George I do love you though, your JPII bio changed my life. Thanks.

Curious. What do you think of Roman Catholics who say that Maureen Dowd is not Roman Catholic?

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.

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).

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.

(Rough Defn) Cafeteria Catholic = A member of the RCC who disagrees (whether publicly or privately) with one or more doctrines of the Church.

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?

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.

“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