04 February 2012

Anti-Catholic Bigtory: A Rant

Excellent article on the contemporary resurgence of American anti-Catholicism:

". . .the new anti-Catholicism does not adopt the posture of a humble and teachable critic seeking to engage the Church on matters over which reasonable citizens from differing theological and secular moral traditions disagree. Rather, it seeks to employ the coercive power of the state to force the Church’s institutions to violate the Church’s own moral theology, and thus compromise, and make less accessible, the Church’s mission of charity and hope."

Anti-Catholic bigotry is un-American.  Hell itself will not prevail against the Church, so I'm little worried that the mewlings and machinations of pampered academics and other assorted leftist bigots will hurt the Church in the long run.

However, anti-Catholic bigotry can cause permanent damage to our liberty as American citizens, permanent damage to our republican form of self-government and the divinely gifted rights of individuals to worship and believe as they choose. 

Recent attacks on the Church by the B.O. administration are not accidental nor are they coincidental.  B.O. and his allies are going right to the core of our religious freedom by taking on the only institution left in this country that stalwartly stands against their statist agenda of radical secularism.  

Having chipped away at the foundations of liberty through dependency on the largesse of the welfare state and created a generation or two of state wards, secularists (with B.O.'s generous help) are now reaching into the conscience of individuals and coercing compliance to rules and regulations that are diametrically opposed to the basic truths of the Christian faith. 

It is one thing for secularists to expect Catholics to respect the rule of law and tolerate the easy availability of contraception, abortion, and sterilization.  It is quite another to order us to pay for the privilege of helping others to commit mortal sin. 

B.O.'s spurious claim that his Big Government grasp at power is somehow akin to "what Jesus would do" is truly beyond ridicule.  Does he think that Jesus would also expect us to surgically and chemically render women infertile? Or use scissors and vacuum pumps to remove unborn children from their mother's womb?  Where in scripture does Jesus order his followers to surrender their charitable responsibilities to Caesar's bureaucrats and tax collectors? 

Jesus expects his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick (Matt 25).  And that is exactly what billions of Catholic dollars and thousands of Catholics do in this country every year through Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals and hospices, and hundreds of other service organizations operated by the Church.  Why is this a problem for statists?  Competition.  The Church provides free health care to millions but it also operates without the preferred ideological/sexual agenda of the secular Left.  With the Church out of the way, those millions join millions more as dependent wards of the state, their liberty as citizens defined and regulated by their Enlightened Betters.  

Keep in mind that B.O. and his allies cut funding to the bishops' efforts to stop human trafficking.  Why?  The bishops were having UnGood Thoughts. . .about issues that have nothing to do with their work against slavery.  

Keep in mind that this administration sued a Lutheran Church for firing one its ministers, claiming that the 1st Amendment does not exempt religious institutions from equal opportunity employment laws.  In other words, the gov't should be able to tell churches who can and can't be ministers.

Keep in mind that this administration is charging pro-life activists all over the country with civil rights violations for exercising their 1st Amendment rights to speak freely about the evils of abortion.  

Keep in mind that this administration consistently refuses to use the phrase "freedom of religion" in its domestic and foreign policy statements, preferring instead "freedom of worship."  This is an aggressive attempt to shrink the religious liberty of believers down to the sanctuary. 

Keep in mind, political power is given not taken. 
Follow HancAquam and visit the Kindle Wish List and the Books & Things Wish List

Recommend this post on Google!


  1. Anonymous6:15 PM

    I wish I could disagree with any of this. I have heard several priests, even those I love and trust dearly making the claims that they do not believe that this is a deliberate attack on the Church from President Obama and his people. Unfortunately, I cannot help but disagree.

    Thank you Father for standing up for the truth in these times when few seem to have the intestinal fortitude to drop the politically correct talk and call a spade a spade.

    Jason W.

  2. See you in the reeducation camps.

  3. Trust me, Sub. . .I'm the last guy they want to put in a reeducation camp. Talk about Class Clown!

  4. Jason, I spent nearly 20 yrs lying to myself and others about the motivations of the Left. No longer.

  5. Anonymous1:20 AM

    Interesting Father. Thanks again...

    Jason W.

  6. Would be interesting to hear what changed your mind after 20 years.

  7. Anonymous3:49 PM

    Take a deep breath, Philip. The EEOC action against the Lutheran church school was initiated under the Bush administration, years before Obama was elected. Actions against a Lutheran church, moreover, are not examples of anti-Catholicism (or against Protestant pro-lifers).

  8. Deep breath taken, Anon., unfortunately, you're only seeing half the picture. Yes, W started it but B.O.'s DOJ chose the strategy for pursuing the charges. Even BO handpicked liberals justices wondered why they choose to attack the church on 1st amendment grounds, specifically, free association grounds.

    Have you read the opinion?

  9. Annie6:03 PM

    Hi Fr. Philip,

    First of all, I really appreciate that you have an open com box so that people who have questions or disagree can post here. Other conservative bloggers don't have that, and I find it frustrating.

    Ok. A few points about this case. The facts that underlie the case are not nearly as sinister as some have presented them to be. This Lutheran school decided to label a teacher a "minister" for the sole purpose of being able to fire her and leave her with no legal recourse. So as far as who is being a jerk in this case, it was the Lutheran School Administration. Then you get to the courts. It is completely procedurally standard for the DOJ to argue for its own laws. And it is an advocate's DUTY to choose the best strategy for litigation. That's how the adversarial system works - zealous advocacy on both sides, then the judges rule. No one would accuse Timothy McVeigh's attorney of being personally pro-terrorism. It is foundational in this country that each side gets an advocate, no matter how distasteful the mobs have ruled one side to be. This practice has spared our country many wrong turns. So, what we have here is a woman called a "minister" so she could be fired from her teaching post for no good reason, then the DOJ doing its job and advocating for its own anti-discrimination laws so that she can sue them for discrimination. In light of the facts, this position is not so monstrous. AND then the most important part - SCOTUS upheld the discrimination exemption even though they probably felt sorry for her, 9-0! They think religious exemptions are more important than that woman's right to avoid employee discrimination. And STILL I see it insinuated that we're living in a new Catholic holocaust under the most anti-Catholic president in history. It seems like what we have here is, if anything, a *broadening* of the religious exemption, because now the ministerial exemption applies to non-minsters. Seems like the church should be happy about this (and frankly, more worried that they will abuse their power to not discriminate, like the Lutheran School abused theirs), but instead I see this case invoked constantly to "prove" Obama's anti-Catholic agenda.

    I'm typing this all out because I myself was surprised to learn the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The bishops and Catholic bloggers don't need to resort to half truths and scare tactics, but for some reason, they are doing it anyway.

    Again, thanks for the open box. I know I won't change your mind - you made it up 20 years ago. I respect that, and I respect you. I, however, haven't made up my mind, and it helps me to talk about this stuff.

  10. Annie, the facts as you present them are stipulated.

    Now, had the BO admin on the argument they used, the precedent would've been set for the gov't to use ADA law to sue the Church for not ordaining women. The way leftist legal theory is sometimes characterized as the Slow Boil Frog. . .incrementalism. Pick a case. Win the case on an innocuous theory. Expand the theory in the next case. Win a precedent. The clearest example of this is today's 9th Cir decision ruling CA's definition of traditional marriage unconstitutional. It's based on a S.C. decision from the 90's which is based on a S.C. decision from the 80's and so on. . .

  11. Anonymous1:19 PM

    Boy, Fr. you are so spot on! I as well know many who are giving the administration the wink and nod. It's frustrating and disheartening when you know they're not seeing the entire picture.