Loading ...
In light of the recent dust storm concerning the topic of racism, I’ve been doing some thinking. Why don’t we Catholics make a bit more of our non-racist credentials?
Of course the liberal media has tried to stick the Church with all kinds of “isms” in modern times, and in most of the time establishing the real truth is rather complicated. For example, the claim that the Church is inherently sexist (by which they really mean “misogynist”) is untrue. The Magisterium certainly has never taught that women are morally inferior to men. But, the war of the sexes having raged relentlessly for time out of mind, it no doubt is true that, practically speaking, women have sometimes gotten the worse end of it, in Christian societies as in others. Furthermore, establishing what the relations between the sexes should be is itself a bear of a question. The end result is that we’re not likely to hear the end of that charge anytime soon. Moving on to another sore point: the claim that the Church is “homophobic” is true in a way, since she has always unambiguously condemned sodomy as sinful. In this case, the trick is not establishing what the Church thinks; rather, one must argue that no injustice is being done here because, in fact, the Church is right. With some people, as we know, that’s a tough sell.
But we don’t often hear about the Church being racist. That’s not surprising, because it would be a fairly ridiculous charge. Find me an organization that’s more multi-ethnic than the Catholic Church. Find one that’s opened its doors to the people of every nation for more centuries. No doubt particular racist individuals have on occasion used official Church positions to promote their pernicious ideas, but if anything remotely resembling Magisterial endorsement has ever been given to such claims, I’ve yet to hear about it. And that’s the sort of thing you would hear about.
In my experience, liberals often like to tell the history of modernity as a story of the gradual shedding of evil prejudices. From a past filled with bigotry, and with hateful and judgmental people, we have moved forward to a future where everyone is respected and valued. (Well, everyone except the unborn, the terminally ill, and a few other inconvenient people, but we’ll leave that aside for now.) But you know, if that’s the story, shouldn’t they be a little bit more embarrassed about the well-documented, virulent racism of so many of the “founding fathers” of the modern era? The only modern philosopher who I ever hear accused is Nietzsche, who, as the bad boy of the early modern era, can be criticized pretty freely. Actually that’s ironic because I’m much less sure of Nietzsche’s racism (it’s always hard to know how seriously to take him) than I am of Kant’s or Hume’s. And of course, ALL the important thinkers of the early modern era were white males of basically European stock.
By contrast, our important thinkers span a much wider range of backgrounds. (North Africa, anyone?) And find me the racist statements of St. Thomas or St. Augustine (who, if he had been deposited in the American South in 1950, would likely have been pushed to the back of the bus). This seems to be a serious flaw in the classic “modern story.” It’s not a sophisticated attack, but it’s the sort that will bother and confuse the more ordinary liberal. Perhaps we should do more with this.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
In our short-term history, though, the Church’s non-racist credentials (at least in the American South) are less than spotless. Many were the black Catholics forced to stand during mass in the few Catholic churches they could even get into. A certain black Catholic from Louisiana has blogged about this:
“…my grandparents lived in a place and time where they had to pay to attend Mass and then were usually not allowed to sit. Other black Catholics in this time period were not allowed to even stay to the end of Mass, so as to avoid any contact with the white congregation. Many black Catholics in southern Louisiana actually had no place to attend Mass, as they were banned from the white churches.”
But Matt, remember that this is not the position of the Church, but of individuals in the Church. As I read her post, Clara is not saying there are not or have not been racists in the Church, but that the Church herself is not racist.
Historically, the American Hierarchy has been and in some circumstances continues to be extremely racist, and not only toward African Americans. The hatred toward Southern and Eastern European Catholics by their fellow Catholics from Cardinal Archbishops on down to the child in the pew surpassed even that shown toward the blacks. Even today those that continue in their traditional ethnic religious practices are looked down on by the Irish and German influenced power brokers in the “American Church.” It is the people from or of Eastern or Southern European descent who are the most faithful to Tradition, the Magesterium, and the Holy Father, hardly viewed as virtues by the “American Church.”
Thank you, Father, I stand corrected. I’m not sure that secular liberals are going to be as apt as I am, though, to understand the difference between the Church and her members, especially Cardinal Archbishops!
“Why don’t we Catholics make a bit more of our non-racist credentials?”
I think you’ve answered your own question here:
“But we don’t often hear about the Church being racist.”
It’s a non-issue. No one can credibly accuse the Church of being racist. So why do we even need to bring it up? What’s so crucial about this in our time? Are we in competition with other racist religions or organizations? The Muslims aren’t racist either. Neither are the Mormons any longer. As for the Jews, well, let’s not even go there. I just don’t see the point.
Heh heh. I did finish that post rather hastily (I had an appointment to get to, and I like to put something up right at the start of the week, whenever possible), so perhaps the point was not completely clear.
Champions of modernism like to tell their story as a tale of triumph over the narrow-minded bigotry of the Middle Ages and before. The underlying theme is the “discovery” of that truly great value, individual autonomy, and of the respect for persons that is a natural corollary of prizing individual autonomy as a universal good. Before the discovery of autonomy/respect (the story goes) people were judged on a variety of grounds, many of them foolish and bigoted, stemming from characteristics that people themselves had not chosen could in no way change. Modern history is a tale of the gradual shedding of those prejudices. We’ve made good progress with sex and ethnicity, and now we’re working on things like class prejudice and “sexual orientation” prejudices.
This little fairy tale may seem to you too silly to bother about, but it’s awfully potent in the minds of run-of-the-mill liberals (say). For anyone who believes it, it seems a discrepancy worth worrying about that some of the “founding fathers” of this era (Kant, for example, who can take more credit than anyone for our ideas about autonomy and respect) were shockingly bigoted themselves, while the great minds of the Catholic ranks never were.
Actually, the prejudice Matt K speaks of is new to me. I’ve haven’t witnessed such things myself. Yet the blame cannot be attributed to the Church, or the clergy. What comes to my mind is the missionary orders, a few of them predominately Irish, that sent countless priests and nuns to bring the Gospel to the blacks of Africa. When their members had spent the best years of their lives in heroically evangelizing and could no longer endure the hardships of climate and terrain, they were sent to work in the deep south. In cities like Boston almost every Irish family had at least one member of the family enter the religious life. What to do with so many vocations in the North? Send them to the South.
Clara, we Catholics don’t make much of our non-racist credentials, because it’s not the Irish way.
“Clara, we Catholics don’t make much of our non-racist credentials, because it’s not the Irish way.”
And not all of us Catholics are Irish. That is itself a racial stereotype. This Catholic for one does not particularly care what is or is not the Irish way, and one of the reasons I did not choose to go to Notre Dame was because of its stereotypical logo (ick).
My Catholic ancestors were German. My Irish ancestors were Protestants and Quakers.
Clara, I think the modernist myth of the triumph over the narrow-minded bigotry of the Middle Ages is an attempt to distance themselves from the truth which convicts them on every side. What they refuse to admit is that while the Church did treat non-Catholics as heretics and infidels, she did so rightly with concern for their eternal salvation. How this was twisted and perverted by men in the Church is a different story. The Church, thanks be to God, does not consist of the actions of her sons. The Church cannot but work and pray for the conversion of all men to the one fold of Christ. If she did not do so, she would be a liar. Modernists refuse to see this truth and thus claim that the Church is flawed or evil. However, it is they who are deceived, and we all know that deception comes from the father of lies who likes nothing better than to sow dissent in the Church.
Tobias Petrus, you wrote: “And not all of us Catholics are Irish. That is itself a racial stereotype. This Catholic for one does not particularly care what is or is not the Irish way…”
I’m in complete agreement with you. My Irish ancestors were protestants who reviled the Church and treated Catholics with contempt, myself included. My Catholic ancestors were Italian and were the object of prejudice and bigotry by their Irish Catholic brethren, including and led by Cardinals O’Connell and Cushing of Boston and the priests under them.
Ah, so now we see why Tobias Petrus is so cranky about Notre Dame… hostility towards the Irish!
Even earlier, the Americanists in the American hierarchy were assimilationist Irish, by and large. Anti-Americanists tended to be Germans. The problem with the German anti-Americanists in places like Milwaukee is that after they shook off the dust of the Irish-Americanists, they turned around and spat on the Poles. There has always been tension in the United States about whether Catholics should continue to identify with their various ethnicities or should identify themselves as Americans. The Irish occupied a special place insofar as they had adopted so much of “Anglo-Saxon” culture in their home country, which was not true of the French, German, Slavic, Italian, or Hispanic Catholics. The Irish therefore had a chip on their shoulder in despising/emulating the WASPs and the Scots-Irish (like my ancestors), while at the same time they looked down on Germans, Poles, Italians, etc., for not being Anglo- *enough*! Hence the Kennedys and much of the Northeastern Irish liberal Democratic consortium, who bankrolled the IRA and Planned Barrenhood out of the same checkbooks.
The intolerance of Americanist clergy (especially Archbishop Ireland of St. Paul) contributed immensely to two schisms in the United States. Many immigrant Ruthenians became joined the schismatic Orthodox (sic) and some immigrant Poles set up the Polish Catholic (also sic) Church in revolt against intolerant actions on the part of the predominantly non-Slavic Latin hierarchy. End rant.
Clara,
That’s only part of it — Fr. Hesburgh and the Land o’ Lakes Conference are also at fault. But in reality, no, I could never look at that ugly, ugly leprechaun logo without thinking of Lucky Charms cereal.
Clara, you know what I look like — people always assumed that with my looks and my religion I was Irish. Er, no, my Faith came down to me from my sainted German grandmother.
Good heavens! It’s a mascot! It is more or less the purpose of mascots to be insanely stereotypical and also a little bit silly. And our leprechaun may be homely, but at least we stand by him with a true and faithful love. Didn’t Marquette have some debate a few years ago when they ultimately decided to abandon theirs because it wasn’t politically correct enough, or something?
Personally, I’ve always thought “Fighting Irish” a great mascot. It’s one of the few out there that actually means something — no randomly chosen wild animal (or even worse, color, as in Cornell’s case) for Notre Dame! For all their faults, the Irish were much hated for a large part of American history, and they are still the largest ethnic group associated with Catholicism in the United States. Notre Dame was mocked in the early days for being “only” the sort of school that educates poor Irishmen. I’ve read myself some of the early coverage of our football team’s games, in which reporters sneered about the long list of Irish names that made up the roster. Notre Dame responded by seizing what was intended as an insult, and making it their own. In the un-subtle manner of a mascot, it really captures the spirit of what Notre Dame used to be to Americans, and what it should be now — the attempt of Catholics to make a spirited response to a Protestant world that harbors no love for them. The fact that it’s one of the least PC mascots out there makes me love it that much more.
Clara, you’ve made a very typical mistake by assuming that Augustine of Hippo would be considered “black” by contemporary American standards just because he hailed from North Africa. In one of his sermons (I’ll post the reference tomorrow) he distinguishes his own skin color and the skin color of his congregants from the black skin of the Ethiopians. Ergo, he probably was darker in complexion than most English people today, but would not have passed for “black.” The Italians, however, did make fun of him for having a North African accent.
“Good heavens! It’s a mascot! It is more or less the purpose of mascots to be insanely stereotypical and also a little bit silly.”
Right — it’s a mascot for an ethnic group to which I do not belong and, hence, with which I do not associate myself. The mascot, like most mascots, is insanely stereotypical — once again, for a group I don’t belong to. That Irish Catholics have adopted an originally negative stereotype and turned it into a point of pride is great — for them. That stereotype has nothing to do with me, so I am free not to adopt it, in any capacity, even a positive one. As I find depictions of leprechauns ugly, I was not pleased at the prospect of adopting that mascot. De gustibus non disputandum.
Our mascot at Marquette was an Indian Warrior. Now, I am not an Indian. But the school is named after a Jesuit missionary who came to convert the Indians of Wisconsin and Illinois. The school seal shows Marquette with his Indian guide. I will never be Irish, but I just might share in Pere Marquette’s missionary spirit. My family is from the part of the country Marquette explored. That mascot naturally appealed to me (note the subjective nature of *all* of this) more than the fighting leprechaun did. That the administration ditched the mascot is indeed a great point of shame for Marquette. But I still find golden eagles more aesthetically pleasing and noble than a hot-under-the-collar leprechaun.
In any case, the upshot is this: just because I am Catholic and American, I see no reason to identify with the specifically Irish Catholic experience (which to some extent dovetails with Notre Dame fandom) in this country. German Catholicism and subsequent non/post-ethnic Catholic culture in this country and the Catholic school I actually went to are enough for me.
Well, my ancestors were the bloody English. Before they were Mormons (though that goes back several generations on some sides) I suspect they were Protestants, and they very likely participated in killing the Irish. Still, as a Catholic and an alum and a dedicated fan of the football team, I think I’m allowed to identify with the mascot to a substantial degree. I think I’ve got a bit of the “fighting” spirit in me, if nothing else.
I won’t demand that you deck yourself out in blue and gold at every opportunity, but at least you shouldn’t sneer. Being in a minority already, we Catholics shouldn’t let these ethnic differences divide us. Bury the hate!
Thanks for the tip, Maximilian! I actually looked for some information about St. Augustine’s ethnicity but I didn’t find anything. Which sermon was it, do you know?
“I won’t demand that you deck yourself out in blue and gold at every opportunity”
Hmmm . . .
http://www.cornellsociety.org/2007/10/cheer-cheer-for-old-notre-dame/
“Being in a minority already, we Catholics shouldn’t let these ethnic differences divide us. Bury the hate!”
I won’t sneer at Notre Dame for being Notre Dame or for being Irish — it’s the V—– Monologues performance there that disincline me to cheer. Personally, I won’t claim that I’m innocent of animosity — I can get worked up over anything! But someone could say everything I’ve said without the least “hate.” As for “dividing us,” if the division primarily affects which sports teams we root for and which sports mottoes appeal to us, I don’t see much harm.
Now, Knute Rockne — there’s a Notre Dame man I could grow to love! Norwegian Catholic . . .
Oh, you misunderstood me, TP. I stand by everything I said in that post. I’m just granting you a personal exemption. I don’t do this for just anyone, but I was sufficiently moved by the claim that your desire to distance yourself from the Irish is motivated by love for the grandmother who bequeathed you the faith.
But as for your trivialization of sports fanhood… well, I think you should read the post again.
Now I can see why Saint Alphonsus said not to bring up the subject of nationality at the table. I didn’t realize that a little praise for those who hail from the Land of Saints and Scholars would bring out such bigotry in the best. We know now who wears the Orange on Saint Patrick’s Day.
Tobia Petre, Pity the Ruthenians for becoming schismatic and the Poles for revolting as a result of Irish intolerance. I suppose next you’ll be blaming the Irish for driving good Catholics into the camp of the Sedevacantists.
If you are unfortunate to have ancestors of the wee minority of Irish who became “soupers” during the famine—while millions were starved to death and went to Heaven rather than betray their Faith—or if you descend from Irish Protestant informers or Quakers, I can understand the bad blood and the chip on the shoulder. No one should be proud of such ancestry.
Did you ever notice that you can always tell the Irish of Protestant descent? They never have a good word to say about Irish Catholics and although forced to take Irish surnames, they insist on choosing Protestant Patrons for their first name.
I’m well aware of Bishop Ireland and the Kennedy clan, but No race is the Super Race. Even the Germans had their villains. And while we’re at it, we might as well blame the Italians for giving us bad popes. But lest I appear without sympathy, believe me when I say that I can really feel your pain—or anyone’s for that matter—who, when looked upon, is taken for an Irish leprechaun.
Knute converted at Notre Dame after wondering what his Fighting Irish were doing getting up and going out so early at away games. He followed them one day and found out they were going to Mass. “Not long after, I soon had the pleasure of joining them at the altar rail.”
What trivialization? I wish Marquette would win every NCAA championship there is. And I love the Green Bay Packers, who have a noble Catholic history. And if Notre Dame were playing a Protestant or state school, yeah, I’d probably cheer for Notre Dame. I’m glad a Catholic school, and a Midwestern one at that, has the top football rankings. Against a Jesuit school, however, I’d root for the Jesuits over Notre Dame. Marquette no longer bothers with football, so any Jesuit school would be a suitable proxy for the long defunct Hilltoppers. The home team is the home team, and I made my choice.
“As for “dividing us,” if the division primarily affects which sports teams we root for and which sports mottoes appeal to us, I don’t see much harm.”
That struck me as “trivializing.” I’m glad you agree that sports have a great power for reawakening that spiritedness that American Catholics seem largely to have lost. But I still think the Fighting Irish have the best chance to recover it.
Discipulus wrote:
“No one should be proud of such ancestry.”
Nor should I be. But I had this aunt on the protestant side of my family who married a Catholic Irishman and she converted. Good for the conversion, no doubt. But she subsequently became a historical revisionist and said her family background was mostly “Irish.” In fact, she was Norwegian (including her last name), English, and Scots Irish/Irish Quaker. Oh, but she never said, “Protestant Irish” or Scots-Irish, just “Irish.” She made it seem like we just got off the coffin ships. It led to some head-scratching in the family. Did changing religion really require changing ethnicity? I’m not going to pretend my ancestors were something they weren’t. Which also means that my real Catholic ancestors, who were German, deserve their due, as well. So the assumption that I was Irish Catholic grates on me — my Catholic ancestors weren’t Irish (which is neither here nor there), my Irish ancestors weren’t Catholic (not something to be proud of), and I normally wouldn’t identify with the “Fighting Irish” stereotype of American Catholicism.
“Tobia Petre, Pity the Ruthenians for becoming schismatic and the Poles for revolting as a result of Irish intolerance.”
Oh, yes, the schismatic form their rebellion took was wrong, and they’ll be punished for it. Yet Ireland denied the Ruthenians the basic respect due to their Rite. And the Poles really were given the bum’s rush. Americanism did in fact have alot to do with Irish assimilationism. I’m more of the fan of John Hughes — now there was a worthy Irish-American clergyman! Same with a number of other worthy Irish clergymen, such as the prominent anti-Americanists Archbishop Corrigan of New York and Bishop McQuaid of Rochester. Not so much Gibbons and Ireland. The predominance of Irish in the Church meant that both the virtues and the vices of Irish Catholics became endemic within American Catholicism. Hughes, McQuaid, Corrigan, and Cardinal McIntyre represent the more virtuous aspects, Cardinal Cushing and the Kennedy clan the more vicious ones. If the Germans had prevailed, then German virtues and vices would have prevailed; as the Hispanics take over, then the Hispanic virtues and vices, etc. But as it is, we’re living with the results of trends set by folks like Cardinal Cushing and the Kennedys.
What I took exception to wasn’t your praise of Irish Catholics giving their children to be missionaries. Absolutely not — God bless the Holy Ghost Fathers and the other missionaries (and especially Maryknoll, because they need it!). I objected to only two things. First, you equated Catholics and the Irish when you said, “Catholics don’t do X because X isn’t the Irish way” (paraphrase). That means Catholic=Irish. No, sir, and I took exception to that. Hence my objection that you were engaging in stereotyping, a stereotype that even my own Protestant uncle (himself part Irish!) engaged in just a few weeks ago. Because of hair color, complexion, and Catholicism, voila! his Swiss and German in-laws of thirty years must be Irish! Pretty common assumption, and mistaken. There are German Catholics, too, and they are responsible for much of the Church in Iowa and Wisconsin. To them goes much credit, and the dual assumptions that Germans are all Lutherans and Catholics all Irish doesn’t help them out.
Secondly, just because missionaries went to Africa does not mean that people in neighborhoods are going to be devoid of racism in their own lives. It is a complex question, as ethnicity is distinct from race. I don’t fault people for wanting to keep their neighborhood stable, but sometimes that natural desire is expressed as racism. Of course, Catholicism properly applied would prevent such confusion. That type of criticism is not restricted to the Irish by any means. In New Orleans, I think it was the old French Catholics who objected to the desegregation of Catholic schools and parishes. But because most French Catholics were Catholics first and formost, only a very small minority objected.
I’m not Irish, but sometimes I wish I were. If you’re a traditionalist, you can’t help being a little bit Irish. You read more Irish-American Catholic writers than anyone else (Sheen, Sheed, O’Sullivan, Fahey, Faber, Carroll, McInery, etc.); sing more Irish hymns (no need to enumerate these!); pray more Irish prayers; observe Irish “rubrics” at Mass without even thinking about it; laugh at Irish humor; and generally live in an Irish-trad ghetto whether you like it or not. So give the Irish a break, will ya? They may have destroyed the Church, but they saved it first!
“If you are unfortunate to have ancestors of the wee minority of Irish who became “soupers” during the famine—while millions were starved to death and went to Heaven rather than betray their Faith”
Uh, no, they were not soupers. They all came over long before that. At least two branches of the family way back were originally Scots, and the other Irish all had English-sounding or Scots-sounding surnames. So they don’t seem to have been Irish turncoats, as far as I can tell.
As for the Quakers, I can say in their defense that though they didn’t join the True Church, at least they rejected the violent Calvinism and Anglicanism of the day. They moved to Pennsylvania, where as I recall the Quakers extended religious liberty to Catholics, which most colonies did not do. So they could have been worse . . .
But no, the Catholic Church isn’t racist. :)
Here’s the story of an Irish :) priest down South who suffered martyrdom at the hands of a Methodist minister/Klansman because he officiated at the Catholic wedding of the Klansman heretic’s daughter to a Puerto Rican. The Freemason Klansman lawyer who defended the murderer later became the US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, responsible for many of the liberal activist rulings of that court. :-(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Coyle
And the Catholic Church opposed anti-miscegenation laws. I know several happily married Catholic couples where the spouses are of different races . . .
Thanks for bringing that whole discussion full circle for us! :)
“Thanks for bringing that whole discussion full circle for us! :)”
The hijackers of conversations, like those of airplanes, eventually look for a place to land — at least we hope they do.
Tobias Petrus,
In your foolish haste to reject your Irish heritage, you may also be forfeiting the blessings won by St. Patrick, which are applied to the Irish race alone.
Your loss.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
[St. Patrick], however, would not, as yet, descend from the mountain. He had vanquished the demons, but he would now wrestle with God Himself, like Jacob of old, to secure the spiritual interests of his people. The angel had announced to him that, to reward his fidelity in prayer and penance, as many of his people would be gathered into heaven as would cover the land and sea as far as his vision could reach. Far more ample, however, were the aspirations of the saint, and he resolved to persevere in fasting and prayer until the fullest measure of his petition was granted. Again and again the angel came to comfort him, announcing new concessions; but all these would not suffice. He would not relinquish his post on the mountain, or relax his penance, until all were granted. At length the message came that his prayers were heard:
many souls would be free from the pains of purgatory through his intercession;
whoever in the spirit of penance would recite his hymn before death would attain the heavenly reward;
barbarian hordes would never obtain sway in his Church;
seven years before the Judgement Day, the sea would spread over Ireland to save its people from the temptations and terrors of the Antichrist; and
greatest blessing of all, Patrick himself should be deputed to judge the whole Irish race on the last day.
Such were the extraordinary favors which St. Patrick, with his wrestling with the Most High, his unceasing prayers, his unconquerable love of heavenly things, and his unremitting penitential deeds, obtained for the people whom he evangelized.
JSP, did you read the section where I said that, as far as I can tell, my Irish ancestors were actually Scots-Irish (hence from Scotland — I traced one branch back to Glasgow) or else had English-sounding names? Since they were Protestants or Quakers in addition, I really don’t know how many of them actually were Irish originally and how many were “planted” there by the Protestant Crown to suppress honest-to-goodness Irish Papists. So I really don’t know if St. Patrick was ever the patron of my ancestors. Depending on the branch of the family, St. Andrew, St. George, St. Boniface, St. Olaf, and St. Fridolin (that’s right, Fridolin) sure, but I really can’t tell about St. Patrick. I’ve done some genealogical research, so I don’t think I’m being all that hasty or foolish. Even if I did determine they were Irish from before the Reformation, they’d be traitors (doubly or trebly so), which I’d rather not find out.
Now, I’m sure you have some interesting remarks on the Catholic Church’s lack of racism.
C’mon folks. Saint Patrick wasn’t even Irish. The man was born in Britain of Roman parents on land that now belongs to Scotland.
No one disputes what the Irish did for the Church, both good and bad. The point of dispute is being Irish does not mean one is Catholic or one is virtuous. Being Irish also doesn’t mean one isn’t racist. It was the Irish Catholics of South Boston who terrorized and threatened black children in the 1970s. That racism is still present today though not as exposed.
Discipulus wrote: “Now I can see why Saint Alphonsus said not to bring up the subject of nationality at the table. I didn’t realize that a little praise for those who hail from the Land of Saints and Scholars would bring out such bigotry in the best. We know now who wears the Orange on Saint Patrick’s Day.”
Discipulus, if you’re going to make personal attacks, at least have the guts to be forthright about it. That your paragraph above is directed at me is clear to all who read my post and know what C.Ss.R. means. If you have a problem with me, be a man and deal with me. Don’t play adolescent schoolyard games.
Fr. Bailey, I was hoping that I was the sole target of Discipulus’ remark, since I was the one who initially criticized his Irish=Catholic equation. Also, I hope that the reference to St. Alphonsus was not intended to refer to your being a Redemptorist. But he’ll have to answer that.
Dear Father Scott, I clearly identified myself as Irish but my fault was in the absurdity of insinuating that all Catholics are Irish. I would expect to get a chuckle out of this from any fellow Irishman and a good guffaw from any non Irishman. Instead I find that I have highly insulted all respectable mixed nationalities and have been treated to a few good lessons on the corruption and the racism of my people. In fact I just heard the news, “It was the Irish Catholics of South Boston who terrorized and threatened black children in the 1970s.” Please excuse me if I laugh out loud. I find equally funny your attempt to disassociate Saint Patrick from the Irish people. We don’t need to claim him by birth because he claimed us by regeneration. As if we didn’t know he was born in France.
In referring to Saint Alphonsus to bolster my demonstration of the undue touchiness of the subject then under discussion, I was not referring to you. But if you are bigoted toward the Irish and if you do wear orange on Saint Patrick’s Day, then what I said would apply. As they say, “If the shoe fits, wear it.”
That’s all you’ll hear from me on this thread. Thank you, Tobia Petre for the link. I had never heard of Fr. James Coyle.
“I would expect to get a chuckle out of this from any fellow Irishman and a good guffaw from any non Irishman.”
To vee Chtermans, Eirisch huemer opften vallz vlatt.
My apologies for the rant. I like these little ethnic squabbles myself, provided they don’t get too intense. I think they add spice to a very PC America. “White” isn’t just “white,” it’s a patchwork of little stories tracing back to the forgotten corners of Europe. I think it would have been, shall we say, “interesting” to see the old ethnic neighborhoods of big Catholic cities in action — Germans, Italians, Poles, Irishmen, Slovenes, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Puerto Ricans, etc. mixing it up, with the occasional bout of fisticuffs when one side is seen to have overstepped the line. Discipule, you just happened to have made your Irish joke on the wrong side of the neighborhood divide.
The ancient Greeks had some saying, arete invites phthonos (excellence/virtue invites envy), or something like that. Since the Irish are the top ethnicity in American Catholicism, the other ethnicities like the get their digs in against them from time to time, just as Clara has pointed out that other schools love to hate Notre Dame because of the Fighting Irish fans’ air of superiority. Well, in the state of Wisconsin, Marquette is the most preten . . . er, prominent private school, and those who go to the other schools (like UW) passionately hate Marquette for it. The biggest fish in the small pond naturally envies the bigger fish in the bigger pond. So it goes. As some Massachusetts Democrat with a very Irish last name once said, “All politics is local,” which I think applies here, mutatis mutandis.
The joke is really on me, I think… starting a thread about how the Church isn’t racist, only to have it descend into ethnic squabbles!
Well, Clara, the joke may *really* be on you, for there’s more than enough “thumos” in this thread to go around. Maybe we should all just get together and play some touch football and solve our problems that way?
Works for me!