Strange visitors from another planet?

Lately I’ve had the rather odd experience of seeing two thoroughly dopey misunderstandings of the faith. In both cases ordinary Catholics are depicted as very strange and quite scary folks – at least to the writers. Indeed they’re very nearly strange visitors from another planet.

The local fishwrap had a special section this past Sunday entitled “Far from Rome”. It contains all the dreck you’d expect, flavored with heavy condescension.

· NB – this parish, while in metro Denver, is in the Diocese of Colorado Springs. Just one of many very weird choices made by the editors in an effort to show their readers about this odd group in their midst.

· The parish chosen was one of very few in the US that shares its name with a lefty group – Pax Christi.

· The funniest snippet was the surprise expressed that there are more Catholics than atheists in the western US.

· The most telling was the statement “The round sanctuary emphasizes community, or the eminence of God, rather than the transcendence of God”. Usually votaries of in-the-round pitch God’s immanence as a reason, though how anything could better demonstrate said immanence than the tabernacle already does is completely beyond me!

· There’s a family sad that their gay children can’t marry in the Church.

· There’s an article bewailing the all-male priesthood.

· There’s anger over the suggestion that some people shouldn’t come to communion.

· Those silly priests just don’t get how good abortion and contraception really are!

· The statement by Bishop Sheridan that Catholics should be Catholics first and Americans second is presented as a menacing one.

· The pastor says “We don't put a whole lot of emphasis on the rules, because we're doing the rules, but we're all above them in a better order".

· The token “conservative” yelled at a priest because she wanted to conceive artificially.

The second was written by one Fr. O’Leary. It has pleaded for fisking, so who am I to refuse? (Thanks to the indispensable Angry Twins for pointing it out!)

The Rise of the Neocaths
In a strong article in THE JAPAN MISSION JOURNAL, Autumn 2005, Edmund Chia draws attention to one of the most disturbing phenomena in Roman Catholicism today. He speaks of a younger generation that is "becoming more and more traditional and conservative in their thought patterns" and which Newsweek magazine refers to as the JP2 generation. Andrew Greeley discusses the same phenomenon under the heading "Young Fogeys" in Atlantic, Jan.-Feb. 2004.

Traditional and conservative thought patters are disturbing? And why would that be?

Indeed the one person most responsible for bringing the Neocath generation into existence is John Paul II.

What other mortal father has ever brought a whole generation into existence?

I saw the beginning of it in Ireland at the beginning of October, 1979. When the Pope delivered the words, "Young people of Ireland, I bless you, I love you", the youthful crowd roared for twenty minutes until Fr Michael Cleary, the emcee, called on them to quieten down. Even amid the euphoria of Ireland's first papal visit, voices were raised to denounce this as crowd-manipulation. It is said that the Pope viewed the film of the scene over and over again in the Vatican.

Said by whom? I don’t imagine that the late Holy Father was without all faults, but it’s hard to believe that this degree of vanity was one of them.

A stunning essay by Alberto Melloni, the distinguished Italian church historian, in a recent issue of RECHERCHES DE SCIENCE RELIGIEUSE, accuses John Paul II of making his voyages the main form of his magisterium, and substituting a cult of mediatic images for substantive educative communication.

“Mediatic” “educative” ooh, impress me by using lots of big arcane words instead of ordinary ones. (NB – sloppy language often conveys sloppy thought.) Besides that, why should one believe Melloni's criticism of an obviously holy man?

(The entire issue of the review, dedicated to the need of a new Ecumenical Council, is worth reading closely.)

Why on this earth would we need a new Ecumenical Council?

Throughout the world, the most visible face of Church and of Christianity for a quarter of a century was that of the travelling Pope, and his privileged target audience in every country was the youth. What psychological need drew them to this super-father-figure?

Hmmm – perhaps the need to hear truth rather than pop culture platitudes?

John Paul II thus bypassed and reached over the heads of the educated baby boomers, influenced by Vatican II, in order to address an audience who were a tabula rasa, and to communicate to them a world view that the Vatican II generation would find problematic on many points.

And we’re supposed to believe that the Vatican II generation (whatever that means) is a better authority than the late pope? On what basis?

His tactic recalls that of Mao in China.

Really? How many people did the pope kill? How many venerable traditions did this pope trade in for Marxist rhetoric?

At the same time critical theology was ruthlessly discouraged and suppressed throughout the Catholic world.

Ruthless only to the extent that there were no major theologians named Ruth. Were Maoist tactics to be used in earnest, folks like Kung would have been publicly dismembered. Good luck finding evidence of such occurrences.

Fr Chia's article tells how this was done in Asia. The fates of Kung, Drewermann, Leukel-Schmidt, Curran, McNeill, Boff, Lavinia Byrne and many others are a tip of the iceberg of the same process in Europe, the US and Latin America.

Just what is this iceberg? Where were the wholesale banishments of heterodox preachers?

The more warmly the youthful crowd applauded, the deeper the intellectual chill that fell on the Church.

So the era that included such sublime philosophical depth as the Theology of the Body and the release of the new Catechism was one of intellectual chill. What would result from a room temperature intellectual climate?

Edmund Chia says that the JP2 generation are "distinguished by their unflinching devotion to all that the beloved and late Pope John Paul II stood for. They were present in huge numbers at the late pope’s funeral. Unlike the baby-boomers or the generation X-ers, the JP2 generation has a greater sense of uncritical loyalty and obedience to ecclesial authority and is more likely to prefer conventional values and traditional church life. Tradition and uniformity are their bywords, while conformity and submission are their operating modes. This is the JP2 generation's way of “rebelling” against their elders, especially those wont to employ a hermeneutics of suspicion when apprehending religious symbols and ecclesial institutions. In a way this new generation is the “born again” generation and feeds perfectly into the restorationist programs advocated by the pontificate of John Paul II, where the hermeneutics of retrieval is given greater emphasis. This involves retrieving what the previous generation questioned or threw out altogether, e.g., the doctrine of papal infallibility, devotional activities, the wearing of the roman collar, cassock or habit, and the reception of holy communion on the tongue."

The Neocaths are younger than gen-Xers (usually defined as those whose birth dates are between 1/1/1964 and 12/31/1981 inclusive). This apparent trivial aside becomes important.

Would it be fair to guess that this priest wouldn’t mind so much if the conformity and submission were conformity and submission to the program of, say, Call to Action?
In fairness, the generation of John Paul II Catholics are often blessed with vibrant and joyful faith, and I have been moved and impressed by many who are adherents or products of Opus Dei or the new movements known as "the Pope's Armada". Generally, their wholesome piety is not associated with right-wing ideologies but with a love of the Church as seen through the prism of theologians like Hans Urs Von Balthasar.
Glad we can agree on something. That being said, love of the Church might include belief in what she teaches, no?

I reserve the term Neocaths for a vocal ideological wing of the younger generation which is in alliance with older voices and organs such as The Wanderer, Catholics United for the Faith. They are particularly well represented in the blogosphere. They are led by academic mentors such as the philosophers Peter Kreeft and Philip Blosser, and some of the more flamboyant voices are those of Christopher Blosser, Jeff Miller, Jimmy Akin, Oswald Sobrino, Mansfield Fox, Earl E. Appleby, Amy Welborn, Arthur Tsui, and at the youngest (and perhaps most genuine) end of the spectrum, Apolonio Latar III.

OK. Amy Welborn is a lovely young lady, but she’s not younger than a gen-Xer - she IS one! Mr. Miller is a fine young gentleman who is actually older than gen-Xers. I know that whippersnappers such as they all look so very young to codgers such as us, but examination of the facts wouldn’t take too long for someone who routinely posts thousand-word screeds.

Here are a few traits that seem to recur frequently:
The Neocaths are Catholics, with a certain prominence of converts from Episcopalianism or Protestantism. They are people of faith and piety. Their sincerity is not in question.
The Neocaths tend to sexual puritanism.

In journalism this is called “burying the lede”.

Appalled by the consequences of the sexual revolution, AIDS, abortion, cohabitation, adultery, divorce, pornography, they retreat to the strictest Catholic doctrine as an ark of refuge.

Or maybe – just maybe - they happen to sincerely believe “all that the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God” – you know, that statement required of all converts.

They are very vocal advocates and practitioners of a strictly-interpreted concept of sexual fidelity, with a strong emphasis on procreative sexuality. They insist that masturbation is mortally sinful, and have an especial enthusiasm for the teaching that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and that homosexual acts can never be countenanced. They denounce as apostasy a massive rejection of Vatican teaching among Catholics and call for bishops and priests to stand up against the tide of laxism instead of floating along with it.

Strict concepts of sexual fidelity appear to be some sort of sore spot for this gentleman as does the historic teaching the Church (and our Jewish brothers) regarding homosexual acts. Let’s think really hard here. What problems are presented by strict adherence to traditional standards of sexual morality? Indeed, what priest objects to laypeople who are too virtuous?

The Neocaths are combative apologists. Their apologetics is sometimes directed against Protestantism, which they have no hesitation in branding a heresy. But it is more often directed against liberal Catholicism.

Given that liberal Catholicism seems to frequently attack the beliefs that the Neocaths hold, should that be a surprise to anyone at all? Besides, lots of the "Neocath" fury (such as it is) is directed very far from liberal Catholicism.

They devote treasures of ingenuity to proving that the Church has never changed her teaching on anything -- not on usury, slavery, torture, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and above all not on sexual matters.

Hmmm which of these temptations is likeliest to occur in everyday life: usury, enslaving someone, torturing someone, holding an Inquisition, preaching a Crusade or some sexual sin? Now I am quite partial to both Inquisitions and Crusades, but I’d have to say that in this society, sexual temptations are just a bit more prominent – just a tiny little bit. And that’s even with this case down the street from me. Oh drat, there’s a sexual component to that one too.

The Neocaths are "young fogeys" -- they take a delight in sporting old-fashioned references, such as Chesterton, Belloc, C.S. Lewis, Garrigou-Lagrange, Sertillanges, and in exhibiting all the trappings of traditional Catholic piety -- the Latin Mass in particular.

I’ve been reading Amy Welborn for over three years and Jeff Miller for about three years. The next time either of them promote a Latin Mass will be the first time. Moreover, the listed authors are all pretty recent within the totality of the Christian faith.

They distrust a list of Vatican II generation writers such as Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Raymond Brown, Richard P. McBrien, whom they often hastily denounce as modernists.

What would make such a denunciation hasty? Is there any evidence that any of these gentlemen are not modernists?

At their best they draw they favour those they see as "ressourcement" writers, sometimes including even Congar (a hate-object of many conservatives), over the "aggiornamento" wing (a rather dubious opposition). They often seem to yearn for an idealized church of Pius XII, a vibrant flawless Catholicism that never was.

Sure. An active laity wants to return to the days of “pay pray and obey”. Not bloody likely.

The Neocaths combine biblical and magisterial fundamentalism.

Admit it, you just knew the f-bomb was coming.

They argue by proof texts, in complete contempt of biblical scholarship and hermeneutics.

This type of charge demands substantiation. The folks you’ve cited can’t be seriously called proof-texters.

Their ingenuity in defending their fundamentalist stances is extreme, and will draw on ad hoc hermeneutics when necessary, but they are estranged from the broad current of Catholic biblical scholarship. A Neocath who would admit, for example, that the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden in not historical would not be a worthy representative of militant Neocath ideology.

Really? Who, this side of Bob Sungenis (who hardly holds a brief for the late Pope), is dogmatic about the six day creation? Bueller? Anyone?

The Neocaths are ill at ease with modernity. They feel they have seen through the myths of secular humanism, and the liberal culture of democratic discussion. which they see as relativistic. They bewail confusion and uncertainty and call for a firm voice of authority to put an end to it.

There’s plenty of discussion among those labeled Neocaths. Most of what is “bewailed” isn’t uncertainty, it’s error. They’re not really the same thing.

The Neocaths are ideological and political rightists. Issues of social justice never appear on their agendas and Church documents such as Populorum Progressio, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Octagesima Adveniens, Centesimus Annus are ignored.

Again, most of these folks aren’t in a position to do things like exploiting
workers, they write to what they know. Come to think of it, you’d do well to try writing about things that you actually know about.

Hey. Let's try a thought-experiment. Imagine that you could choose only one of two possible situations: (a) a Dorothy Day/Peter Maurin polity governing economic, military and diplomatic matters coupled with unflinching adherence to the strictest standards of sexual morality - including making all forms of sexual immorality, abortion and contraception into felonies; or (b) absolute lassez faire capitalism with a unilateral interventionist foreign policy coupled with complete tolerance of all forms of sexual expression, abortion and contraception. Which would Fr. O'Leary pick? Which would the "neocaths" pick? What's the reason for any difference?

Their papolatry commonly goes hand in hand with Busholatry.

Uh huh. In this case that would seem to mean any belief that W isn’t really much worse than Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot or Mao. Besides, weren’t these folks too busy branding Protestants as heretics to bother worshipping a Protestant politician?

They play down papal opposition to the Iraq War, torture and capital punishment.

Really? While the folks cited aren’t as committed to opposing the Iraq war as some others, they’re hardly advocates for the war, alleged torture and capital punishment. In fact Amy's opposition to the war is palpable.

Some may be active on social issues, but in their internet polemics this is scarcely in evidence.

And Fr. O’Leary may be an enthusiast for chastity, but in his internet polemics, this is scarcely in evidence.

The Neocaths are well organized, and have as yet no equivalent on the Catholic left. They know which lines to push and which to avoid. For instance, they will attack gays with a show of concern for the welfare of their souls, and in harmony with the letter of Catholic doctrine. At the same time they will be found bewailing the demise of sodomy laws.

Another big lie. I’ve lost count of how many this article has contained. I’m one of very few Catholic bloggers to actually bewail the demise of sodomy laws (including in comments on Amy Welborn’s blog) and those comments have been either ignored or argued against.

The Neocaths are very quick to denounce liberal Catholics as heretics.

If the shoe fits . . . .

Authority looms very large in their mental world, and is indeed its dominant theme. However, authoritative documents, or early utterances of Joseph Ratzinger, that go against their reactionary convictions will be whittled away. This is notably true of Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes.

Quite a charge. Again who, this side of Bob Sungenis, has a beef with Gaudium et Spes?

The Neocaths believe strongly in Hell, and play down the views of Von Balthasar and John Paul II that we may hope the Hell is empty.

We may indeed hope that it is, but it would be the height of recklessness to ACT as if hell is empty, would it not?

They insist on the physical pain caused by hell fire. They invoke Hell against liberal or what they call "dissident" theologians and against those they consider sexually deviant.

Citations, please.

The Neocaths are joyfully uncharitable in their speech, trampling not only on political correctness but on the laws of libel.

Again, citations please. Accusing these folks of detraction is serious enough, but accusing them of outright libel is serious enough that it demands substantiation.

There is surely much more to be said about this social phenomenon. Its future evolution will be followed with interest. We can only hope that like the Neocon movement with which it has so much in common it will turn out to be an ephemeral excess.

For the love of God, why?

Happily there is another side to John Paul II and his successor -- their concern for social justice and their ecumenical outreach -- which should ensure that the hothouse world of the Neocaths is not the future awaiting the Roman Catholic Church as a whole.

Being familiar with the “Neocaths”, it’s pretty difficult to imagine any reason that that anyone would hope for anything other than their success. Would you be so kind as to identify the reason you’re so angry at them?