "progressives" to soften the association between the left and socialism, while at the same time calling prople of faith fanatics and radicals.
 
I think Mr. jerseyshorejohnny, that the liberal Dems' animus is not directed at 'Catholics' or 'Catholicism' per se, but toward the extreme right wing version of 'yesteryear' practiced by Murdoch, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, et al...that is, in my view, antithetical to the modern Church's social teachings as well as the wisdom taught by Jesus.
For example, Messrs Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito have issued opinion after opinion that eviscerates personal rights and liberties for the benefits of big money and special interests in erasing anti-trust decisions that had stood for over 100 years to negating election protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1965 to denying employees rights versus employers to allowing a Tsunami of poisonous money and influence into our politics (Citizens United).
And Mr. Roberts as I recall was one of the 'architects of Reagan's 'Southern Strategy...the infamous panoply of 'dog whistle' tactics to welcome all the old Southern Racist Democrats into the Republicans' Circus.
That's the outrage, jerseyshorejohnny and I view it to be justified.
 
I think this article is alarmist election season nonsense. The church has views and people with different perspectives will continue to criticize and critique.

I personally, as a non catholic (non religious actually) don't care at all and don't think it is worth the energy to analyze the beliefs of the church. It is after all a purely private and voluntary organization. And a long as it remains private and voluntary, its dogmas really don't matter. I actually think the biggest liberal critics of the church by far are liberal catholics and ex catholics. (the biggest illiberal critics, evangelicals & muslim extremists are another matter)

As a graduate of a catholic university graduate school I can appreciate the contributions the church has made to education and charity in this country, despite no longer personally believing in any of the religious stuff
 
What this article pokes at is the actual reason for the Constitutional separation of Church and State - that the State not meddle in the affairs of the Church and allow freedom of religion. These powerful voices that lurk in the shadows want to silence and disconnect the moral influence that the Church, especially the Catholic Church exerts and demands of believers via its doctrine. By creating intentionally false narratives that name organizations as Catholics when they are not remotely such, they are attempting to create a moral dialogue where the positions of the Church are absolute. Abortion in the moral of the Catholic Church is an absolute evil not open to dialogue. The role of women in the Catholic Church is a private matter not open to intervention by outside forces. Imagine if these same liberal forces attempted to pervert Islam by creating groups called Islamic Women for Religious Rights, or Jews against Sabbath Observance?

No these groups for now, are safely off limits, because they do not represent 29% of the voting public, as the Roman Catholic Church does. Liberals know that their moral ethics are directly in contrast with the Church, causing Catholics who may favor social justice solutions of the Democratic Party to recoil and move to the right. The biggest problem that I had 30 years ago with Mario Cuomo is that he appeared to speak as a Catholic leader with his explanation on why he supported abortion rights though being personally against. His carefully chosen rhetoric was subtle and confusing to the Catholic electorate when their own Church leaders held (and hold) that abortion is absolutely and that the rights of the unborn to life must be protected in our society and world.

So if you aren't particularly religious, and say you aren't alarmed, you should be. These liberal ideologues know that shaping your thought is the first step in controlling you, and they want to control your moral thought to be in step with theirs in ever widening the Democratic tent in a quest to obliterate the two party system and control American politics and thought. If you think that the mainstream media isn't cooperative with this effort, you are sadly mistaken.
 
I think Mr. jerseyshorejohnny, that the liberal Dems' animus is not directed at 'Catholics' or 'Catholicism' per se, but toward the extreme right wing version of 'yesteryear' practiced by Murdoch, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, et al...that is, in my view, antithetical to the modern Church's social teachings as well as the wisdom taught by Jesus.
For example, Messrs Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito have issued opinion after opinion that eviscerates personal rights and liberties for the benefits of big money and special interests in erasing anti-trust decisions that had stood for over 100 years to negating election protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1965 to denying employees rights versus employers to allowing a Tsunami of poisonous money and influence into our politics (Citizens United).
And Mr. Roberts as I recall was one of the 'architects of Reagan's 'Southern Strategy...the infamous panoply of 'dog whistle' tactics to welcome all the old Southern Racist Democrats into the Republicans' Circus.
That's the outrage, jerseyshorejohnny and I view it to be justified.

Your sense of history is misguided at best and intentionally distorted at worst. Southern Democrats began to flee the Democratic Party as early as 1946 when the great President Harry S. Truman began a series of sweeping civil rights changes that the long segregated South had trouble accepting, beginning with an executive order to desegregate the military in 1948, and by formation of the President's Committee on Civil Rights in 1946. He ushered in the first Civil Rights legislation, which was so unpopular across the United States, that he popularity totally collapsed. Truman was a GREAT president whose unwavering support against political guidance caused the formation of Israel with full US support. It's a shame the Democratic Party, while embracing but not furthering Civil Rights, has abandoned Israel in the process in favor of giving equal time to their middle east enemies.

But let's not confuse the issue. The liberals have stolen the Democratic Party, and their attempts to move Catholics away from the tenets of their faith is the lowest and worst form of political espionage and anti-religious warfare.
 
This really is nothing new under the sun here. Everyone, conservatives, liberals, religions have always attempted to control the thinking of people. There have been critics and reformers of doctrine for as long as there have been doctrines.

Religious "purity" really isn't valuable at all, and reform & innovation inevitable

All of this angst about the so called liberal influence in society is just a generational-cultural conflict btw old and new of the sort that has always existed. And always will
 
This really is nothing new under the sun here. Everyone, conservatives, liberals, religions have always attempted to control the thinking of people. There have been critics and reformers of doctrine for as long as there have been doctrines.

Religious "purity" really isn't valuable at all, and reform & innovation inevitable

All of this angst about the so called liberal influence in society is just a generational-cultural conflict btw old and new of the sort that has always existed. And always will

When you covertly have atheists who form groups with names like "Catholics for change", it's an attempt to deceive members of that faith into thinking that the group has been formed by members of that faith.

To put this into terms you as a non-religious person may appreciate better, this is in line with attempts of the Clintons to illegally and unduly influence the State Department to have them escape the criminal consequences of mishandling top secret government classified information, for destroying subpoenaed evidence, for having the DNC act as an arm for the Clinton campaign to work against Bernie Sanders. This is not your standard political fun and games - this is underhanded, criminal, and unethical political behavior at worst. 40 years ago, Richard Nixon was forced to vacate office for being aware of the Watergate break-ins without actually participating in them. What he did, compared to Hillary Clinton, would make him eligible for the Nobel prize by comparison.
 
This thread evokes both "oy vey" and "Madre de Dios" responses. I think the directionality of the First Amendment to the Constitution is dual, prohibiting government from curtailing freedom of religion and from becoming an instrument of religion.
 
This thread evokes both "oy vey" and "Madre de Dios" responses. I think the directionality of the First Amendment to the Constitution is dual, prohibiting government from curtailing freedom of religion and from becoming an instrument of religion.

I'm surprised you would take this into that direction when there is ample evidence of the Democrats strategizing how to pervert religious messaging.
 
What direction?

By creating phony "Catholic" movements, George Soros funded organizations are attempting to create an apparent Catholic dialogue to lobby in favor of abortions, gay marriage, and women's roles in the church. The issues aren't important except that in those cited areas, Catholic Church teachings are fundamentally against liberal philosophy. It's all an attempt to attack the church seemingly from within its own laity, while causing enough confusion on the part of the laity that these topics are actually up for discussion within the church, when they are not. It's deceptive intentionally to get more Catholic voting for a party that includes in its platform positions that the Catholic Church fundamentally oppose. You see, they aren't brace enough to say, "We liberals hold this up to be correct teaching even though your church teaching opposes it". Instead they want to create a movement that topples the church hierarchy, which is what internal wikileaks has revealed.
 
As someone who is not a liberal and who is profoundly secure that his ignorance of all religions is unmatched on this board, the tactics you describe sound Leninist. However, my impression is that doctrine is in fact an equilibrium of competing views at any moment in time and that with Pope Francis the equilibrium in Catholic doctrine is shifting.
 
As someone who is not a liberal and who is profoundly secure that his ignorance of all religions is unmatched on this board, the tactics you describe sound Leninist. However, my impression is that doctrine is in fact an equilibrium of competing views at any moment in time and that with Pope Francis the equilibrium in Catholic doctrine is shifting.

If there is change, I think you would agree that doctrinal change and subsequent Catechesis must come from within, and not from attempts from outside forces who simply want the votes of the faithful by creation of confusion as to change church moral teachings to fit the ideology of the party.
 
As someone who is not a liberal and who is profoundly secure that his ignorance of all religions is unmatched on this board, the tactics you describe sound Leninist. However, my impression is that doctrine is in fact an equilibrium of competing views at any moment in time and that with Pope Francis the equilibrium in Catholic doctrine is shifting.

I have two daughters now becoming 4th generation teachers and 3rd generation to teach in a Catholic school. (I did teach a short time but not in a Catholic school) I knew it was bad but I'm really learning some things if anecdotally from them, on just how misinformed both the parents and children are in our Catholic schools are as to what being Catholic means. So it is easy to see how someone outside would be a lot more confused or misinformed.

You cannot really use Hollywood to understand Catholicism. In Catholic faith, doctrine is immutable. It does not shift. Not even a Pope can change doctrine. Doctrine is that which is formally believed. "Pastoral" on the other hand is how things are taught. In other words, this is how the apostles - (bishops in the Catholic faith have an unbroken line from the original Apostles) teach and lead people on that deposit of faith - doctrine. The Hollywood version is that the Church is a bunch of rules and everything is dogmatically taught but this is not true. Life is way too complicated to have a law for every situation. You have larger doctrine that guides every situation.
 
Back
Top