George Weigel on the rise of the anti-Catholic Catholics:
Ecclesiastes notwithstanding, there is something new under the sun in the annals of American anti-Catholicism; and that something is the rise of the anti-Catholic Catholics, self-described Catholics who make a career (or at least part of a career) out of mounting endless attacks on the Church, its settled beliefs, its leadership, and its people. Like the Nast/rationalist anti-Catholicism of the past, today’s Catholic anti-Catholicism is a left-of-center phenomenon that, in secular guise, often reflects the critiques of the Church mounted by so-called “Catholic progressives”: The Church is hopelessly sexist; the Church is hopelessly sex-obsessed; the Church is cruel to women and gays; the Church is hypocritical. And, of course and most recently, the Church is a global criminal conspiracy of child rapists and their abettors, which “fact” validates the other charges in the standing indictment just cited.
June 21st, 2011 | 12:33 pm
Interesting article, but I do think that Weigel has missed a point by suggesting that only the “progressive” lefty wing of Catholicism is now demonstrating an odd anti-Catholicism. Anyone who keeps up to date with Catholic blogs will find there is also a very hostile anti-Catholicism on the Catholic far-right.
It is extremely common to see Catholic right-wingers disparage bishops, deride the Novus Ordo as the source of all things evil, find conspiracies in every diocesan office and follow odd non-approved mystics and alleged apparition sites. There is still a very large contingent arguing over whether the Vatican has really released the third secret of Fatima, with a conspiracy of huge proportions, including John Paul II and the present Pope.
Just reading comments on blogs this past week relating to the recent (Fr.?) Corapi controversy, one will find a depth of hostility and irrational anger toward Church authority coming from his right-wing “fans” (as Corapi called them in his statement announcing he is giving up his priesthood). Many of these “fans” are now calling for boycotts of the conservative Catholic television, publishing and radio empire of EWTN and other Catholic apologists.
There is something in the water that is under-mining the most basic trust and civility that we have been accustomed to expect from believers. It does not bode well for the broader culture that even such bastions of stability are so weakened.
June 21st, 2011 | 1:06 pm
Point taken, sallyr. But the far right, either secular or religious, never has any currency in this culture. They’re useful to the establishment only as “case in point” yahoos. I daresay that only a tiny percentage of people in the West know anything about them and what their latest upset is about. The “progressives”, on the other hand, thanks to the media-academia-entertainment axis, are in the public face on everything.
And EWTN et al. will get past this.
June 21st, 2011 | 2:47 pm
“The difference between them is that Archbishop Dolan can rationally defend the articles in the Creed,”
I don’t know, can he?
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=14047
June 21st, 2011 | 2:55 pm
There’s a difference between thinking that the bishops and curia of the Church are incompetent and dishonest as a general rule, and being “anti-Catholic.”
sallyr is absolutely correct. Catholic conservatives go to great lengths to mock and ridicule the teaching authority of the bishops on their own pet peeves. Weigel himself is one of thsoe who have rejected the Church’s teaching.
If Catholcsi of all persiautions generlaly feel the bishosp are incomepent or dishonsent, then that shouldn’t really come as a surprise. Neverthelss, we can’t confuse disparaging views on the personal qualities of indvidual clerics with being “anti-Catholic.”
June 21st, 2011 | 3:00 pm
doug111
I read the blog post you linked. It is an incoherent mess of rambling, unconnected thoughts. What exactly what was that supposed to prove.
FWIW, I am not Catholic, but in a contest of presenting coherent thoughts about the Church’s doctrine, Archbishop Dolan would get my nod over Maureen Dowd. But that isn’t exactly a high bar.
June 21st, 2011 | 3:34 pm
As a non-Catholic, I agree with didymus. Generally, the right wingers are treated as kooks, or at best, oddities. But read any publication just a bit above the popular press that discusses contemporary religious issues, (or live in her hometown, as I do, and read the newspaper) and you’d think Sister Joan Chittister was the paragon of mainstream Catholicism.
June 21st, 2011 | 3:45 pm
steve billingsley,
so you’re saying the link had the coherence of something like Weigel’s piece?
Not likely.
Dowd may not get your nod over dolan (and that’s fine), but dowd is correct that authorities in the r c hurch, in the u s and europe, are now struggling with a sexual abuse crisis, loss of membership and a dwindling number of priests due to their hierarchy being being a bunch of starchbishops.
.
June 21st, 2011 | 4:20 pm
Personally, I was so disappointed with Dolan’s statements about civil unions. He said the Church is already in agreement with civil unions for people with a homosexual problem (what?), but the Church won’t grant them marriage.
“The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like.”
How can an archbishop say this and not let women become priests or priests marry? If you are going to tear asunder and make a joke of what Catholicism teaches about homosexuality by endorsing homosexuality and civil unions, why not change everything? It would be more coherent.
June 21st, 2011 | 4:26 pm
doug111
To restate, I am not Catholic and the RCC is certainly facing it’s share of problems. That has nothing to do with my comment.
Weigel’s article was about the kind of snarky, non-fact based criticisms of professing Catholics like Ms. Dowd. The blog post that you linked was a criticism of Archbishop Dolan’s Father’s Day blog post. I read that post and also read your linked post. The author of your linked post didn’t seem to read Dolan’s post very carefully. The post was not a “screed” and it also wasn’t a detailed philosophical defense of the institution of marriage. It was a response to a particular piece of proposed legislation in New York and more particularly, the political climate in which this drama is being played out.
Your snarky comment about Dolan not being able to rationally defend the Creed struck me as being a cheap shot based upon a flawed blog post.
One other thing….learn to type.
June 21st, 2011 | 4:56 pm
I’m not sure how you can have “Catholic anti-Catholicism.” If Dowd is doing what Weigel mentioned, wouldn’t it be apostate anti-Catholicism if she believed? Can her parish priest give her communion for penning things like that?
Maybe it’s more of a problem where the Catholic church is unwilling to take any hard line towards lifestyle or cultural Catholics flouting doctrine.
June 21st, 2011 | 5:34 pm
Weigel missed an opportunity to comment upon the strange new breed of pro-Catholic anti-Catholics. Like the guy who wrote this article, designed to blunt the clear force of B16′s recent social encyclical: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227839/i-caritas-veritate-i-gold-and-red/george-weigel
Who has a Catholic problem exactly?
June 21st, 2011 | 10:57 pm
Anti-Catholic = making me feel uncomfortable.
Mr Weigel’s problem seems to be that criticism is somehow equivalent to persecution. Are we really harmed by Maureen Dowd? Or just annoyed?
June 22nd, 2011 | 1:21 am
Is this Catholic engaging in anti-Catholicism?
“Now really, am I so wrong? Or am I one of the only ones brave enough to step off the gravy train and point out that the emperor really has no clothes on? Was I being “shabby, dishonest and unscrupulous” about John Paul II kissing the Koran; praying with animists; refusing to allow a statue of Our Lady at Assisi but allowing a Buddah statue; discouraging Catholic proselytism toward other religions; praising Martin Luther as a great theologian but apologizing for past popes of the Inquisition; allowing a cardinal to sign the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration that said “man is justified by faith alone”; giving communion to non‐Catholic politicians; harboring bishops involved in the pedophile scandal or ignoring accusations of pedophilia and homosexuality among his clerics; removing the excommunication of Masons from Canon Law; saying the Old Covenant was never revoked; condoning the idea that Scripture contains historical errors; having “holy” cow dung placed on his forehead in honor of the god Shiva; allowing Voodoo witch doctors and snake charmers to pray to their false gods; honoring the Dalai Lama; wearing the religious garb of pagan religions; downplaying traditional Marian doctrines and interpretations of Scripture applying to her; failing to consecrate Russia; seeking to redefine and lessen the primacy of the papacy for the sake of ecumenism; or having scantily clad women perform dances at his masses, etc., etc.? No, no. The one who is being “shabby, dishonest and unscrupulous” is he who ignores these doctrinal and moral aberrations and tries to make John Paul II a saint instead.”
Robert Sungenis
June 22nd, 2011 | 8:12 am
In its classic New England iteration, anti-Catholicism was shaped by Protestant and, later, Enlightenment-rationalist assumptions. Both were neatly summarized in a letter from John Adams to his wife, Abigail, written during the First Continental Congress after Mr. Adams had undertaken an anthropological expedition through the streets of Philadelphia:
This afternoon, led by curiosity and good company, I strolled away to mother church, or rather grandmother church. I mean the Romish chapel. . . . [The] entertainment was to me most awful and affecting: the poor wretches fingering their beads, chanting Latin, not a word of which they understood; their pater nosters and ave Marias; their holy water; their crossing themselves perpetually; their bowing to the name of Jesus, whenever they hear it; their bowings, kneelings, and genuflections before the altar. The dress of the priest was rich white lace. His pulpit was velvet and gold. The altar piece was very rich, little images and crucifixes about; wax candles lighted up. . .
June 22nd, 2011 | 9:13 am
@todd
Mr Weigel’s problem seems to be that criticism is somehow equivalent to persecution. Are we really harmed by Maureen Dowd?
I think the point of the article is Ms Dowd is NOT being critical – ‘critical’ implying the application of reason to a particular problem. She’s just ranting and whining. Further, she pretty much categorically rejects and openly opposes a good chunk of foundational Catholic belief – which is itself not a crime or anomaly – but then she’s adds that she IS Catholic. It is this additional qualifier that the article’s notice is being directed.
If any politician were to publicly and categorically oppose the majority of fundamental tenets of his/her own party and all the while relentlessly maintain that he/she was still a legitimate representative member of that party and as such a legitimate spokesperson he/she would be tossed out of the party or at least ignored or marginalized.
But absurd self contradiction seems to be the modus operandi these days.
June 22nd, 2011 | 9:31 am
“Further, she pretty much categorically rejects and openly opposes a good chunk of foundational Catholic belief – which is itself not a crime or anomaly – but then she’s adds that she IS Catholic.”
So?
I know a lot of conservative Catholic bloggers who are also fairly selective in their beliefs, but who wear the mantle of orthodoxy proudly.
People are Catholics not in their perfect adherence to all facets of their faith, but in their intent. Now, that may cause some of us some embarrassment. But the fact is that Bishops Finn and Mahony, to the consternation of their anti-followers, are also Catholics.
“She’s just ranting and whining.”
And George “Catholic anti-Catholics” Weigel is not?
June 22nd, 2011 | 11:19 am
Doesn’t the Catholic Church welcome and embrace Cafeteria Catholics?
(Rough Defn) Cafeteria Catholic = A member of the RCC who disagrees (whether publicly or privately) with one or more doctrines of the Church.
June 22nd, 2011 | 1:29 pm
I agree that catholic right-wingers are marginal compared to the lefties. But they do sometimes go beyond simply disparaging bishops to denouncing doctrine. Saying that the Novus Ordo mass is the source of all ills in the church is close to if not actual heresy. Rejecting parts of Vatican II – such as the teachings on the legitimacy and duty of ecumenism – is another doctrinal teaching that is often rejected. And the inflated conspiracy theories that get kicked around are often just as lurid and undermining of trust and authority as the Nun’s Tail.
My only point was that if you are going to write on the phenomenon of “Anti-Catholic Catholics,” an author should include both ends of the spectrum. They are both bad for the Church and for society at large.
June 22nd, 2011 | 1:39 pm
Q: Doesn’t the Catholic Church welcome and embrace Cafeteria Catholics?
My answer: Well, the church welcomes and embraces everyone who wants to be a part of it, and it only excommunicates people for extremely serious reasons. Even those who are excommunicated are still a part of the Catholic church, they are only excluded from the sacraments as a medicinal measure, to call the sinner back to the Church and to call attention to the fact that some sins threaten a person’s salvation.
But the Bishops certainly try to encourage people to accept and live by all the truths of the faith, and say that “cafeteria catholicism” is not a legitimate option. In that sense, the bishops totally reject “cafe-cath” ideas as incoherent and impoverished. But they don’t say that people who hold to such a position are therefore not Catholics. (eg – hate the sin, love the sinner).
June 22nd, 2011 | 1:58 pm
@Todd
I know a lot of conservative Catholic bloggers who are also fairly selective in their beliefs, but who wear the mantle of orthodoxy proudly.
I don’t deny the above and add conservatives can be as much a curiosity as Ms Dowd, no doubt.
But opinion editorials don’t suffer under the burden of strict equal opportunity mandates and thus do not need to equally criticize all factions of a given topic in one article. It’s perfectly fair to pick one item and discuss only that item though it may indeed be part of a broader multi-faceted phenomena. When I say I do not like carrots I am not obliged at all to sing the praises of others vegetables. I can leave it at that. Mr. Wiegel can comment on Ms Dowd and leave it at that and it’s perfectly OK.
Using your definition of Catholicism, I arrive, tentatively, to the conclusion that Ms Dowd’s intent can be characterized as not charitable, or not seeking to understand, or not promoting a dialog, not bridge building, etc. One wonders what her actual intent is beyond self promotion.
The absence of any type of sincere desire to have a meeting of minds with those whom she derides is my justification for the descriptors ‘ranting and whining’.
As much as some would like the word ‘Catholicism’ to be as inclusive as the word ‘human’ it’s not. It is a ‘way’ of being human. It is a proposed direction for one making the human journey. As a way and as a direction it has parameters, guides, laws, tenets, etc.
The anomaly of Ms Dowd is she wants to go another ‘way’ in a different ‘direction’ and yet claim that she is indeed maintaining the Catholic way or Catholic direction.
One cannot travel in two directions at the same time. One cannot be the ‘west-going east-goer’. Mr. Weigel’s ‘Catholic Anti-Catholic’ is meant to underscore this impossibility.
June 22nd, 2011 | 2:29 pm
“But the Bishops certainly try to encourage people to accept and live by all the truths of the faith, and say that “cafeteria catholicism” is not a legitimate option. In that sense, the bishops totally reject “cafe-cath” ideas as incoherent and impoverished. But they don’t say that people who hold to such a position are therefore not Catholics.“
Curious. What do you think of Roman Catholics who say that Maureen Dowd is not Roman Catholic?
June 22nd, 2011 | 10:38 pm
I found Weigel’s article uncharacteristically poor. Its silly to recount some of the protestant and anti-ethnic-catholic stuff from the 1800s as if they had any relevance today. Also, the John Adams quote isn’t bigoted at all. Its just blunt talk in a private letter. There’s no need to have hurt feelings.
The whole article is just full of whinging victimization. If America was so rotten to Catholics we either would not have come over or would have headed back to the old country right away for crying out loud! Frankly if it was that bad we Catholics need some affirmative action dished out our way.
Also, Dowd is not anti-Catholic; she’s a geriatric liberal catholic who has seen her little faction in the church rise and then fall to the pathetic state its in nowadays. Currently she is just about the youngest member of her fruitless faction.
It is funny to see how how in one hand, she must condemn abusive priests (mostly homosexual, behaving normally for gay men) and at the same time must glorify the gay lifestyle which includes behavior identical to what the abusive priests did.
Actually ‘catholic’ politicians like the late ‘Senator Abortion’ who have enthusiastically cooperated with evil (yet always claimed to be the very best papists) have done far worse damage to the church than any outsider could. Scandal results when that sort are able to slap the backs of Bishops of the Church. Thankfully that does not happen now, as it did so often when I was growing up.
George I do love you though, your JPII bio changed my life. Thanks.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact