New Page 1

I have been on the opposite side of two fences from Bigots. Because of my Jewish background, I have been called “Heb”, “Jew boy” and “Jew Bastard.” Because of my Catholic Faith, I have been called “Mackerel snapper, “Idol worshipper” and instructed to “..go to the Chancery to find out what you are supposed to think.”

In spite of my personal pain from these insensitivities (which come not only from the great “ unwashed” and the uneducated, but also from the “beautiful” people, even in religion), I have tried, under God, to understand the WHY of these persistent and cruel barbs. It appears to me that (at least in many instances) the nature of prejudice is essentially very much the same no matter what ugly face it assumes. I think anti-Semitism, anti-black-ism, anti Hispanic-ism, anti-sexuality AND anti-Catholicism all spring from the same basic ignorance, underdevelopment, inferiority feelings and fear. Different persona, same dynamic!

This position was presented many years ago by Dr. Gordon Allport in his monumental book THE NATURE OF PREJUDICE.

In any event bigotry is dishonest, untruthful and deeply unjust. Reading Philip Jenkins’ provocative recent book, THE NEW ANTI-CATHOLICISM, subtitled The Last Acceptable Prejudice (Oxford University Press, 2003), has sharpened my insights why Catholicism particularly has become the punching bag of the media, special interest groups, academe, politicians and the big mouth at the local bar.

The reason? “The Catholic stance is a continuing affront to upholders of the powerful contemporary idea that religion is fine so long as it is held privately, on an individualistic basis.” (page 7, On Limits of hatred) Abortion, contraception, genetic research, school vouchers, Marriage annulments, extra marital sex behavior, all provide material to “ hate” the Church which insists on the right to espouse unpopular causes! Is this why Peter Viereck holds that “..Catholic baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.”? Or why Tony Kushner, of THE NATION, dismisses Pope John Paul II as a “ homicidal liar” who “endorses murder”? Or why Slate magazine compares the Pope to “ hatemongers” like Louis Farrakhan?( 3/13/00) Or why there is differential sensitivity relative to the Catholic Church? And why is it that so many people will not admit to the very existence of anti-Catholicism?

I am told that the attacks are against the Pope personally (who is a giant of a man, with enormous intellect and profound spirituality, loved for his compassion, character and fairness) and the Church as Institution but not against the Catholic people as such. Yet, as Jenkins points out if the Church is so wicked and so homicidal what does this say about the millions of people who deeply believe in it as it provides the basis for their identity?

Clearly, it leads to contempt for practicing Catholics whose Faith must reflect some kind of weakness or internal repression or unnatural subservience to authority.

The National Lampoon featured a multiple-choice question for its readers: “ Only a very____________person believes in Catholicism”.

I recall Catholics such as Aquinas and Chesterton and Augustine and Pasteur as well as Bill Buckley and Judge Borke and Claire Boothe Luce --- but none of them could be called “ stupid.” Did the Lampoon make an honest mistake? Was it just sloppy writing? Or was it a plain lie?

The authoress Tammy Bruce, in her new book THE DEATH OF RIGHT AND WRONG ( Prima Publishing, 2003) offers further insight into the massive onslaught against the church. She, as a lesbian and feminist, can speak from the INSIDE of the question. She writes that the Church is the target of the Left in this country( while others are not) because we ( to the Leftists) represent the greatest threat to their “ hollow agenda.”

As an example, she illustrates by citing the unbelievable action of ABC ( May 23, 2002) when the network bleeped out the word JESUS from their program, The View, so that “ viewers wouldn’t be offended.” There was no fear of offending Christians but great fear of offending THE ELITIST LEFT. Where was ABC’s concern about the offense that might be taken when Chastity Bono proclaimed the joys of lesbianism or when a show on Victoria’s Secret is aired as an alleged show on fashion which in fact had nothing to do with fashion, with no consideration that family oriented viewers might be offended? Why is not ABC concerned about offensive words and bare back sides on their show NYPD Blue? Doesn’t this sound like selective concern about hurting people’s feelings? The real offense, as Tammy Bruce writes, is the hypocrisy! And “…that people at ABC think we are going to believe them. Now THAT is offensive.” The contempt implied in all of this “ treatment” can hardly be ONLY towards Catholics but Christians in general_- and I suspect towards anyone with a reasonable decent view of life!

Selective sensitivity becomes glaringly apparent with the play CORPUS CHRISTI which portrays a gay Jesus having sex with the apostles. When OFFENDED Christians protested, the Gray Lady, the New York Times, indignantly condemned the protesters for “ bigotry, violence and contempt for artistic expression” while saying nothing about the anti-Christian bigotry and lying in the play itself. Why are some sensitivities so carefully protected and nurtured but not Christian (specifically Catholic) ones? We, rightly, are deeply concerned about the feelings of Jews, homosexuals, Muslims, Blacks and Hispanics but what is it which allows society to deny that Christians also have feelings about which we should also be deeply concerned? Is it bigotry which permits such discrimination and distortion of the truth, i.e. the lie?

Factor to try to understand the furor about the Mel Gibson movie on the Passion of Christ. Taken entirely from the Gospels, the Movie, from the accounts of most pre-screen viewers, has no anti-semitic implications whatever. It is a powerful depiction of Christ’s last hours ( perhaps the most graphic and moving ever done). Basically, it is about the Love of Jesus for ALL human beings, regardless of ethnicity, creed or nationality. The focus of this Movie is NOT on Jews but on JESUS! It is about the redemption of ALL of us by a caring Lord. In fact, it is the result of a profound personal conversion of Gibson which moved him to try to present artistically and accurately the value of the human being. I, as a half- Jew, am, of course, aware of the horror and savagery of the Holocaust (and anti-Semitism in general) and am consequently anxious that nothing of that bestiality ever happen again to us---- or to anyone. Not only have I been on the painful end of anti-Semitism but I am also aware of my inevitable Dachau-type destiny had I lived in Munich in 1933 when I was 12 years old.

However, factually, Jesus was Jewish as were His family and His general environment. Factually, again, SOME of His fellow Jews disagreed with Him even to the point of hatred. To say that the Gospels (and consequently Gibson) present Jews collectively as the agents of His execution is akin to saying that because SOME Americans historically lynched innocent Negroes ALL Americans are members of the lynch Mobs! And to extrapolate from that illogic to the “Jews are Christ-Killers” lie is psychotic! Perhaps, then, all staff writers on the New York Times are plagiarists because one or more stole material and lied!

The illogic contained in such bigotry might be understandable in three year olds but in someone who has studied even minimally a freshman course in Logic 101, such a position shrieks BIGOTRY (dishonesty and lying) or at least primitive ignorance. Some of Christ’s fellow Jews DID conspire against Him and this should be honestly stated. However, He was executed by Romans according to Roman custom and law even if goaded by a certain group of envious Jews. But let us recall that Mary, His mother, and Peter and John and Paul and hundreds of others were Jewish! It seems to me that the fundamental skill of making distinctions is essential - - - in life generally and certainly in the case of Mel Gibson with his monumental and sincere work, underwritten, mostly, by his own money.

When a prominent anti-Catholic Catholic warns that reading the Gospels alone without proper guidance (presumably from enlightened ones like himself) can be “dangerous”, I am astonished at such a utilitarian argument! We have been teaching and pleading with our people to READ the Gospels for themselves fully trusting that the Holy Spirit will speak to the reader in an appropriate and personal application. Now because such a practice might not serve the tirade against the piety (and certainly the artistic and creative expression) of Gibson, we are told it can be “ dangerous.”

Nevertheless, it is important that we be sensitive to others’ feelings even if in disagreement. We all have to look at ourselves, to face our own demons and to take PERSONAL responsibility for the consequences of our own actions. This means listening to the pain of others (and that includes me in both directions). But, I and millions like me are deeply offended by coarse, scurrilous and now commonplace imagery and scurrilous imagery insulting my faith. For example., John Leo ( US World News and Report, 11/9/99) notes with his usual acuity that “…in painting and sculpture the bashing of Christian symbols is barely noticed……the virgin Mary coming out of a vagina, Mary encased in a condom, Mary in pink panties with breasts partially exposed, an Annunciation scene with the angel Gabriel giving Mary a coat hanger for an abortion, Mary pierced with a phallic pipe….” There seems to be little concern that such statements might be offensive to Catholics many of whom are asking whether or not there is a selective or differential norm of sensitivity in this country? Or they to be excepted from an otherwise universal norm? But such Catholic offense is barely noticed!

It is the “Barely noticed..” factor which as John Leo says, is the point. When John Cardinal O’Connor, a deeply respected and loved religious leader, died in May of 2000, the gay magazine Time Out New York called him “..the pious creep…..Good riddance…” He was called a “ murderer.” They had chanted at him: “ You say, don’t f- - k! We say F- - k you!” There were no tirades. It was “ barely noticed.” Why not? How come?

In a protest Demonstration at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, one “protestor” took a Communion wafer Which to a Catholic is the Body of Christ, threw It to the Ground before the Cardinal, and shouted: “ That’s what I think of your God.” Any of us who is a believing Catholic would be horrified by this sacrilege. But the demonstrators BOASTED that they offended Catholic sensibilities! But it was barely noticed! How come? The protestors really breaking the Law are given a token “sentence” of some community work days which caused even the demonstrators to laugh. The judge, liberal and feminist, gave them no lecture on respect for others’ belief, or tolerance OR THE LAW but praised them that they were in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln. So, Catholics are now asking is there One law or Many? Or does it depend on whose Ox you gore?

At the Sharon High school in Sharon, Massachusetts, two boys dress up as pregnant nuns and a third as the impregnating priest. Then the FACULTY awards the trio First prize in the costume contest. The offense to Catholics was barely noticed. Why not? How come? The Catholic league was told that the school was particularly sensitive that no offense be given to Muslim students after 9/11. Does that make Christians fair game? Especially Catholics? Or is it that the conditioning is only for certain special interest groups and that it never even occurs to authority to “ sensitize” students to anti-Christian bigotry? How does one reconcile the 1992 US Supreme Court’s stance on “ symbols” which arouse “ anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, CREED, Religion or gender…”? And to “ some unspecified person”? We can cite endless instances of Catholics who saw or read about the multiple offenses like “ Piss Christ” or the displays at the Brooklyn Museum and who were deeply offended but equally deeply ignored. Are these Catholics to be excluded from the Supreme Court’s “ sensitivity” decision?

We wonder about the desecrations in the Brooklyn churches in 1999 and 2000. The decapitated statues and the defaced art and the hate mail left behind leave no doubt of sacrilegious intent. Why isn’t anti-Catholic behavior, verbal and physical, noticed?

When the “ demonstators” in the Cathedral in Montreal attack the Catholic sensitivities, pasting used sanitary napkins on the walls and throwing used condoms on the altar, why are they not arrested? Jenkins wrote that the misbehavior is overlooked by the Police because of the “ good faith” intent to give an opinion on a religious subject!!!!!!!

Why this double standard? Is Jenkins right to imply that in the context of American history, it is CHRISTIANITY (and probably, as Bruce says, Catholicism, in particular) which is the Last Bastion of morality, decency and values? But Why this insatiable urge of the Left toward the vague, the empty and the lost?

Is there some kind of robotic trend to self destruct? Is there some kind of agenda?

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that for evil to prevail, it must mask itself as a good. So, for the human will to reach for anything, that for which it reaches must present itself as good and right and desireable. This is called “ the lie” the favorite device of the one who fathers all lies. Is it beyond possibility that the bigotry is part of the evil one’s plan?

So, how determinative is the "lie" or " false impression" (as defined on page 1) in the perpetuation of the now obvious anti-Catholic prejudice? Even to admit the existence of prejudice would be a monumental forward step if one is to believe the insight of Andrew Greeley who in 1977 wrote of this prejudice as an "ugly little secret." Today, the bias is well known as Arthur Schlesinger Sr. writes: ".the deepest bias in the history of the American people" and John Higham describes anti-Catholicism as "..the most luxuriant, tenacious tradition of paranoiac agitation in American history.."

However, there are signs that the American Catholic people are beginning to sense that there IS bigotry against them BECAUSE they are Catholic. Yet, they, patient, peace loving Christians, have the same guaranteed constitutional rights as all Americans. So, some now ask are we being punished, not because we break any law, but because of our beliefs?

Perhaps, the famous "I'm not going to take it anymore" syndrome is beginning to surface even in the Catholic leadership. Recently, the Chicago Sun Times published a story with the following headline: POPE LAUNCHES GLOBAL ASSAULT AGAINST GAYS. The distortion or false impression or Lie was so blatant that the Chicago Cardinal, Archbishop Francis George, usually a placid and irenic man, threw aside his prepared customary Sunday homily and blasted the newspaper for unfair and un- ethical practice. The Pope did no such thing as the headline implied! The Pope simply re-asserted traditional doctrine on Sexuality saying, basically that the plan of the Creator, in our view, is that the use of sexual faculties belongs ONLY to a man and a woman united in lawful marriage. To assert that such a stance is an assault on any Particular group is to use the Corkonian hyperbole of " Pulling a long Bow." It is using the hip modern idiom " Pushing the envelope". Probably it is accurate to cite Tammy Bruce when she states that contemporary bias is traceable to the Church's condemnation of before birth killings and of the ever increasing level of sexual disorder, particularly same sex acting out. Who else, as a large group, OFFICIALLY opposes a morality built on desire?

In spite of the failures of individual Catholics who have acted AGAINST Catholic teaching, the Church bravely insists on requiring it members to strive for the ideal! It does not cave in to the powerful winds of secular Pressure but continues to OFFICIALLY teach a morality based on truth. And this is unacceptable to those who slip into the category of “ bigot” as defined by this essay.

Cardinal George in an unusual cautionary tone observed that HISTORICALLY such attacks on Catholics are usually followed by ACTIVE persecution. Has it already begun? An African Cardinal who believes in and teaches the authentic Catholic teaching was invited to deliver the Commencement address at a prestigious American University generally perceived to be in the Catholic tradition. When his talk reflected the Orthodox Catholic teaching and practice, some Faculty and graduates walked out in the middle of his talk simply because he articulated the Catholic view of life and its meaning. And this from a culture which argues for diversity in thought, particularly on higher levels of the educational experience!

And observe the political arena! The Attorney General of Alabama, William Pryor, a practicing Catholic noted for his consistency in applying the LAW as it stands, regardless of his own personal views, has been nominated for Circuit Court of Appeals by the President of the United States. A United States Senator has told him that he, in effect, is unfit for the Judgeship BECAUSE OF HIS DEEPLY HELD VIEWS. Pryor had the unmitigated gall to tell the committee: "I believe that not only is ROE un supported by the text and structure of the Constitution but it has also led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children." Such honesty and courage will probably cost him the nomination but win him what the Catholic Eye calls “ Brownie Points” at the Pearly Gates.

The above mentioned Senator argued that Pryor's record screams advocate but not judge yet Pryor's record is impeccable as a lawyer and as an American willing to uphold the law even when he disagrees with it. Even in the recent Alabama fracas on the Ten Commandments, Pryor implemented the Law against Chief Justice Moore with whose views he would be more personally empathic. What does all this say to us? The New York Times believes that Pryor's views fall OUTSIDE the political and legal mainstream and, by implication, he is to be excluded from being a judge because of his convictions. Senator

Orrin Hatch summed it up by saying a Pro-Life practicing Catholic is now ineligible to hold a judgeship. Unless he embraces a Pro abortion stance or becomes entirely mute on his real convictions, his chances of being appointed are virtually nil. What has now happened to the Catholic's right to free speech and free expression of religion? In effect, his rights are being annihilated by bigotry and lies. Obviously, some Catholics have "accommodated" to win public office. They are in Congress and the Courts. And that is their right. How they adapt to Christ's warning about winning the world and losing their souls might mean a rather elastic but poorly formed conscience.

A recent “cartoon like” depiction of the current anti-Catholicism has significantly ruffled some Catholic politicos who consider themselves open minded, tolerant and free to support propositions inimical to the Catholic moral “ position.” The cartoon shows a sign hanging on the doorknob of a judiciary building, Catholics need not apply! These public officials in Congress have become incensed that THEY should be called anti-Catholic. Yet, there seems to be a new category for discourse: the anti-Catholic Catholic. The CATHOLIC EYE (March 2003) lists 14 Catholic senators (mostly Democrats) who pledged their allegiance to the “ tacked on” Partial birth abortion item. (Clearly an item antithetical to Catholic values). Jenkins lists some “Catholics” of this genre who belong to the media/academic world, e.g. Anna Quindlen, Lisa Cahill, Katha Pollit,Maureen Dowd, Eugene Kennedy, Garry Wills, Aquinas Sipe……….. who in their rhetoric deploy a ferocious range of anti-Catholic arguments which are readily amplified by the most fervent anti-Catholics (Page 156).

Charles Krauthammer, M.D., psychiatrist and political commentator suggests the sign should have the word “serious” precede the word Catholic. Others suggest that “ observant” would help to clarify the position. In any event, the point is being surfaced that muddled, compromising, “Open minded” Catholics have become duplicitous. We now feel quite justified in asking whether or not these “Catholics” have sold out their Ancient Faith for a political approval? As an example, we have the “Catholic” congressman from Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy reacting in dismay when the Holy Father clarifies our position on sexuality urging Catholic politicians to reaffirm our traditional view of marriage. The Pope is alleged to have “ crossed the line” in his appeal. Should Martin Luther King been silenced when he said “if any earthly institution conflicts with God’s will, it is your Christian duty to take a stand against it.” Was this crossing the line? Or is this more selective sensitivity?

I have heard the tired old “saw” justifying the present assault on the Church because of “ pedophile” priests. For years, I have been in the forefront urging the dismissal of priest perverts of the Geoghan/ Shanley category. I have also urged that homosexual candidates with previous same sex acting out experience be rejected for entrance into the seminary. (The same rigor might be extended to heterosexual candidates.) But as a psychologist, I dearly wish there were some accuracy in the nomenclature. Psych 101 teaches that “pedophile” refers to sexual behavior with children who are pre-pubescent or roughly under 12. The OVERWHELMING percentage of unfaithful priests acted out with teenagers roughly between 15 and 17! It is called ephebophilia! In street talk, it is homosexual behavior. In the scandal instance, it is adult males having sex with teen age males! Pedophilia occurs in both heterosexual and homosexual pop1ulations whereas what happened with these unpriestly priests was almost completely in the homosexual population. It is estimated that 96+% of the victimizers were homosexual. Dare we advert to the obvious link?

Jenkins, with huge courage and rigorous scholarship, insists that the “Scandal” is traceably and inexorably connected with the one word: “homosexuality.” Is this why certain Media cloud the issue by insinuating (inaccurately) that the victimizers are both homosexual and heterosexual? Is this part of the anti-Catholicism stemming from “Gay” activism?

Statistics are often boring yet they can be useful in determining truth. For example, the big studies which are so conveniently overlooked or cited in small print indicate that from 1940 until 2000 there were 1.8% of priests who were evil, predatory and certainly unfaithful to what their Church required while 98.2% were at least basically faithful. This figure cited in the New York Times included ALL Catholic priests in the nation. Why, then, is the focus on the 1.8%? While that figure represents a totally unacceptable number of sinful and (usually) homosexual priests, why is there such a fierce, vengeful and bitter assault on so many good and holy men? Is Tammy Bruce right when she opines that the Catholic Church is the real enemy to the Homosexual agenda?

The old chestnut - - celibacy - -the prototypic red herring, is, of course, front row center. Gloria Steinem claims that because of the celibate requirement, NATURALLY people will engage in sexual molestation. Naturally,she says, the celibate one develops into a predator. Why, then, asks Bruce, are there so few priests involved in this tragedy? Why aren’t nuns going batty and molesting girls? In fact, most molesters and rapists are married or have girl friends. The feminist community knows this well and Bruce calls Steinem “ reprehensible” for misrepresenting the facts. ( Page 84)

Patrick J. Schiltz, Professor of Law at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, gives a realistic perspective in his article in COMMONWEAL magazine (8/15/03). He claims that there is NOTHING new in the coverage of these terrible scandals. We have known these things for over ten years and he has challenged the media to come up with a story NOT covered over the last decade. No one has really met his challenge.

He notes the great silence on the disappearance of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and in virtually every major religion. The Louisville Courier Journal analyzed 185 cases filed against the Archdiocese and found that precisely ONE had occurred since 1990, (the one exception to his challenge). What, then, fuels the Media to convey the false impression (lie) that the problem is current? The fact is that the Catholic Church has mounted a huge ecclesiastical D-Day invasion and has had “ stunning success.” Compassion, counseling, financial support have been abundant from the Church in spite of the anecdotal horror stories one reads in the Supermarket magazines. Those who have been abused by priests deserve our care and concern and time. They must have, and in many instances are getting, every help we can give. In the early nineties I, personally, served for five years on a certain Board put together to work on clerical sexual abuse cases and I have seen the great work done by the Church in this country. In the light of what I KNOW from my work experience in this field, it is sometimes difficult for me and many others to avoid cynicism when we hear the alleged motive for accusation “ to protect children.” Meanwhile, the actual accused are often dead, in nursing homes or alzheimeric. The noble tone in the accusation is often accompanied by such statements as “ I only want him to get help so that he won’t hurt other children…” while “he” has often been off the life stage for decades! Or the classic “I’m not doing this for money - - well, just a little for my expenses, a few million would do! And the allegedly altruistic lawyer whose purported concern is basically “just to help others” while one prominent attorney was reported to have said “….there is a lot of money to be made from the Church.” It seems to me that the Dollar Sign is a very real motivation for many of these allegations some of which are truly calumnious or outrightedly false. Indeed, one victim, T.D.Ureker, who was abused by a priest and a teacher but who decided not to file suit remarked that should he sue, the priest would be the target rather than the teacher because the latter has no access to big money. (Commonweal Magazine, 10/11/92)

Harvey Silvergate writes in the Wall Street Journal (7/29/03) that the number 789 pegged as the complainant/ victim number in the Archdiocese of Boston is somewhat suspect because of the low level of proof accepted by the investigators . The mere fact that a complaint was lodged against the Church was sufficient for inclusion in the report. No further proof was needed! The Reilly (Attorney General of Massachusetts) report listed all complainants as “ victims” and then, says Silvergate, “..has the temerity to suggest that the actual number of victims is no doubt higher.” And this against the background of low level proof! Who is being gored here? And why? Jenkins, Bruce, Silvergate, Schliltz et al have given the answer. Catholicism seriously threatens the agenda and the future of the left. Personal license, particularly in the sexual mode, could be hampered by the Catholic code of morals. Hence, it must go or at least be so damaged that it can be deployed to the refuse bin of ineffectual religions.

Perhaps, there is no full explanation for the mounting world anti-Catholicism but the Scandals served a useful tool to open a vicious and unfair attack on Christ’s own Church! Some of us are wondering about the hand of the Fallen Angel, Lucifer. Is it beyond possibility that the anti-Catholicism is Satanic?

I suggest that there are three tenable conclusions we can draw from the above data which might then serve as some kind of strategy formation for those of us who care deeply about our Church.

1 defined as “ stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one’s own…” Random House Dictionary

2 defined as “something intended or serving to convey a false impression.” Random House Dictionary.