Last week I drew attention to the way in which Robert Orsi, the Grace Craddock Nagle Chair in Catholic Studies at Northwestern University, slammed the Catholic Church in an online tirade.
I’m someone who respects (and respectfully disagrees) with a great deal of loyal Catholic dissent.
Yes, I worry that too much of liberal Catholicism has become academic rather than real, in control of academic departments and authoritarian in temperament. Yes, I wrote a quite negative review of Fr. James Keenan’s book, A History of Twentieth Century Moral Theology. And, yes, I’ve said some harsh things about mushy-headed Jesuits.
Therefore, I think readers will recognize that I don’t agree with a lot of what the so-called progressive Catholics stand for. But I know from experience that their dissent is often intermixed with a profound loyalty to the Church, as well as, in many cases, a lifetime of service.
Professor Robert Orsi’s outburst, however, strikes a different note. It’s one of bitter denunciation. It seems bizarre to me that such a person should hold a chair in Catholic Studies. Can we imagine a chair of Jewish Studies who repeats simple-minded slanders against Jews: rootless cosmopolitans, money grubbing shysters, and other libels? Orsi’s comments operate at the same level.
I’m in favor of academic freedom. Robert Orsi is entitled to his opinions, however foolish. And Northwestern is entitled to employ him. But a Catholic chair?
This is not a matter of mere titles. At Northwestern Orsi runs a Catholic Studies program.
The Catholic Church does not own the word “catholic,” but surely she has a legitimate interest in its use, especially by institutions and professors who seem altogether indifferent to—correction: profoundly antagonistic to—her teachings.
I’m sure Cardinal George in Chicago is not indifferent, and I certainly hope he can bring the administrators at Northwestern to see the lack of integrity involved in the false advertising of calling Orsi’s chair a Catholic chair. And if not the administrators, then at least the donors.
CLARIFICATION: Some folks who commented on my post last week wrongly supposed that Notre Dame was responsible for giving Orsi a platform on which to issue his preachments. That is not correct.
The “Contending Modernities” project has a great deal of promise, because it breaks down the false truism that the pre-Vatican II Church was “anti-modern,” when, in fact, the nineteenth and twentieth century Catholic Church had a variety of very sophisticated responses to and engagements with secular modernity. Neo-scholasticism, in other words, was and remains a “contending modernity”—a very important insight.
Robert Orsi’s comments appeared on the website of the Social Science Research Council, a New York organization that was drawing attention to the Notre Dame project and solicited comments, including Orsi’s.
In short, Orsi was not invited, sponsored, or endorsed by the Contending Modernities project. On the contrary, his remarks depend upon the crude (and still dominant) historical caricature of Catholicism as “reactionary.” That’s a mentality that the Notre Dame project is designed to break down.
December 7th, 2010 | 4:51 pm
Is Professor Robert Orsi a member of the Roman Catholic Church?
If he’s not a Roman Catholic, then what religion, if any, is he?
And if not, how did he obtain his chair???
December 7th, 2010 | 5:32 pm
Here’s the brief bio description of Professor Orsi:
http://www.religion.northwestern.edu/faculty/orsi.html
For what it’s worth, he’s received accolades in academia for his scholarship and research. This is probably why he was selected for his Chair at Northwestern.
BTW, I have heard of a Catholic nun who’s head of a Presbyterian seminary. And Dinesh D’Souza is president of an Evangelical College in New York. So if Orsi’s not a Catholic, but a Catholic scholar, then I suppose there’s precedent.
December 7th, 2010 | 5:44 pm
The chair at Northwestern (a private university) is sociological (history, ethnological studies, et cet.), not theological. I would not think there would be a requirement for its holder to actually be Catholic, any more than a chair in German studies would be required to be German.
http://www.religion.northwestern.edu/faculty/orsi.html
December 7th, 2010 | 11:38 pm
I am not Catholic. but I have the greatest respect for Her. I thought seriously about joining, and may still do so. For now, I’m an outside admirer. Some of the teachings are a hurddle for me, right now, (gay/lesbian issues, birth control, womens ordination), but I have no tolerance for people atacking the Church. It, sure, has made mistakes, but it’s also been a great source of moral clarity, and has done tremendous good, in the world.
December 8th, 2010 | 1:10 am
[...] More on Robert Orsi’s Anti-Catholicism – R.R. Reno, First Thoughts [...]
December 8th, 2010 | 8:27 am
For Bret Lythgoe: Reacting to people attacking the Church is the first of the three steps to conversion Chesterton lists in his small (and very good) book The Catholic Church and Conversion. Just, as people say, saying.
December 8th, 2010 | 8:28 am
I have been consulted on more than one occasion for potential candidates for “Catholic Chairs” at state or private universities. Typically, such search committees are allergic to theologians and more interested in folks who fit the broad category of religious studies.That rubric of “Catholic Studies” is so misty that the candidate might be interested in almost anything (and frequently is) where Catholicism is one aspect of the subject. Given that fact it is not surprising that allegiance to the Catholic Faith is an incidental factor. “Catholic Studies” like others of the same family (Gender Studies, etc.) is most commonly a misty rubric.
December 8th, 2010 | 3:22 pm
First timer here. Orsi is considered one of the finest and most influential scholars of American religion of his generation. Almost any religion department would love to have him.
You really should read his work before using a single article to denounce him as “anti-Catholic.” His books and articles almost always show a deep affection for a family Catholicism that he has (yes) left, as well as a deep sympathy for everyday Catholics — especially Catholic immigrants and Catholic women. I suspect it is that sympathy that made him a “moderate” candidate for his job.
And, as a historian and Catholic myself, there is a lot of historical hair-splitting and some distortion Reno’s response about the 18th and 19th century church’s not being anti-modern. Have a look, for example, at the bottom of the Syllabus of Errors. Sure, Catholics (especially Americans) often ignored it, as well as the church’s other anti-modernist pronouncements. But isn’t that precisely the sort of dissent that our contemporary ultramontanists oppose?
I wish Catholics would repent of our historical and contemporary sins rather than deny them. That’s not capitulation to modernity but rather humility. Last time I checked, that was a Christian virtue.
December 8th, 2010 | 6:26 pm
I would not think there would be a requirement for its holder to actually be Catholic, any more than a chair in German studies would be required to be German.
Nice try, Liam. How many professors of German history and literature are contemptuous of all things German?
December 8th, 2010 | 9:14 pm
David Mills: Thank you! That’s a very good point!
December 9th, 2010 | 11:26 am
“First timer here. Orsi is considered one of the finest and most influential scholars of American religion of his generation. Almost any religion department would love to have him.”
Which says a great deal about the state of religion departments in this country.
“His books and articles almost always show a deep affection for a family Catholicism that he has (yes) left, as well as a deep sympathy for everyday Catholics — especially Catholic immigrants and Catholic women.”
So he has a deep affection for the simple-minded peasants who are still mired in the primitive religion he managed to escape, and deep sympathy for the victims of the evil patriarchal hierarchy that runs the Church? Sounds like the perfect guy to run a Catholic Studies program!
December 9th, 2010 | 6:35 pm
And, as a historian and Catholic myself, there is a lot of historical hair-splitting and some distortion Reno’s response about the 18th and 19th century church’s not being anti-modern. Have a look, for example, at the bottom of the Syllabus of Errors. Sure, Catholics (especially Americans) often ignored it, as well as the church’s other anti-modernist pronouncements. But isn’t that precisely the sort of dissent that our contemporary ultramontanists oppose?
What’s wrong with being anti-modern.
December 9th, 2010 | 8:51 pm
@Brian: No, he actually writes a lot about his own family, though not in his major books. He certainly does not describe people as “simple-minded peasants.” In fact, one of his scholarly commitments is to humanize people who get caricatured otherwise.
The dig at religion departments is mostly ad hominen, and rooted in a description of Orsi’s work which, importantly, is ignorant of a lifetime of fine scholarship — however incendiary people found this particular piece.
Really, I think a demonization of a scholar’s position should at least take into account their scholarship, not just their positioning in culture wars.
December 14th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
Orsi is a palpable disgrace. What more need be said? I’m sure he’ll be singin’ a different tune when the Great American Reaction gets around punishing academic whores.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact