What's happened to the anti-Catholic guy on Mass Ave?

[Anonymous]

While I agree with reasonable dissent, I am talking about mocking. It's seems ok to make fun of non-mainline Protestant Christians in this country especially Catholics. Yes we all know there was a problem several years ago, but the honest truth is that there are 99% of all priests are good kind men that care about their parish and they are forgotten in this whole shuffle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I agree with reasonable dissent, I am talking about mocking. It's seems ok to make fun of non-mainline Protestant Christians in this country especially Catholics. Yes we all know there was a problem several years ago, but the honest truth is that there are 99% of all priests are good kind men that care about their parish and they are forgotten in this whole shuffle.

Actually, we do not know that this is the honest truth because the church leadership has gone out of its way to cover-up the extent of the abuse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I agree with reasonable dissent, I am talking about mocking. It's seems ok to make fun of non-mainline Protestant Christians in this country especially Catholics. Yes we all know there was a problem several years ago, but the honest truth is that there are 99% of all priests are good kind men that care about their parish and they are forgotten in this whole shuffle.

Actually, we do not know that this is the honest truth because the church leadership has gone out of its way to cover-up the extent of the abuse

Thank you! I was about to post this.

Also, you should read EJ Dionne's column today. The very great lengths the church has gone to in order to cover the abuse up is shameful. Totally and utterly shameful. (I also found Sinead O'Connor's op-ed of today interesting, as she was in an Irish home for troubled youths as a girl and suffered abuse there . . . she has an interesting perspective).

Also, I find it inexplicable and completely offensive that some equate criticisms of the church -b/c of their (in)action on this or because they disagree on certain other issues- to being anti-catholic. Talk about deflection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I agree with reasonable dissent, I am talking about mocking. It's seems ok to make fun of non-mainline Protestant Christians in this country especially Catholics. Yes we all know there was a problem several years ago, but the honest truth is that there are 99% of all priests are good kind men that care about their parish and they are forgotten in this whole shuffle.

Actually, we do not know that this is the honest truth because the church leadership has gone out of its way to cover-up the extent of the abuse

Thank you! I was about to post this.

Also, you should read EJ Dionne's column today. The very great lengths the church has gone to in order to cover the abuse up is shameful. Totally and utterly shameful. (I also found Sinead O'Connor's op-ed of today interesting, as she was in an Irish home for troubled youths as a girl and suffered abuse there . . . she has an interesting perspective).

Also, I find it inexplicable and completely offensive that some equate criticisms of the church -b/c of their (in)action on this or because they disagree on certain other issues- to being anti-catholic. Talk about deflection.

As yes, EJ Dionne and Sinead O'Connor. Both pinnacles of truth, balance and diplomacy regarding Catholicism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I agree with reasonable dissent, I am talking about mocking. It's seems ok to make fun of non-mainline Protestant Christians in this country especially Catholics. Yes we all know there was a problem several years ago, but the honest truth is that there are 99% of all priests are good kind men that care about their parish and they are forgotten in this whole shuffle.

Actually, we do not know that this is the honest truth because the church leadership has gone out of its way to cover-up the extent of the abuse

Thank you! I was about to post this.

Also, you should read EJ Dionne's column today. The very great lengths the church has gone to in order to cover the abuse up is shameful. Totally and utterly shameful. (I also found Sinead O'Connor's op-ed of today interesting, as she was in an Irish home for troubled youths as a girl and suffered abuse there . . . she has an interesting perspective).

Also, I find it inexplicable and completely offensive that some equate criticisms of the church -b/c of their (in)action on this or because they disagree on certain other issues- to being anti-catholic. Talk about deflection.

As yes, EJ Dionne and Sinead O'Connor. Both pinnacles of truth, balance and diplomacy regarding Catholicism.

If O'Connor is angry because she was abused by the Church, whose fault is that? I'm sure you dismiss her because she tore up a picture of the Pope. Maybe you need to look at why she did it and not write her off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I agree with reasonable dissent, I am talking about mocking. It's seems ok to make fun of non-mainline Protestant Christians in this country especially Catholics. Yes we all know there was a problem several years ago, but the honest truth is that there are 99% of all priests are good kind men that care about their parish and they are forgotten in this whole shuffle.

Well, I think mockery of institutions is pretty much universal. In what other arena do we restrict ourselves to only courteous dissent? None. It's just that as Catholics we have this "reverence" filter, where even if we disagree, we mute our language. But we can hardly expect that which is not given to any other religious, ethnic, or political group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here. Didn't mean jewy in a derogatory way. Just meant that in the District there doesn't seem to be a lot of people that are pro-Catholic. I stand by that assumption. Ive been in numerous situations where someone will make a stab at Catholics because of the abortion issue, or because they think Catholic schools are sub-par etc. This thread coupled with what's on the news just got made my antennas go up.

(a) Not being "pro Catholic" doean't mean anti-catholic, you know.

(b) Criticizing the church becaue of its stand on abortion, response to the abuse issue, or (perceived) inferiority of Catholic schools doesn't make someone anti-catholic.

(c) "waspy (protestant)" cracked me up. As opposed to all those waspy non-protestants? Do you even know what WASP stands for?

I'm white and Protestant, but I don't consider myself Anglo-Saxon. So not a WASP.

[Anonymous]

D.C. is extremely waspy and anti Catholic, unlike other educated cities. D.C. embarrasses itself constantly with its ignorance. The locals don't even realize it. I refuse to say I am from here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:D.C. is extremely waspy and anti Catholic, unlike other educated cities. D.C. embarrasses itself constantly with its ignorance. The locals don't even realize it. I refuse to say I am from here.

Catholics in NY say the same thing so do Catholics in Boston.

[Anonymous]

12:33 - exactly. Catholics are supposedly fair game. But the wasps have their own double standard. Amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why are these forums so anti Catholic? Anti Catholic education, church, anti-Catholic everything. It seems that the District is dominated by 3 types: waspy (Protestant)/Jewy/non-religious.

Considering you call Protestants "waspy" and Jewish people "Jewy", I think you have your answer.

[Anonymous]

Not referring to NY OR Boston. Not that you've resided in either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not referring to NY OR Boston. Not that you've resided in either.

You were comparing DC to "other educated cities" and I think that NY and Boston qualifies as "educated". Having lived in both (20 yrs in NY and 3 in Boston), I have heard similar complaints - and in all three cases I think you are just being a bit paranoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:D.C. is extremely waspy and anti Catholic, unlike other educated cities. D.C. embarrasses itself constantly with its ignorance. The locals don't even realize it. I refuse to say I am from here.

Well, perhaps the 28% who are white, non-hispanic are all WASPs, although I doubt it. But I'm pretty sure that the 72% who are not white are not WASPs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D.C. is extremely waspy and anti Catholic, unlike other educated cities. D.C. embarrasses itself constantly with its ignorance. The locals don't even realize it. I refuse to say I am from here.

Well, perhaps the 28% who are white, non-hispanic are all WASPs, although I doubt it. But I'm pretty sure that the 72% who are not white are not WASPs.

Im pretty sure DC is 40% white non-Hispanic