Comments for The New Anti-Catholicism: Occupy the Vatican at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 65 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:05:19 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-17028 The fact that the United States has a law that allows for religious institutions to be tax exempt is respecting a religious institution. Therefore it is unconstitutional. - Nameless Sat, 04 May 2013 08:28:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-10002 Opposition to the Catholic church has nothing to do with anti-catholic sentiments. You're playing the anti-catholic card the way Israel plays the anti-semitic card and it clearly works. We are standing against Money laundering, child rape and abuse, misappropriations of world-wide donations, repression of women, homosexuals, meddling in international politics.. but no, that's not as important. Propaganda, hate and brainwash have become the church's specialty over the past centuries, shame on you for defending them. - Joey Ayoub Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:37:33 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9876 Scotty, They are completely different. When we say eat a banana, we mean eat a banana with all the details and artifacts that entails- so sure an ape a human, same thing. When we say type, for you to be correct, you have to reduce typing to merely the physical act of pushing down a key on a keyboard, such as in the case of a cat. This reductionism is not only typical of modern thinking, but it may be the root of your confusion- See Aristotle’s 4 causes- If you eliminate the telos or end of typing you eliminate almost everything about typing that is its reason d’etre. What on earth is this thing you call typing by a cat or monkey, but an accident of time, space, and contrived circumstance where when a human speaks about typing it is a purposeful act, not an accident with the end of communicating much as is expressed by St. Augustine in De Magistro. A picture is a silly example of proof in this case. Your narrow definition of typing makes that syllogism faulty- but it is a serious mistake to call your definition of typing a “simple truth” when in fact it is merely an oversimplification and a false representation of reality designed to prove your pedantic syllogism faulty. Other than your reductionist thinking, there is no real similarity between your two syllogisms. The most truthful thing I have seen you write is that line from De Magistro “there is only one teacher.” The rest depends on how we choose to cultivate ourselves as learners and the assent of the will is the key component. My dear Scotty, you have demonstrated that for you the final arbiter of truth is you yourself. I think most on here go to a different source. You reduced Fr. Shcall and those with his mindset as being a “Catholic Ghetto”. If that is how you characterize Christ, the Church Doctors, Saints, the great Popes and the world’s greatest known thinkers you may have again made another faulty reduction. If you are correct, may God help us all. If you are in error, might I suggest Thomas a Kempis’ Imitation of Christ and a major paradigm shift from the cave to reality. I will accost you no longer, but I wish all good things for you. May Christ’s peace be with you Scotty. - Achilles Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:14:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9866 @Achilles Yes, they do. I'd paste a photograph if I had one. I did not say they typed well, or typed in English, I simply said "typed." But even if you refuse to acknowledge this simply fact, my point can be affirmed in this syllogism: All beings who eat bananas are human I eat bananas I am human And so forth. - Scotty Ellis Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:43:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9858 Monkeys and cats do not type. - Achilles Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:07:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9856 @Achilles, Thank you. I appreciate the rather cordial end to this conversation. I wish only to reply to one statement that you made: "Scotty, there are no faulty arguements that align with the Faith." I hope you are aware that the truth or falsity of an argument's conclusion has no bearing on the soundness of an argument. For example, the syllogism: All things that type on computers are human beings. I am typing on a computer. Ergo, I am a human being. Now, this syllogism is valid in its logic, and as far as I can tell its conclusion is true. Yet it is clearly faulty: it is unsound. We know at the very least the monkeys have been known to type on computers, probably cats as well. One of its assertions does not correspond with reality. One could imagine, indeed, countless such arguments that have conclusions that align with the faith but whose logic is flawed or whose assertions do not correspond with reality. To accept these arguments is foolish: it is both an error of reason as well as a disparagement of the faith. - Scotty Ellis Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:27:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9853 Dear Scotty, Just what do they teach you kids today? You are a very eager and I can see a very kind soul. I don't know about your corrolary or your misunderstanding of dogma or the idea that you conflate calculation with practical wisdom. Prudence is a very different thing than calculation. I contend that operating on principle properly requires far more rational coherance, grammar, logic and rhetoic than does calculation. You said: "I will not accept a faulty argument just because it aligns with the faith;" Scotty, there are no faulty arguements that align with the Faith. Yes as Augustine said "there is only one teacher" and he instructs in many ways including the infused virtues. "the Truth is not consensus, but the convergence of the mind and reality" (JPII Fides et Ratio) Perhaps a seach for the limits of reason might do you some good. Best wishes to you Scotty- Achilles - Achilles Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:40:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9848 "Dear Scotty, is that your attempt to teach me?" Isn't it true that there is only one Teacher, Christ? But that Augustinian insight aside, no. I was just replying to some of the points you had made. "Augustine, amongst others, said "I beleive it in order that I may understand." I maintain that you have it backwards." That famous formulation belongs to Anselm, but yes, it is Augustinian in spirit. Nevertheless, that maxim has another corrolary, which is that one cannot believe what one does not understand: or, rather, that if one does not really know what one believes, one's beliefs must, by definition, remain vague or indistinct nothings - or, at worst, dogma in the pejorative sense, taken to mean a set of otherwise obscure (perhaps ridiculous) proposition one affirms to oneself before breakfast each day. But I believe we both think the Christian faith to be more than this: and, to do so, we must remember that "faith and reason are like two wings of the dove by which the spirit rises" to the contemplation of truth. I will not accept a faulty argument just because it aligns with the faith; that would be to mar both faith and reason. And although the early Church seems to have had the fortune of spreading through miraculous interventions, we today must plod the more ordinary human way: by speaking in human terms and using human arguments. If you have some special divine language or argument that dashes all else, please do share. "Really? you got from my words that I plea for irrationality? Are you a college professor? " I was responding to your assertion that calculation is of Satan. Calculation (by which I think we mean the analysis of situations in purely practical terms - at least, that's what I meant) is a function of rationality. So, it seems, you meant to disparage one function of rationality - or do you recant? Either way, I did not meant to insinuate that you reject all rationality, and I apologize and recant anything I said that tended towards that interpretation. I am not a college professor. I am currently a student of engineering with a bachelor's of arts focusing on theology and philosophy. - Scotty Ellis Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:41:13 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9847 Dear Scotty, is that your attempt to teach me? Jesus spoke to us in parables, many of them were agricultural in nature- We are to plant the seeds of truth, to cultivate the soil, pull the weeds etc... to be good farmers. The fruit that grows is out of our control and depends on the seeds we plant. "We must first be sure of the truth ourselves; we must then learn the languages of the nations; we must prove ourselves to be as good at listening as we are at preaching." This sentence is as good as any to illustrate your concern with manipulating the fruit rather than plant the right seeds. Augustine, amongst others, said "I beleive it in order that I may understand." I maintain that you have it backwards. You drew silly conclusions from my plain spoken words, as only a good sophist can, like "checking your reason at the door" ???? Really? you got from my words that I plea for irrationality? Are you a college professor? - Achilles Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:07:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9828 @Achilles "I was unable to read all your posts, they were too reminiscent of that spectacular Madonna halftime extravaganza." I didn't watch the Superbowl. "If you will permit me the observation, sophistry would seem to be your stock and trade and you are obviously very convincing, at least to yourself. Your position reminds me of something I heard Gilson say “many a man, subjectively with utter sincerity, has rejected a conclusion which he nevertheless affirms in principle”” I would appreciate discussion, rather than quasi-ad hominem bare assertions about my arguments. I suppose to return in kind I would merely point out that many a man, subjectively with utter sincerity, has accepted an otherwise lousy argument just because it comes out with an agreeable conclusion. In order to find out which situation we are currently facing would require actual discussion of the topic at hand, rather than empty banter and accusations. "Our duty as Catholics is to teach all nations." We must first be sure of the truth ourselves; we must then learn the languages of the nations; we must prove ourselves to be as good at listening as we are at preaching. "Your take on things seems to suggest that us “pro-lifers” must ‘calculate’ in order to get “pro-abortion” people on board." No. I said that we must use better arguments to present the pro-life position, and these arguments must use the language, philosophy, and science of those we wish to convert; we must, like St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa, synthesize the best of secular knowledge and use it to better express the faith. "You have it just backwards sir. We are to speak the Truth on principle. Calculation is a tool of Satan and only serves to erode our position in the eyes of God." The last time I checked, being Catholic doesn't mean you check your rationality at the door. We are to use our rationality to serve God; God is not honored by lousy arguments, and we only serve, as Augustine notes in his Commentary on Genesis, to make the faith look ridiculous in the eyes of the world when we (however sincerely) badly misconstrue the reality of the natural world which even pagans can know something about. "The Truth doesn’t necessarily meet us where we are if we are steeped in error. " If that were true, we'd all be lost. "We must go to the Truth. Our best foot forward as witnesses is in living in the Truth and on principle by calling abortion what it is, murder." There are other ways to dialogue with non-believers and members of other faiths than simply shouting what we believe to be the truth in their faces (typically, a fruitless endeavor that engenders bitterness rather than understanding). One of these ways is to understand the language, the rationality, the arguments, and the assumptions of the world around you; just as Christ condescended to take on humanity to bring light to the world, so too we are charged with understanding and using the language of the world. It is like St. Augustine said in On Christian Doctrine: we must take the arguments of the world like the Israelites took the Egyptian gold and turn them to the service of God. "You have used a lot of words to subvert the plain and simple truth. " Sic et non. The truth is not simple, especially when you mean to teach it. And no matter how many times you shout "abortion is murder" or hold up signs or show off nasty pictures of aborted fetuses, it is all really bluster if all it does is engender bitterness rather than understanding. - Scotty Ellis Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:00:34 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9822 Dear Scotty Ellis- I was unable to read all your posts, they were too reminiscent of that spectacular Madonna halftime extravaganza. I did however get the gist of your statements about the prolife movement. If you will permit me the observation, sophistry would seem to be your stock and trade and you are obviously very convincing, at least to yourself. Your position reminds me of something I heard Gilson say “many a man, subjectively with utter sincerity, has rejected a conclusion which he nevertheless affirms in principle”” Our duty as Catholics is to teach all nations. This says nothing of compelling the free will of others to learn the Truths we propagate. Your take on things seems to suggest that us “pro-lifers” must ‘calculate’ in order to get “pro-abortion” people on board. You have it just backwards sir. We are to speak the Truth on principle. Calculation is a tool of Satan and only serves to erode our position in the eyes of God. The Truth doesn’t necessarily meet us where we are if we are steeped in error. We must go to the Truth. Our best foot forward as witnesses is in living in the Truth and on principle by calling abortion what it is, murder. Anything else is calculation. You have used a lot of words to subvert the plain and simple truth. - Achilles Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:27:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9811 @Brian "The Church is providing a public service, so why shouldn't it receive public funds? I know some think the Church should reject government money, but that would impair the Church's ability to serve the less fortunate. The answer is to elect public officials who don't see the Church as an enemy." Brian, I don't agree. The Church has been doing great charitable work for 2,000 years and most of that history was long before big government welfare programs. I'm still not convinced it's in the Church's interest to receive money from the government. I'd rather there weren't "strings attached" to any of the money the Church has at her disposal. Also, I think it would be a better witness to the world if the Church performed good works only with money voluntarily provided by her members than with any tax payer money (which is not voluntarily given regardless of the individual tax payer's attitude toward paying taxes). I do agree with you on electing politicians who are not enemies of the Church. Even if the Church were only using her own financial resources and not receiving government money, an aggressively atheistic government would still find grounds to interfere with the Church's mission. - Randall Peaslee Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:50:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9808 "superstitions that were inconsistent with the principles of American democracy." No need for superstition just read the syllabus of errors by Pius IX for all the anti-Americanism you could ever find in a religion. - Cris Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:22:47 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9807 @Therese "Science is not Truth. It is but a model of the truth and it too changes over time! It refines with further observation." I completely agree. Your other comments about Copernicus and your brief summary of scientific development, as interesting and true as they may be, have nothing to little to do with my claim that the Church (or, at least, officials acting with Her authority) at one time claimed that it was a truth of faith that the earth is immobile and the center of the universe and now does not. You must realize that the Church did not simply teach that its position was founded on science: quite simply, it took the position that it was a matter of faith. Now, as you note, the Church reversed its decision on this matter as more and more scientific data undermined its statements: it is a nice semantic game to retroactively say that its then-espoused theology was correct from a terracentric point of view, and that, in a sense, the Inquisition was not mistaken, except for the difficulty that this is a post hoc addition to their claims that seems to be made solely so that the Inquisition against Galileo can save face. There are other post hoc defenses that have been used as well, such as the notion that relativity manages to save the Inquisition, since in the end any frame of reference can be validly chosen, and a geocentric frame of reference ultimately has the same validity as a heliocentric (or any other) frame of reference. This, too, is quaint and anachronistic; the Inquisition against Galileo was not making these claims. "With respect to human life, a human exists when there is a cell with a set of chromosomes in a cell capable of division and differentiation. All that cell requries to grow and develop is that same that all humans require -- chemicals and energy. A human life exists when this cell is created (regardless of how it's created). A human exists." So, you would count a chimeric individual as two human beings? I assume this means that if his hand, primarily composed of tissue with one set of DNA, scraped off some of the tissue from another part of his body originating from the other zygote and with a different set of DNA, you would call this assault? And, by your definition, I assume you mean the removal of a parasitic twin or a fetus in fetu is murder, since the fetus in fetu is comprised of a "cell[s] with a set of chromosomes in a cell capable of division and differentiation?" Again, the problem with these simplistic, straightforward definition is that actually applying them to reality results in moral absurdities; we cannot treat them as valid descriptions of the necessary and sufficient characteristics of a human person. "If you consider the current criteria -- economic viability, functionality, and negative effect on another's life -- as applied to humans in the womb and, now, at the end of life; one begins to see an insidious vision of humanity." Actually, the main question at hand is not the economic viability, functionality, and negative effect on another's life. The main question is whether the zygote, embryo, or fetus is a human person. If it were shown that these are human persons, they would be protected by the moral injunction against killing human persons, and no amount of economic hardship or inconvenience would justify the act. I believe that pro-life's best course is to develop a coherent definition of human personhood. The rest of this paragraph suffers from your false assumption that wider secular society shares your belief that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are persons; without that shared assumption, most of your arguments collapse. "Interesting, how you left out in your historical summary the Godless communist and atheist purges of the past few centuries which far, far eclipsed both in percentage of the population and total numbers of people killed anything that happened in religious persecutions." I did not intentionally omit this, it just has no bearing on my argument. I am as much an opponent of those non-liberal forms of secular government as I am of non-liberal religious governments. I would be no happier with heretics being condemned to die than political prisoners or ethnic minorities being condemned to die: all of it is indicative of a failure of the state, whose primary mission (to take Augustine's word for it!) is to secure an earthly peace and order. Or, in other words, not all atheist secular states are created equal, and it is an historical and categorical failure to collapse them all together just as it is a historical and categorical mistake to collapse all religious regimes together; there have been, after all, more or less liberal religious regimes in the past. "Regarding contraceptives, the abortificant nature of many contraceptives is not being addressed. It is heinous to require that Catholic Institutions be forced to provide the means to terminate a human's existence." Again, that is the question at stake in the public abortion debate: is this a human person protected by moral principles? While you and I may share our common belief in the Church's revelation that even a unicellular zygote has a soul and is a protected human life, wider secular culture does not share this belief and has an alternate set of criteria (itself open for criticism) about what counts as a protected human life. - Scotty Ellis Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:02:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9806 "Is the Catholic Church and various Catholic institutions making a serious mistake by receiving goverment funding for any of her activities? For example, Catholic charities that provide adoption services are now often threatened to allow homosexuals to adopt children or risk losing government funding. Catholic universities and hospitals also receive government funding. By doing so, have these institutions in effect exposed themselves to government coercion?" The Church is providing a public service, so why shouldn't it receive public funds? I know some think the Church should reject government money, but that would impair the Church's ability to serve the less fortunate. The answer is to elect public officials who don't see the Church as an enemy. - Brian English Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:45:09 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9795 Scotty, The fact of the matter regarding Copernicus is that the best scientists of the time disagreed with him; he was on the cutting edge and he was also wrong in his own conclusions regarding the position of the sun in the universe. The Ptolemic theory, as Tony noted, more correctly predicted the movement of the heavens. Indeed, even today, one can use it to guide a ship, but GPS is so much better. Science is not Truth. It is but a model of the truth and it too changes over time! It refines with further observation. It is truly analagous to art through time. The earliest artists made stick figures, then came 2 dimensional figures, sculptures, perspective paintings creating the illusion of 3 dimensions, more and more colors to create highly realistic perspective drawings, photographs and in modern times, holographs. All of these methods model the thing observed, but they are not the thing observed. The same is true of science. We create a model, test it against observations. It appears to work so we declare it true. Newtonian physics was the cat's meow. Scientists from the 1800's were quite pleased with how it predicted the motion of bodies -- convientiently ignoring the motions it did not predict so well - like the double pendulum. The one day along comes Einstein and kapow! The model of mechanics we had only works to a point. The same was true with respect to Copernicus. The scientists of his day had a model that worked so well. They weren't ready to part with it. The Church listened to them. The fact that the Ptolemic description also naturally fit the descriptions in the bible of the natural world also helped but as your quote points out, it was the philosophical consideration that held weight, the theological is almost parenthetical. The Church was more than willing when sufficent evidence became availabe to accept that the theology was correct from a terra-centric viewpoint (the heavens appear to us to move around the earth) but with additional data it was obvious that another referential frame put things in the correct perspective. With respect to human life, a human exists when there is a cell with a set of chromosomes in a cell capable of division and differentiation. All that cell requries to grow and develop is that same that all humans require -- chemicals and energy. A human life exists when this cell is created (regardless of how it's created). A human exists. Whether one wishes to accord that human the right to continue to exist is the question. All the outrages of mankind have been the result of one group deciding that another group ought not exist or are sub-human based on arbitrary criteria -- race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, etc. We are only continuing that outrage by adding economic viability and functionality along with potential negative effect on another's health or economic viability to the list of arbitrary criteria that justifies denial of existence to a segment of humanity. The reality is that either all humans have the right to exist or in fact none of us do. We are all subject to the arbitrary criteria of the day. If you consider the current criteria -- economic viability, functionality, and negative effect on another's life -- as applied to humans in the womb and, now, at the end of life; one begins to see an insidious vision of humanity. A humanity whereby economic viability determines whether or not humans in and out of the womb have the right to the stuff of life. A humanity that justifies reallocating funds from one segment of humanity to another while hypocritically justifying exterminating another segment based on the economic burden they place on another. If we don't have to sacrifice for our young in the womb or our family members who have become an economic burden, why should anyone sacrifice their wealth for a neighbor they don't know? If a women can claim that the presence of a life in her is an undue risk (despite the fact that she knew the risk when she created that life), why can't others claim that the presence of people with HIV and other chronic communicable diseases which endanger the lives of others, are an undue risk? Can't you see the danger of the long term ramifications of these arguments. We are already seeing their application to end-of-life decisions. Again, I maintain, that either all humans have intrinsic value or none of us do. Interesting, how you left out in your historical summary the Godless communist and atheist purges of the past few centuries which far, far eclipsed both in percentage of the population and total numbers of people killed anything that happened in religious persecutions. Modern studies of the Inquistion, done by scholars from a variety of backgrounds have proven that while outrages occurred they were not on the scale fabricated by Protestant reformers and later repeated non-believing anti-clerical movements in Europe. In fact, in many towns, common criminals would beg to be tried by the Inquisition as there was a due process. Evidence had to be brought forth and in the vast majority of cases, the punishments were so much less severe in the civil courts where one could be killed for stealing food or without any sort of due process. Modern atheist secular states, unchecked by any kind of moral consideration, resulted in mass extermination, oppression, and terrorization on a scale never before scene by mankind. It's ironic that as this country seeks to remove religious expression from the public sphere, that Russia is introducing religion in into it's public schools. Regarding contraceptives, the abortificant nature of many contraceptives is not being addressed. It is heinous to require that Catholic Institutions be forced to provide the means to terminate a human's existence. - Therese Sun, 05 Feb 2012 18:56:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9794 Until secular humanism and it's relativistic morals are recognized as yet another system of beliefs that ought not be thrust upon the conscience of another, we will not be able to restore a healthy balance between Church and State nor guarantee freedom of conscience for all. The encroachment of the state into more and more areas of our lives, will eventually allow these militant secularists to restrict the free exercise of religion to the space between our ears if not checked. What area of our life cannot be argued to be supported directly or indirectly through government funds? How many city governments seek to use zoning, land taxes, and other fees to restrict where religious interests may build or own land? When will people make the argument that because roads are public rights of way paid by government dollars that bumper stickers supporting religion should be outlawed? That religious expression visible from the highway should be outlawed. Sounds crazy but the way the militant secularists are going, it may very well come to pass. We must make the case that secularism, humanism, and atheism are in themselves religions and cannot be thrust upon the consciences of others by the state. If this case can be made, then we can return to the balance intended by the framers of the constitution that did permit the free expression of faith by individuals and institutions and such expression was evident in the open expressions of faith or lack thereof of many of the founders. Similarly, people of faith need to attack agressively the idea that a citizen looses their rights if their positions on an issue is based partly or in whole on their faith. The reason why a person holds position X outght not affect his right to hold position X. If I were to believe that abortion ought to be outlawed based on my Christian, Muslim, atheist, pagan, secularist, Jewish or other beliefs, I should not be disqualifed from public office (the litmus tests being applied to more and more public service positions) nor from supporting that position in any way I see fit including political. The only time it should be an church/state issue is when the issue is framed in such a way that belief in the tenets of a religion are explicitly required. So for instance, if I believe abortion should be outlawed, the reason why I belive this is immaterial and should not result in any curtailment of any of my rights. If, on the other hand, if I hold that the law ought to require others to explictly believe in my belief system as well as uphold my position on the issue, then there is an obvious problem. The current standard that allows arguments for implicit imposition of a belief system is one that will eventually result in the removal of all belief systems except athestic, secularist, and humanist from the ever expanding public arena. - Therese Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:39:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9793 "but rather a garden-variety gripe common to most taxpayers--who don't much like paying taxes and who object to this or that action of the government." The government taxes individuals and entities based upon their income. It does not, until now, tax them based on their religious beliefs. You are basically defending a glorified protection racket. The Obama Administration is saying to Church-related entities, "Nice moral position you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Tell, you what, you keep paying us the money we shake you down for and you can keep your moral position." - Brian English Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:55:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9790 May I bring up one issue that is indirectly related to the topic of Mr Beckwith's article and the resulting comments? Is the Catholic Church and various Catholic institutions making a serious mistake by receiving goverment funding for any of her activities? For example, Catholic charities that provide adoption services are now often threatened to allow homosexuals to adopt children or risk losing government funding. Catholic universities and hospitals also receive government funding. By doing so, have these institutions in effect exposed themselves to government coercion? - Randall Peaslee Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:55:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-new-anti-catholicism-occupy-the-vatican.html#comment-9789 Typical Vatican whining in riches while looking on the poor. - Charles Frith Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:23:56 +0100