Hi locdog,
You know how I agree with you about this pope's policies and actions regarding the Middle East (and I'm Catholic). I even believe that God is scourging this pope through his various physical ailments because JPII governs the church more like an arrogant philosophy professor than as a guardian of Peter's commission (and have said so on one Catholic blog). But to describe Roman Catholicism as "rampant popery" is contemptuous and far beneath you. It smacks of the worst of the Bob Jones/Tony Alamo/Ian Paisley strain of fundamentalism. It's also an attack on those of us Catholics (and there are more out there than you might imagine) who disagree passionately with the pope's stance on Iraq. I don't consider myself a "rampant papist"; if I did, I wouldn't be as critical of this pope as I have been. Neither is Rod Dreher such an animal; he's a devout Catholic who wrote a brilliant column for the Wall Street Journal criticizing the Vatican for spending so much energy and passion on Iraq and spending so little on the sex-abuse crisis. He's been catching Hell on Catholic blogs for his stance.
Now, "rampant papists" do exist in the church (some have their own blogs). But they hardly constitute a meaningful plurality, let alone a majority. There's even a heresy named for such men: ultramonatism. I'll let you look that one up for yourself.
One of the problems many conservative Catholics see in the church is that most Catholics don't seem to care about major theological doctrines (such as the Real Presence), let alone what the pope teaches about abortion and birth control. Hardly a consequence of "rampant popery".
I can understand how passion can overwhelm reason; I've allowed that to happen myself when commenting on blogs. But God gives Christians a spirit of love, power and a sound mind. The moral stupidity of the leaders of any particular church doesn't justify tarring all members of that church w/the same brush. How would you or other evangelicals feel if Catholics tarred you with the Jones/Alamo/Paisley brush?
Please take this from someone who isn't against you or evangelicals by any stretch of the imagination.
If you want examples of "rampant papists" I can name three: Mark Shea (markshea.blogspot.com), Kevin Miller (kevin-miller.blogspot.com) and Greg Popcak (www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog). Miller and Popcak are the worst, and I say that judging by their comments on Rod Dreher's article.
sorry joseph, i did not and do not intend any offense, but i will have to stand by my comment for i couple of reasons, which i'll give you because i know you are a reasonable man.
the first reason is that i believe all too many catholics owe their allegiances more to the vatican than to the Bible, and that in any conflict between the two (or apparent conflict as in the case of iraq) they would be more inclined to take the side of the pope. that's popery. i don't know what else to call it. i understand that it's a term which has become associated with the worst sort of evangelical anti-catholicism, but i don't have a better word to apply. i do not think a person need worship the pope to qualify. "papistry" is equally perjorative (i looked them both up in the dictionary to be certain.) i did not intend to include all catholics, or even neccessarily the majority of american catholics, although i probably would have to include the majority of world catholics if you factor in latin american catholics, italian, etc.
the second reason is that if i intended any offense at all, then a larger share of it was given to protestants. rampant ecumenicism is more offensive than popery, at least in my mind. at least a papist is loyal to the person he feels is God's emmisary on this earth, and in his own misguided way is attempting to follow the true faith. an ecumenicist denies that any true faith exists, and maligns the teachings of Scripture until Christianity can be contorted into hinduism, buddhism, judaism, islam, etc.
to be clear, i'm not attempting to brand anyone a heretic or to question anyone's salvation. i'm sorry if i gave you that impression. as i see it (especially viewing this matter through protestant eyes) a person's loyalties can lie with the pope, or with the Bible. i believe that the pope's views on iraq are not in line with God's will as expressed in the Bible, and i think that's evident to most. a papist, then, is a person who switches off his or her brain and says "even though i don't personally understand or agree with what the pope's doing, i'm going to go along with it anyways simply because it's him."
finally, i hold you, dreher, and others like the two of you in the deepest respect, and believe that you will serve the Lord in mending the ills that have hindered roman catholicism in the past.
locdog
Commenting by HaloScan
