Category: Apologetics

Prejudice in America—Part II! . . . (Moral Values)

A_million_ways_to_go_green_badge In my previous postwe talked about whether anti-Catholicism is the last socially acceptable prejudice remaining in America, as is often claimed.

We saw that, while what counts as “socially acceptable” can be debated, there are a number of easily namable prejudices that are quite acceptable in America, including prejudices against conservative Protestants (Evangelicals and Fundamentalists), against organized/western religion as a whole, and against Muslims (in the sense of actual undue hostility, not just prudent caution due to 9/11). (There is also, of course, some anti-Semitism, but it is not socially acceptable in general American culture.)

Contemporary America’s socially acceptable prejudices go way beyond religion, however. Let’s name a few non-religious ones . . .

1) Prejudice against large families: This is something that some Catholics end up experiencing. Stories about of people with large families encountering those who sneeringly ask them (even in front of the children), “Haven’t you heard of birth control?”

This form of prejudice—originally inspired by the Rev. Thomas Malthus and reinvigorated in the 1960s & 1970s—is particularly short-sighted since children are the economic future of the country. We need more children to stave off a demographic winter like the ones poised to sweep across Japan and Europe.

This leads to another prejudice . . .

2) Prejudice against non-environmentalists: Environmentalists have been so successful in worming their way into American media culture that you can’t watch TV or listen to the radio without a constant, Chinese-water-torture-like series of exhortations to “Go green,” minimize your “carbon footprint,” and promote “sustainability.”

Story after story focuses on environmental issues with either no challenge at all to the environmentalist viewpoint (it is simply assumed to be true) or with only lip service (frequently sneering lip service) given to alternative viewpoints.

3) Prejudice against traditional values concerning homosexuality:  Homosexuals have achieved great success in framing their cause in terms of the civil rights model, with the result that objectively disordered behavior is commonly treated as normal, and anyone who disagrees with this is treated as a pariah.

The way the trend is going, expect anyone with traditional sexual values to be regarded as the equivalent of a Klansman within a generation.

On the other hand, there is also:

4) Prejudice against homosexuals: While the Holy See has been quite firm that homosexual behavior is objectively disordered and not to be given societal approval, it also recognizes that there is such a thing as unjust discrimination against homosexuals (see also here, and here).

While conscientious Catholics studiously avoid such prejudice, not everybody is a conscientious Catholic, and all one has to do is look at the bullying behavior of teenage boys toward those they even suspect of homosexual tendencies to see the malice that is out there.

These prejudices go beyond religion and into the realm of moral values, but then there are prejudices that are at best only peripherally related to such values.

Those will be the subject of our next post.

What are your thoughts?

My New Book Is Out!

Disorientation No, not the one you're thinking of. A different one.

You see, recently John Zmirak, Elizabeth Scalia (the Anchoress), Eric Metaxas, Peter Kreeft, Robert Spencer, Dwight Longenecker, Eric Brende, George Rutler, Donna Steichen, John Keck, Mark Shea, Jeffrey Tucker, John Zulhsdorf, and I were sitting around the pool shooting the breeze and talking about how it would be nice to collaborate on a project with each other.

So we did.

We wrote a book together.

That afternoon.

At John Zmirak's suggestion, we took on the most common ideologies infesting college campuses today–sentimentalism, relativism, hedonism, progressivism, multiculturalism, anti-Catholicism, utilitarianism, consumerism, cynicism, feminism, Americanism, Marxism, and modernism.

And we trounced them thoroughly, with each of us contributing a chapter. (I did the one on anti-Catholicism.)

Now that book is out. It's called Disorientation: The 13 "isms" That Will Send You to Intellectual "La-La Land."

While it's pitched in a special way for those in or entering college (hint: Christmas gift idea for high-school or college-age relations!), it's also fun to read and of interest to anybody who would like short, snappy responses to the ideologies of our day.

And it comes with cartoons! Did I mention that it comes with cartoons?

While the above poolside story is entirely fictitious, the book is not, so . . . 

GET YOUR COPY!

Last Remaining Prejudice? Not Hardly!

Cartoon-2You sometimes hear Catholics express the opinion that anti-Catholicism is the last remaining socially acceptable prejudice in America.

For example, in a recent piece defending Archbishop Dolan, James Farrell of Irish Central writes:

Archbishop Timothy Dolan has come out swinging against The New York Times, accusing it of anti-Catholic bias in two recent articles.

He is right.

Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice it seems to me in America. If the same comments that were made about Catholic religious figures were aimed at Rabbis, immams [sic] or Dali Lamas there would be widespread outrage.

The substance of what Farrell says is quite true, and I’m glad to see him stepping up and adding his voice to Archbishop Dolan’s. You can read Archbishop Dolan’s original piece here.

Nevertheless, the claim that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in America is incorrect.

It is certainly true that people publicly say things about Catholics they would never say, for example, about religious groups like Jews or Muslims—or about particular racial or ethnic groups.

It’s also understandable that many Catholics would perceive anti-Catholicism as the last remaining prejudice since it may be the only one they personally experience, the only one many of them feel.

And, indeed, anti-Catholicism does have a long history of social acceptance in the United States, as illustrated by the accompanying 19th century cartoon by Thomas Nast, which features one of his trademark ape-like Irishmen carving open the goose that laid the golden egg (the Democratic Party), to the delight of an avaricious priest.

But anti-Catholicism is far from being the last socially acceptable prejudice in America.

What are some others?

To a degree, it depends on what you mean by “socially acceptable.” What’s acceptable in one social circle is not acceptable in another, and there are degrees to the phenomenon of social acceptability. If you define your group small enough, you can find some social circle in which it is acceptable to say any arbitrary thing you want. If you define your group large enough, you’ll find someone in it who will object to the same arbitrary thing.

Nevertheless, it is possible to find prejudices that are given voice, without immediate censure, in a wide range of contexts, both private and public.

For instance, there is anti-Evangelicalism/anti-Fundamentalism. This is hostility towards conservative Protestantism. Many Catholics tend not to be aware of this prejudice because they are not the object of this kind of hostility, but those of us who are converts from conservative Protestantism have vivid memories of the way the press and other elements in modern culture would mock and look down upon our beliefs.

For us the equivalent of the priestly pedophilia scandal was the 1980s televangelism meltdown. The televangelists had always been an embarrassment to many of us, but they were the most visible faces of the movement, and when the financial and sexual scandals erupted, we were subject to the same kind of searing public criticism that the Catholic Church would be subject to a few years later.

Then there is the more general anti-organized-religion prejudice that is hostile toward anybody who takes their faith seriously, or at least anyone who takes a western religion seriously. You can find this among the people who say that they are not religious but “spiritual” and from militant atheists like Dawkins and his crowd.

And, if we want to be frank, there are some anti-Muslim sentiments that get expressed in America without being automatically censured. (I’m talking actual, undue hostility toward Muslims as a group, not prudent caution—though this is far less than the raging anti-Americanism and anti-Christianism harbored in the worldwide Islamic community.)

Prejudice in America goes beyond religion, though.

That will be the subject of our next post.

What are your thoughts?

Should You Read Non-Catholic Materials?

A correspondent writes:

I am presently attending a Bible study.  During our small group discussion, a question arose from someone in our group.We would like to know if it is wrong for us to read and examine other books and Bibles that are not Catholic-based to see what they have information-wise pertaining to spiritual matters.  For example, we both have Life Application Study Bibles and enjoy reading the associated study footnotes.

My opinion is that the Holy Spirit guides us with discernment especially when we pray before reading or delving into other Christian denomination books and Bibles.  I guard myself (my heart, mind and spirit) so that I’m not influenced in any way that could conflict with Catholic beliefs.  If I’m not sure or confused about an issue (e.g., Why do we believe this and they that?”), I said I then will go to a religious authoritative person to have any questions or issues addressed or I check Internet sites like www.Catholic.com.  I believe I am exercising my ‘child-like faith’ with wanting to know and love more, which draws me closer to Him and to others, while using my adult judgment. I also believe that, when we know more about other religions and philosophies (Christian, Jewish, Eastern, scientific, etc.), it helps us to practice love, respect others, and establish a common ground for our relationship and possible future discussions for witnessing for Catholicism. If I didn’t understand or have knowledge of what they believe, I may not be able to convey my Catholic beliefs and doctrines as accurately.

The other person in our small discussion group is concerned that when we read, we can be swayed / influenced to turn from our Catholic beliefs and choose another path.  Are we able to guard ourselves enough (with the Holy Spirit’s assistance), spiritually and mentally, to protect our Catholic faith or is avoidance of other doctrines the answer?  Is it a matter where it differs per individual and how strong their faith is (figuratively, those who are nursing vs. those eating solid food)?

Please share your opinion and feel free to correct me where I’m wrong.  Thank you!

I think that you and the other person in your Bible study have valid points. There is not a one-size-fits-all answer on this one.

On the one hand, there is a great deal to be learned from non-Catholic sources, including non-Catholic religious and philosophical ones. St. Thomas Aquinas did an enormous service for the Church by showing how Christian faith can be related to the thought of non-Christian thinkers, such as (and especially) the pre-Christian philosopher Aristotle. Aquinas’s attitude was that all truth is God’s truth, and so if you find truth in a non-Christian source it not only will not contradict the Christian faith but it also will be of use to Christians. The more truth, the better!

His attitude was thus to exercise critical thinking in reading materials from non-Catholic sources (and from Catholic ones, for that matter!). Although St. Paul said it in a different context, the idea also applies here:

 

Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil. (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22)

This philosophy has also carried down to our day. In fact, in the books he is writing on the life of Jesus, Pope Benedict regularly interacts with the ideas of the American Rabbi Jacob Neusner, whose perspective on Jesus he finds to have value, even though he doesn’t agree with everything. (And he’s willing to reference Neusner in public—and thus implicitly encourage others to see what Neusner has to say.)

If you have a good grounding in your Catholic faith and can exercise critical thinking in what you read then there is nothing to fear in non-Catholic writings, and there is much to be learned from them! Though we have the fullness of religious truth, we do not have a monopoly on truth, and the perspectives of others can help bring out things that we as Catholics may not have known or may not have fully worked out yet.

In my own work, I use non-Catholic materials all the time. In fact, my favorite commentaries on the book of Genesis are by Jewish authors (Rashi and Nahum Sarna), there are Evangelical commentaries on certain books of the Bible that I learn a great deal from (the writings of N. T. Wright and James Dunn come to mind), and there are things to be learned even from folks who do not have any faith.

The key to being able to sift through this material and find what is good in it, though, involves more than praying to the Holy Spirit, and here is where I think your friend has a good point. One must also have a firm knowledge of your own faith in order to be able to think critically about material presented from other perspectives.

While one certainly should and must rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, the Holy Spirit does not promise to protect us from coming to mistaken conclusions just because we pray to him. He also wants us to study, internalize, and thoroughly know our own faith. And then, with his guidance, we can approach materials from other perspectives profitably and with confidence.

Because everybody in our culture is taught to regard himself as an expert on religion from the time of birth, it is easy—often far too easy—for us to imagine that we have the kind of knowledge of our own faith that is needed to accurately identify beliefs that conflict with it. Indeed, we’d often feel insulted if someone suggested that we don’t! “What do you mean I don’t know my Catholic faith well enough to know what contradicts it!”

Yet there are a great many people who, in fact, don’t have a good grasp on the Church’s teaching even though they think they do.

And then there are people who, while they know the teaching of the Church well, may be experiencing an emotional crisis or a crisis of faith of some sort, and this would interfere with their ability to productively and serenely interact with materials from non-Catholic authors.

Certainly the safest course is to stick with Catholic materials, and as a general matter this is advisable, particularly for those who are less educated in their faith or who are going through difficult patches in their lives, but if you are well educated in your faith and able to exercise the critical thinking necessary to profitably sift what you are reading, there is nothing to fear from doing so.

There is thus no one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on each individual and where that person is in their intellectual, emotional, and spiritual journeys.

In terms of the group—since people may be at different stages of those journeys—I would recommend erring on the side of caution (a flock travels at the speed of its slowest member), and if you use non-Catholic materials (or less-reliable Catholic ones, which can even be more insidious since they may have been written by wolves in sheep’s clothing), point out their limitations and strongly caution people against using them uncritically.

I hope this helps, and best of luck!

What are your thoughts?