A lot of these pictures only look alarming if they are looked at from a real Calvinist prospective.

Dom, have you ever seen some of Thomas Nast’s cartoons?  He was a ferocious anti-Catholic bigot, and consistently portrayed the Irish as slack-jawed drunken apes cowering before malicious churchmen.

One of his most famous, “The American River Ganges” (you can find it at cartoons.osu.edu/nast/text/river_ganges.htm) shows bishops as crocodiles (mitres as their mouths) advancing towards a group of terrified Protestant children cowering on a beach.

Some of those pictures might have been funded by the “No Nothing Party”, which was formed especially as an anti-Catholic party.
If that party was still in existence, I’m sure several of our present democrats would be included as members. 

I think you mean “Know Nothing” and I’m sure some of those Democrats would themselves be nominal Catholics.

Some of those pictures might have been funded by the “No Nothing Party”, which was formed especially as an anti-Catholic party.

If that party was still in existence, I’m sure several of our present democrats would be included as members. 

Yes I meant “Know Nothing”.

My mistake.

It’s also funny, in a sad way, that the worst accusations leveled against Catholic priests was that they were womanizers and drunks. Would that could be the worst thing snickered about priests in America today.

I have to disagree with the sentiment behind your statement, and my guess is that this is not the tone you are trying to convey.  Would it really be better, if today, people would say, “Priests?  Aren’t they just a bunch of drunks and womanizers?” versus “Priests?  Aren’t they just a bunch of homosexuals and pedophiles?”  On its face, it might sound better.  But why is that?  Simply because adultery and fornication are disordered versions of more natural relations than pedophilia or homosexual acts does not really make them any “better”.  The fact that adultery and fornication are more acceptable is not a reflection on the fact that they are less sinful, but our ability to not be disturbed by a particular sin because it so familiar, prevalent, celebrated, encouraged, etc.

David,

I’ll admit that saying one type of mortal sin is better than another is like saying dog crap smells better than cat crap, but the point behind it, if I’m forced to justify the statement, is that drunkenness and heterosexual fornication are least corruptions of a good, whereas pedophilia and heterosexuality are disordered through and through.

I’m probably not putting that in the best possible terms, but then I’m not a moral theologian.

Heterosexual acts and drinking alcohol are natural acts. Those other things are not. A priest, gives up even some natural acts, for the sake of the Kingdom of God.  Giving up sexual relations and moderating alcohol use is ascetic in nature and should stimulate a hearty spiritual life. 

Those other things are vile even for any mammal.

“Who shall educate the child?” The church of the parent’s choosing or the post-Protestant,  highly homosexualized, socialist, State schools? 

Dom,

Yes, I recognize that there are moral distinctions of sin based on perversion of natural acts versus simply unnatural acts.  The Catechism notes these distinctions.  However, my point is that it seems quite alright to offer up certain sins because they are deemed more acceptable which often means actually acceptable.

By the way, you might want to correct your comment.  (I figure that you must have much on your mind.)  You wrote:  whereas pedophilia and heterosexuality are disordered through and through.

Yes, I meant homosexuality.

For some reason, the picture of The Minister’s Happy Family puts me in mind of Mr. and Mrs. Blackitt in Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life”:

MR. HARRY BLACKITT:  Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can’t afford to bloody feed.
MRS. BLACKITT:  What are we dear?
MR. BLACKITT:  Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.
MRS. BLACKITT:  Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?
MR. BLACKITT:  Because… every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.
MRS. BLACKITT:  But it’s the same with us, Harry.
MR. BLACKITT:  What do you mean?
MRS. BLACKITT:  Well, I mean, we’ve got two children, and we’ve had sexual intercourse twice.

(Those familiar with the movie will know that I’m omitting the rest of the scene, containing some funny, but unspeakably vulgar, discussion of the “benefits” of Mr. Blackitt’s triumphalist Protestantism.)

And a lovely song and dance number

< that minister doesn’t look all that happy >
——————————————-
Pop doesn’t look too bad, but take a look at the kids, especially the 3 younger sons.  They all look like they can’t wait to get away from the old coot, and fit the stereotype of “preacher’s kids” (i.e., brats from hell).  The youngest seated on the left looks a lot like Eddie Munster, complete with pointy ears (kind of has a wild look in his eye, too).  Son #2 just above Eddie is scowling and looking away from the rest of the family.  Son #3 is trapped - Granny on one side, big brother in back, & Pop on the other side holding him down.  Even Sis has a resigned look, like she’s just realized she’s on her way to being a non-entity like Ma & Granny.

It’s definitely not the Brady Bunch.

Categories

Blogroll