Question

Back in the 1940's Paul Blanchard wrote a book entitled "American Freedom and Catholic Power." The thesis of the book was that the Catholic Church did not believe other religions had a right to exist, but when Catholics were not in a majority they would allow other religions to exist and propagate their views, until the Church gained sufficient power. He cited endless sources to this effect on the grounds that "error has no right to exist."

Now I am not interested in a detailed discussion of Blanchard's book, but it did come to mind as I have traveled catholic blogdom and the writings of Wiegel, Novak, etc. There position seems to be that the U S is a tradionally christian country, catholicism is the most 'informed' and best christian religion, ergo, the U S should should model its laws to conform to catholic teachings and that laws which do not reflect catholic teaching are not laws that catholics should follow.

I have stated this boldly because, even if this overstes Wiegel etc position, blogdom is aflame with this argument. One bloger insisting that the goal of the Church is to make this a "catholic country." This, of course, centers around the abortion issue. Wiegel claimes that any politician who does not support pro life views(anti-sex views) has severed his relationship with the church. And this applies to judges as well i,e. their decisions should not be based on the constitution and laws and the interpretation of such, but on catholic moral views. This would, of course, amount to the total corruption of our democratic system.

These bloggers and Wiegel etc suggest that all catholic social teaching, except on abortion, are not binding, but that the pro-life position is the only binding catholic social teaching. In addition Wiegel claims that mainline protestant religions should not be considered seriously,but only "evangelicals" with pro-life positions, not associated with mainline religions should be considered. In fact the Catholic Church can be aligned politically with the most anti-catholic churches, provided these churches support right to life. Methodist, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians,e,tc. who have a favorable opinion of catholicism are not to be respected because they are not pro-life enough.

I have stated before that our church, as far as many adherents are concerned, is simply a branch of the pro-life movement. I have seen a few catholics argue the "proportionality" view, but considering that all social teaching of the church have no finality except on the abortion issue proportionality has no meaning. I might add that Wiegel and Company have open scorn for the American bishops who they apparently see as weak sisters in the face of aborrent views.

Any views on this subject will be appreciated. Jack

Creeps

Just got back from a trip to Bedlam. Boy, if your faith isn't shaken by the 'far right' catholics, you're stronger than I am. How many times have I been told to "submit" to the magesterium, which I define as any in the catholic world supporting your view. Or at least that's the way the crazies define it. Joe Cecil once told me that , with its long history, and the billions of words written by clergy, you could support about any position. How true!!

The hightlight of my tour was to "Insidecatholic.com". This site starts off real nice till you find out it's stocked with "converts", "reverts" and ,well ........ I was going to say a word starting with "P", but I'lll just be nice and say creeps. The guy who runs it is a Repubican hack named Deal Hudson. I just found about him yesterday. Dismissed from Fordham for apparently having sex with a 19 year old after getting her drunk. Even dismissed by Bush-Chaney, and that should tell you something!! Really 'hot' for Hagee even if Hagee hates catholics as he does. (Now Hagee and Hudson have made up to get a few extra votes in November.} Oh, and also Hudson has been married at least 3 times, probably 4!!!. And this creep lectures on FAMILY VALUES.!! The favorite theme of some of these weirdos is to attack the USCCB. Apparently the bishops are not Republican enough and no part of the "magisterium."

You know, it's funny. A lifetime of defending catholicism, but I didn't know what was out there. In my blogging I met some real catholics, even though several of your liberal bloggers are a bit pompous.But I didn't know sexual creeps were out there. Ya, I defend a young man who had some "experiences" but not a teacher preying on teen agers. And I've met one person who fully deserves the appellation "Christian"and we often disagree.
Does the Church have no dogma except "right to life." According to these weirdos that is all the Church is about. No creed, no love, no caring for others: Just the right to life canard and the Republican party.

GREAT TO BE HOME

A bit disappointed

About three years ago I began to look into blogging. At first I had no blog myself but made comments on other blogs. The purpose of my blogging was two fold. First, my wife, my daughter, my two grandsons were all catholic. Second, my wife and I were helping a young man who had been abused in some ways. He, through my wife, was leaning to catholicism. The first blogs I tried were 'traditional' catholic blogs. This was unreal. Then I added the word "liberal" to my search and came on a Joe Cecil. Mr. Cecil allowed all kinds of opinions to be expressed and I engaged in several very lengthly discussion. I was very pleased. There were some catholics out there, liberal and conservative, who could hear differing points of view.

Later I found some other blogs that "appeared" to be open to differing points of view. But then I found out. These moderate/liberal blogs were , in their way, just as closed minded as the traditional catholic blogs. Each of these blogs had a small network of "friends" they called them who always basically agreed with the blogmaster. On ocassion they might differ on who was the greatest blues singer etc. But on religion they were hand-in hand. If you dared disagree the whole group would circle the wagons to defend their "friends." Several of them got into politics and then they really went wild if you did not follow their line letter by letter.

But I must be honest. I became catholic on the theory that latitude of belief was acccepted in the church as I thought I saw in these blogs. But a surprise. These "lileral/moderate blogs",again, were just as, if not more, dogmatic than the traditional catholic blogs. They were arrogant, dishonest, and expected to be treated as mini-gods or at least mini-popes. They were infallible in their friends eyes.

I'll probably hang around the Church for a while to help my family and the young man. And since I am officially on the rolls I will continue to comment here and elsewhere on Church matters. Jack