In recent years, more than 30 million American Catholics have walked away – I wonder what percentage of them left because of the abusive treatment they received at the hands of their fellow Catholics?

So, at the risk of doing just that myself, Arroyo is out of control. I couldn’t believe what I saw when I flipped to his EWTN show hoping for Catholic NEWS! Thank God for BustedHalo, which truly gives a voice to everyone and ridicules no one.

Enduring the four years of the pastor who forbade the singing of any songs with the word “bread” in them would have been funnier, except that it was very clear that he was willing to disband the choir and fire the (unpaid volunteer) music director and organists to enforce it. (And yes, in case you are wondering, Holy Thursday without Pange Lingua is pretty lame…)

And we are headed into a major war over the new translation of the mass into English…

There are, however, more legitimate reasons why on might comment under an assumed name. One goes right to the heart of the instant discussion.

I know Catholics who have church related jobs would never dare comment under their real names, for fear of endangeing their positions.

A big problems behind the culture wars in the church and the lack of civility and, yes Christianity in these discussion is the disparity of power between the two “sides”. We, on what me called the “left” are not in a position to have an equal exchange of ideas with our brothers and sisters on the right.

A certain overreaching by the “right”, stems from an imbalance of power between the “left” and the “right”. One side, the right, has all the big guns, or at least the big threats on its side.

For instance, a sincere and practicing Catholic who is a politician might take a position supporting the appointment of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Most Catholics, even if they did not support that position would not equate the politician’s stance with a renouncement of his faith, but if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time a bishop might deny him the Eucharist for having done so. I suppose he has the force of his argument, his eloquence and the power of public relations to support his side, but, in the meantime, he’s been, in effect, excommunicated from his church. That’s a tough one to counter.

Too many on the right are not satisfied with a mere exchange of ideas wherein they argue that their opponent’s opinion is merely incorrect. They actually question the opponent’s fidelity to the faith, in the course of even the smallest of issues, but wheeling in the “O” word. You’re not just wrong, you’re not Orthodox, i.e., a heretic.

I don’t see people on the left, even when they strongly disagree with the opinion of right wing Catholics, doing this. The other side goes right away for the “nuclear option”.

Maybe that’s because the right potentially has the option potentially available to them and the left does not. Maybe if the left could have opponents on the right silenced, removed from their position, denied the right to teach and write, denied communion, or just cowed by the potential of a deluge of digitally organized opponents crying “Unorthodox, unorthodox! Unlcean!, unclean!”, they would use it too.

On the side issue of the right-left liberal-conservative terminology, I think Dawn’s 7/13 9:27 comment is correct. Most people who think about it very far recognize that the terms don’t have scientific precision–liberals are not necessarily generous, conservatives do not necessarily conserve, American conservatism has a large component of classical liberalism, etc. Yet there are socio-political realities “on the ground,” so to speak, in which the terms have a definition which most people recognize.

A voter can certainly vote against a candidate who supports capital punishment because of that support, but he or she should do so for the right reason, not because of a mistaken belief that capital punishment is always evil or sinful, because it simply is not. I have come to believe that capital punishment is generally not necessary in the Western world with the development of “supermax”-type prisons where it’s basically impossible for a truly dangerous person to escape and threaten others. I also believe that life imprisonment allows for at least the possibility of true repentance and conversion to Christ in the heart and soul of dangerous criminals, even if the great majority perhaps don’t repent or convert before they die.

In short, capital punishment is not intrinsically evil or forbidden by Church teaching, while abortion is. Let’s all try to represent the Church accurately.

This is the truest paragraph in the article. I stayed away for a long time, in large part because I didn’t want to associate with people (on both sides), who would rather be right and alone than merciful and among many.

However, many of the above comments exemplify the attitude of hate that makes me question whether I am in the right place.

We two pro-lifers ended up having a very friendly discussion on the matter.

Here’s the link for the curious: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/05/father-james-martin-sj-responds.html

Peace,
James Martin, SJ

These terms are even more meaningless in the Catholic context. As the pope notes in Caritas in Veritate, there is a single Catholic social teaching, undivided, and connected. You cannot oppose abortion and dismiss social justice, and vice versa. It is one thing to disagree on political strategies, but another altogether to dismiss the teaching. And here is the difference in the blog post to which you linked: Fr. Martin disagrees with the political strategy, he does not defend abortion. But Fr. Sirico defends torture, at least when the US does it. See the distinction?

Charity requires not only love for one’s enemies (or, opponents), but also just plain clear thinking. As a fairly recent revert, I’m seeing first hand how Christians and nonChristians, Catholics and nonCatholics, liberals and Conservs, etc. are far more alike in the general inability to fight a fair fight than they are different. Yes, the infighting has to stop, but so does the illegitimate blarney aimed against nonChristians/Catholics. Some stuff that’s especially childish on “our” side:

1) Describing all abortion clinic escorts as “lesbians”. I was one of those escorts for a few years; while the percentage of gay women escorting is probably a bit higher than in the general public (say 10% instead of <5%), by no means is it everybody who does excorting. But, of course, that’s not the point. Calling all clinic escorts “lesbians” is a way to hate them in an especially enjoyable way. Not Christian. Also, intellectually sloppy. And, it means women (many married, with kids) who are escorts a handy set of reasons to continue believing that “Catholics hate women.” Way to witness, folks (not).

2) Attacking women working for women’s welfare (who may or may not assume the label “feminist”) as “angry”. Anyone reading the minutes from the last few week’s examiniation at the Vatican of global slavery issues, as well as anyone with any experience in emergency room treatment or social services, knows that women have plenty to be angry about. Sneering at someone as “angry” who has been raped, beaten, denied fair employment, denied education is an especially ugly way to make sure women continue to stay away from Catholicism in droves. And, it’s cruel. And intellectually sloppy.

The only way I came back to Catholicism was by ignoring most Catholics, and going back to the source. IMHO one of the most feminist forces in this world right now is the Catholic Church; what’s amazing is how few Catholics understand this, or why advocating for women is an essential part of the charity spectrum, or why indulging in hateful rituals like condemning all “angry” women as somehow unimportant or disposable or ridiculous is about as unChristian as it gets.

Not a complete list.