Catholic Exchange

Trying to Fly with One Wing, Part 8: Raising a Red Flag on Irrelevant Appeals

The evangelist's lean face was red with emotion and wet from perspiration. After mopping his brow and neck with his white handkerchief, he'd wave it at his audience — trying both to air it dry in the humid August heat of the sawdust revival tent, and reinforce the point of his sermon — our surrender to Communism if we elected John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a Catholic, to the presidency.

It was the summer of 1960. I was 13, in the midst of adolescence. That summer we spent several weeks at our small cabin at the Free Methodist Church campgrounds just East of Jackson, Michigan. Each day was filled with Bible studies, youth meetings, prayer meetings, meals in the large WWII styled Quonset hut dining hall. The days concluded with a two-hour singing and preaching service in the barn-like tabernacle that sat 1,000. On one particular night, however, there was competition. A few miles outside camp on Ann Arbor Road, near the Dome Ice Cream parlor, a traveling evangelist had dumped a pile of sawdust on a vacant lot, erected a modest tent over it, and was preaching — not about God or Christ — but against Catholicism.

Historically (I'm old enough to feel the need to explain my childhood in such terms), General Dwight D. Eisenhower was completing his second term as President, and the cold war was hot. Senator Joseph McCarthy had died several years before. "McCarthyism", the "Red" fear he had fostered, was very much alive, thanks to Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev's rhetorical threat to take over the United States. Khrushchev was reported to have said, "We will bury you." To which my very Christian, evangelical, Bible teaching, daughter-of-missionaries, given-to-passion mother would proclaim during family supper, "I'd rather be dead than red." She'd say this, and then ask if I didn't agree with her. I never did know how to answer since she was the one that first taught me about Jeremiah's prophecies to the Judean king, Zedekiah: that it would be better to be alive and a slave in Nineveh, than dead and a snack for vultures in Judah. (Yeah, yeah, yeah…I knew a lot about the Bible back then. But you have to remember, I was Evangelical, not Catholic…and Evangelicals go to Sunday School, every Sunday their whole lives. Hint!)

 The Kennedy-Nixon campaign of 1960 occurred during the pontificate of John XXIII, and, here in America, Catholics were busy having large families. We lived near the Divine Child parish in Dearborn, Michigan, and it seemed that every other house in the neighborhood was Catholic with 6-12 kids. Some Protestants (like my mother) were afraid that Catholicism would take over America — not by killing people (like the Communists had threatened) but by having babies who would eventually allow Catholics to dominate the democratic process. Dave Armstrong has reminded me that the contraceptive pill was introduced, also in 1960, not so much to give women a choice, but as a racist ploy to limit the number of African American babies. Demographics is destiny.

Back in the sawdust revival tent, the perspiring evangelist was waving his white handkerchief — and preparing yet another, but larger prop. I'll never forget the image — or the "logic."  He had been railing and raging for some time against Catholicism and Communism. The parallels were unmistakable (to him): (a) both institutions started with the letter "C" and ended in "ism" — suffixes that, by the standards of the English language, identified evil ideologies; (b) both Moscow and the Vatican were determined to take over the world, one by death, the other by over-population; and (c) both were in league with the devil — Communism outlawed God (neat trick), and Catholicism was the sinister front for the anti-Christ. Americans should fear both, he told us. The facts spoke for themselves…and my Mom, bless her rather-dead-than-red-heart…joined the ever-louder "Amen!" chorus.

Then, it came time for the big climax, the coup-de-grace, the clincher. The evangelist selected two, good-looking children about my age from the audience, and led them onto the small wooden platform from which he was preaching. The kids looked like "plants" — they were dressed and combed for the part. Yes, in addition to knowing something about the Bible I was a cynic. I recall the girl was wearing a pretty white dress, with a bow in her curled blonde hair, like she had just posed for a shampoo ad. I really don't remember the boy. Adolescence was in the process of permanently altering my interests.

The evangelist had the kids stand next to each other facing the audience, hands at their sides, idealistic smiles distorting their faces (they had done this before). Then with great pathos he intoned: "Men and women of America. I am warning you with God as my witness. If you elect John Fitzgerald Kennedy to the Presidency this is what will happen." And suddenly out of nowhere (okay, so I was distracted) he produces a HUGE red communist flag, and drapes it over the kids' shoulders like a warm blanket on a cold night. Then he took the corners of the red flag and pulled it tight around the front of the kids, leaving only their faces staring sadly (as if on cue) at the audience like a mad Andy Warhol painting.

The image was complete. The memory indelible.

Irrelevant Appeals

A number of fallacies were at work during the dear evangelist's presentation, but let's focus on two particular irrelevant appeals. On the emotional side we have Exploitation of Strong Feelings, and on the objective side Appeal to Common Opinion.

The evangelist exploited the strong feelings of his Protestant American audience by transferring the real danger of Russian Communism onto the false danger of Catholicism. That the Russians posed a real threat to the United States was palatable. It was during this post WWII period that the nuclear arms race began — the devastation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima still fresh in the public's mind. Just a few years before, in 1957, the Russians launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik, which invisibly transversed the United States twice a day and twice at night. The terror of atomic bombs falling from the immediacy of space, just 600 miles away, suddenly became reasonable, and some Americans built underground, self-contained bomb shelters with a month's supply of food and water. The fears were confirmed when three years later President Kennedy blockaded Cuba until the Russians dismantled their nuclear missile sites there.

Recall, however, that JFK was not communist, or Russian. In fact he had a strong anti-Communist platform. He was also an American war hero and a Pulitzer Prize winning author. But, he was Roman Catholic. While I'm not willing to judge just how good or bad a Catholic JFK was, it was clear that the Kennedy clan's faith was not hiding in a closet. JFK's Catholicism was an issue throughout the campaign, and he worked hard in the primaries to prove he could get the Protestant vote. That Catholicism was part of the Kennedys' lives was driven home to me by the famous, but tragic photograph of Bobby Kennedy lying on the ground, having just been shot by Sirhan-Sirhan's bullet. Moments from death, Kennedy's right hand fingers a rosary. You can almost hear his thoughts: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me now…at the hour of my death."

Of course, the image of Bobby fingering the rosary reminds me of a common American opinion the evangelist was counting on Protestant Americans remembering, that Catholics were idolaters. The evangelist was also convinced that Pope John XXIII was the anti-Christ, and was, from the Vatican, directing the entire JFK campaign with idolatrous and sinister intent. Because of the wide spread, misinformed opinion Protestants held about Catholicism, reinforced by the Catholic Church's silence on the issue and its lack of any effective public relations effort about what Catholics really believed, the argument was convincing. "Amen!" my mom shouted.

It may be hard to imagine the residual strength of the British and Irish Penal Laws (sometimes referred to as the "Popery Code") to outlaw and marginalize Catholicism here in America. The effects are still very evident in states like Georgia where the early prohibition against Catholics owning land, running for office, or practicing law is evident by the scarcity of Catholic churches there. Recently, the vocational director for Glenmary Home Missioners, Fr. Steve Pawelk, showed me a current county map of Georgia where each county that did not have a Catholic parish, was colored red. Surprisingly, the Northern part of Georgia was a sea of red.

It is easy to get caught up in beliefs and opinions that the majority of those around us hold. It seems that going along with the crowd, or agreeing with the strong feelings of others is more peaceful and less contentious. But where such fallacious common opinion and strong feelings are uncontested, danger lurks close at hand. Even the apparent use of such fallacies should raise a red flag.

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    God loves you .

    “. . . and Evangelicals go to Sunday School, every Sunday their whole lives. Hint! . . .”

    “. . . fallacious common opinion and strong feelings are uncontested . . .”

    As I have noted before, though maybe not here, I wonder just what 12 years of Catholic education bought me. I was so eager to have it, I worked for and paid for four years of Catholic high school. (It was helpful that the public schools were woefully behind in their subject courses, that public school kids were no charms to be with and Protestant ethics bought so easily into divorce. At thirteen, at least I was that ‘aware’.)

    However, this author brings up the two points above that would have made my education more an ‘education’, rather than the vocational training into which it has evolved even at college levels. Where was the strong thrust of a ‘Sunday school’ enhancement on basic Religion classes? Where were the Biblical apologetics that would have firmed up faith? Where was Bible study to make me ‘ooh and ahh’ as I still do to this day when God’s revelation proves His hand in it?

    More, that logic empowers reason, such as the fallacious means to effect responses might have been handy to have. Frankly, logic would have been more useful than trigonometry. My late wife ‘A-ced’ logic in college, and it showed through all our lives together. She never lost an argument with anyone – though she treated it as if she was merely conversing. Her strength was in her gentle reserve in stating her case. To give personal reference, I knew that she had ‘won’ only after she had persuaded me to change my mind. Never belittling person or argument, she just constructed her arguments to present their ‘better’ outcomes. Well read, brilliant and vibrantly Catholic – truly educated, you might say – Sharon was more than a match for any person who just had it ‘wrong’. I will not hesitate to say that her pious, prayerful, advanced Catholicism worked in synergy with her powerful logical abilities. (Lord, You know how these twenty-five years later, how I still miss our beloved Sharon. Yet, Your will has made her Your beloved saint-daughter-princess. I don’t need ‘logic’ to know NOT to argue with that.)

    Just two more markers of the weak (at times, bogus? – how would we mere ‘children’ know? Though, mostly, the Religion classes were just ‘forgettable’.) catechesis to which Catholicism to this day submits . . . will we ever learn, that we might teach? Christ’s Blood is in the wine, and we were served watered-down weak tea.

    And, where has the Love gone from love? Homo-centric ‘love’ is nothing to Christocentric life, with all that comes with it – Love, just to start.

    Remember, I love you, too

    Reminding that we are all on the same side – His,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or … yahoo.com)

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dr. Williams – No offense meant, but something strikes me as smart-alecky about the way you write. It seems to me to be mean, in a calculating and contrived way. I know many evangelicals (or protestants which you prefer) who put Catholics to shame with their following of Christ. You talk about them in a negative light, throwing out names such as hard-boiled, sweaty, whatever pejoratives you imagine, and assume that worldly knowledge is completely in your grasp. I only have time for one example, but let's see if it is:

    You say "the contraceptive pill was introduced, also in 1960, not so much to give women a choice, but as a racist ploy to limit the number of African American babies." Again no offense meant, but that is simply a moronic statement. Let's legalize something for all, and hope it targets a few. It's like saying you want to legalize heroin in the United States for everyone to target blacks. What sense does that make, seriously? I'll tell you what it does do…..It let's the true scoundrels off the hook and fastens a millstone of guilt around the neck of whites. Considering most people who read you don't support this pill, like the people of Catholic Exchange, what is your true agenda?

    In the next article, you should write about why so many of the leading Catholic politicians are pathetic, and follow Satan instead of our Lord. Though I'm sure you'll be able to slyly make the problem seem hopeless to reformers.

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    This article is more political propaganda than anything else, must be election time. Get so much of that – divide um and conquer stuff. I see it a lot here in Atlanta especially when elections are looming… trying to pit the blacks against the whites… whites against blacks, all to gain votes. Yeah, stir up the hatred, there's a lot of (bad) reasons for dividing people instead of building bridges. Personally I think people are sick of it, they want someone who wants to heal, not open up old wounds.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    It is interesting to note that Chief justice Blackman, who wrote the majority opinion in Roe vs Wade, just had his private papers released after his death. In those papers he tells how he thought that abortion was a solution to reduce the increasing number of welfare babies, epecially black welfare babies. The proportion of black women who have abortions is now triple the proportion number of white women. His plan worked.

    Origionally Democrats like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy opposed this abortion decision. Now they rely on pro-abortion forces to support their campaigns.

    The pill origionally was developed to help married couples have sexual relations without fear of getting pregnant. It quickly changed to help any woman have sex with little risk of getting pregnant, which would then reduce the number of out of wedlock babies,especially poor single mothers.

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    For those who feel that the author is off base with his comment about the pill, let me recommend to you to read The Pivot of Civilization by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. This book will tell you about the true aims of the contraceptive movement as told in the founders own words. Her desire to remove the 'human weeds' is truly instructive. Happy reading! CF

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    This piece brings back memories for this Catholic. 

    I was also 13 in 1960.  I had inherited both my strong Catholic faith and membership in  the Democratic Party from my Irish Mom and  my Italian dad – both  south side of Chicago CathoDems (the terms were inseparable).

     We were living in Wheaton, Illinois – hot bed of anti Catholic hate publishing and the county seat of a county that hadn't elected a Democrat to anything since the formation of the Republican Party in 1856!

     I learned to defend my faith, to be proud of it and to stand firm in the face of opposition.  Yes, I was that scrawny 13 yr old handing out Kennedy for President fliers at the entrance to Wheaton College Stadium on the day VP Richard Nixon came to speak. 

    We grow strong in trial because His grace is strongest when we are weakest.

    Thanks for the memory.  

    And, by the way, if a politician spoke JFK's words today, the NY Times would deride him for being an arch conservative. For instance, Kennedy ran to the right of Nixon and assailed the  Eisenhower administration for being weak on defense.  In those days the Democrats   were never the party of surrender as they are today.

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Dear Zephyr424 and bkeebler:

    It is common practice for a writer to be opinionated, since that is all he knows. I try to be both entertaining and humble, often writing about my own mistakes. I am far from being omniscient, but I try. (pleezzee…that was a joke). If I wrote as I truly felt, there would be only the expression of doubts. I take for granted that everyone knows, in truth, I am an ignorant, moronic, smart-aleck, who things more highly of himself that he should. Most writers are that way, or they would never take up a pen…or, learn to type. Given such tendencies, how can I motivate others to cast aside such virtues, and be smarter than I?

    I suspect that on a political note you disagree with me, and thus you think my comments are political "propaganda." I assure you I write about logic and Catholic theology, not politics. But politicians (and their contrary pundits) do terrible things to logic everyday, and thus their actions are rich with examples. This being a political season, using political topics in my writing makes my points current. You'll note that the article is both supportive of a past Democrat (JFK) and a current Republican plank (pro life). I do take sides, but it's on the side of what we know through reason and faith.

    I guess I need to write about the logical fallacies of Margaret Sanger and reveal what she perpetuated on African Americans in her life-time effort in legalized abortion and the pill. Who said this? "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population". Do a little digging. You might want to start with http://blackgenocide.org/negro.html and check out the claims at http://www.acts1711.com/sanger.htm. You can decide if Sanger actually said this, and what her real motivations were. My agenda is to marginalize Margaret Sanger's philosophy and vigorously give credibility to the life-giving principles of Catholic moral teaching.

    With regard to my opinion about what Evangelicals can teach Catholics (since you didn't get my dig about Sunday School) check out my August 11, 2007 blog entry on the need for an adult Sunday School program in every parish — as modeled after Evangelical practice. I come from an Evangelical background, and I believe there is MUCH Evangelicals can teach Catholics about adult faith formation techniques. http://www.CrossingNineveh.blogspot.com

    Finally, there are significant differences between the broader term "Protestant" and the narrower categories of "Evangelical" and then "Fundamentalist." Each successive word (generally) further narrows the group's identify into a theology and practice that is narrower and more exclusive. I try to use them correctly, but there can be overlap.

    Hope this helps.

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I'm not sure what the point of this article is, however, I'm going to tack on to Mr Jewell's comments.

    I was a poorly catechized cradle catholic born in the early 1960s.

    I always loved the Lord and felt called by Him.  I am extremely thankful for the gift of Faith and Zeal which, fueled by my personality, drove me to many years of bible study both within Catholic settings and noncatholic groups.  Without those years of study I have no doubt that my faith may have shriveled.  The awe, wonder, and excitement I feel when I see God's plan unfolding in the scripture drives me to love Him more and brings energy to my attempts at evangelizing.  I can see specifically how God used scripture to help me find Him and give my life to Him.  My husband and I now use In Conversation With God as our tool to help us study and meditate on scripture as she is held in the heart of the Church through Mary.

    My point?  It is a great weakness on the part of modern catechesis of children to minimize study of scripture.  I use the excellent Faith and Life series with the 8th graders at my parish.  However, I know for a fact that they're not going to remember the various church councils held over the centuries, or the heresies, or Doctors of the Church.  I have them only one hour a week for 24 classes.  I do believe all the content of the book is important for them to learn, however, there is nothing like sitting with the actual Bible in your hand and experiencing the joy of God revealing Himself to you for that moment in time.  I can't do that with the kids because there is no time and I am held acountable for the material in it.

    My real goal is to leave the students with the memory that they once had a teacher who was on fire with love for Christ and His Church.  That she loved them enough to spend an hour a week passing on the faith.  Oh!  And she also knew a lot!  I want them to know there's much to know and love about their Church and that knowlege will strengthen their faith.  When they're more mature, they'll be able to understand the concepts much better.  (As an example, my holy son, who was confirmed last year and spent years of catechesis both at home and at church, couldn't give a clear explanation of Pentecost to a school mate. Luckily he came home and asked me about it.  I opened Acts Ch 2 for him and we read through it together.  I was shocked, hurt, and scared by his failure to remember that key event!  But I am trying to learn something from that experience.)  Love of scripture is not always what kids come away with in traditional CCD, and it is an important part of knowing and loving and serving God and being happy with him.

    Moving on, part of Margerat Sanger's (founder of Planned Parenthood)plan was eugenic….get rid of the weeds:  Blacks, disabled…..contraception and abortion are part of that plan.  I think the pill was marketed for a variety of reasons.  But the inception of mass contraceptive availability was certainly driven in large measure by eugenics and of course a free for all approach to sex.

    Thanks for the addendum, Stan.

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To Dr. Williams: Please, please do write on M. Sanger!  I'm old enough to be elkabrikir's mother, and nobody younger than I has a clue who Sanger was and what she did!  In the same way that "only us old folks" (sorry) remember the Kennedy election in 1960 (my 1st vote, and my only Democratic vote!), so we are the last generation to learn "unrevised" history!  You're the writer: do it!  (Pleeeeeze?)

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I appreciated the article- I identified with the author's memories and concerns- I am always still shocked by the level of tension and disparity possible between different people listening to the same speech or reading the same article.  I was talking with a college age friend the other day and he wanted to correct my "mistaken" notions about planned parenthood being in certain districts in the city as being evidence of genocidal intentions– he said "No they are there because that is where the business is" It's evident that we (you and me) all need so many layers of help — not only about what the facts are, but how to communicate them. When I see ite a piece like Mr Williams' get the reaction that some gave him, I am a little discouraged– thank God for his response and the clarity of the later posters

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    What a lovely story.  Thank you for highlighting Sister's joy and its impact on you.  One of my favorite parts of a recent visit to Rome was seeing the many, many religious around the city:  from the Vatican to public buses.  I have a fond memory of a young Polish priest I met on a bus.  He perfumed my soul with a lingering fragrance of joy.  Despite the language barrier, the Holy Spirit united us as one in Christ. I hope to meet him again.

Leave a Reply