Skip to main content
Here's what I've been working on in its unabridged form:

Philip Jenkins’ work is a compelling starting point for studying the crisis in the Catholic Church. The book does an excellent job showing the social construction of the problem, giving a sloppy and uncritical media a central role in that construction. However, Jenkins has failed to demonstrate the relevance of the “anti-Catholic” or anticlerical tradition. There two reasons why this is so: One’s classification of anti-Catholic is entirely dependent on perspective. One would have to hold the position of the conservative bishops consistently and unwaveringly to make the charge stick. Secondly, the generally positive portrayal of Catholic religious practices and clergy in the mid-20th century until the emergence of the scandal in the 70s and 80s makes the claim that anti-Catholicism is on the rise tenuous, as this gives powerful evidence of assimilation. Thus, revising Jenkins on this point leaves us with an even better picture of the story than he painted.
The most striking fact about the criticism of the Catholic Church in the face of sex abuse is that most of the coordinated and influential indictments of the church have come from Catholics. From Faithful Voice, to Voice of the Faithful, to the National Catholic Reporter, the outrage from within was deafening. The reaction of bishops and the Vatican proves that the anti-clerical, anti-Catholic rhetoric is a sideshow for certain elements (like Greeley and the media) and had little significant impact on the actions of leadership. As Jenkins admits on page 53,

Although the [media] coverage may appear reflect to popular anti-Catholic
and anticlerical sentiment, in reality it owed far more to the political
interests of the activists and groups who used the media to project
their particular interpretations of the putative crisis.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a sweeping, tougher plan for dealing with abusive priests that was in turn approved by the Vatican. The conference in 2003 was carried on EWTN (a Catholic cable network). The fact that the position of lay ministers was on the agenda shows how far those lay groups had come to being an active agent of accountability. It would be hard for even the most conservative elements to claim that all those lay Catholics were disloyal, especially since they used the media (rather than being used). It might be legitimate in the past to claim Catholics were misled by a biased media, but those laypersons wielded the media weapon very effectively. Many of these Catholic lay groups also framed their calls for reform in religious terms, claiming and reaffirming their position in the Catholic Church by appealing to the church as the body of Christ, and positioning themselves as loyal members of that body. In so doing, they could diffuse any claim that the criticism was from without, by an ignorant enemy. The increasing power of Catholic laity could be described as a revolt, one that conservative bishops could not quell by blaming popular anti-Catholicism. The vast array of people demanding change were by no means monolithic, and so those demands reached critical mass. If the demand for change came from within, what is the relevance of anti-Catholic history?
The relatively calm period between 1930 through the mid-1970s seems to downplay the importance of anti-Catholicism as a force in the sex abuse situation. Favorable movies and books appeared, which Jenkins contextualized, and crystallized this way:

Before the 1970s, American cinema seldom portrayed a priest
in anything other than a heroic or saintly guise….[which] cul-
minated with John Ford’s The Fugitive….(58)

Also in this period, the Catholic Church had considerable authority to ban those things in popular culture it found objectionable, as evidenced by this boast:

There were in the course of the year sporadic slurs upon
the Catholic church across the country. In at least one
instance the offending publication was a secular college
paper. The Government found it necessary to ban certain
issues of these publications from the mails. (59)

The proliferation of positive representation, and the power to censor bad representation can be summarized in one word: assimilation. The assimilation of Catholics into mainstream society is a big factor in proving a dilution and irrelevance of anti-Catholicism in the debate about sexual abuse. Why? Because the emergence of the scandal occurred post-assimilation. Since non-assimilation fuels bigotry of this sort, how can we blame anti-Catholicism as a serious factor in the scandal’s salience? Somewhat defensively, Jenkins turns to the discussion of the scandals involving other denominations at the end of chapter three, weakening his case by speaking approvingly of Greeley’s statistics on the matter. He criticizes the media for not blowing up the scandal in the same manner as was done with the Catholic Church, ignoring the possibility that decentralized power, and an already powerful laity might help most Protestants in keeping scandals out of the media gaze. Indeed, if his distinction between “sin” and “crime” is valid, it might explain why Protestant churches felt less tension with society at large. Decentralized power means a willingness to interact with civil authorities. Part of the media’s involvement was a result of Catholic reticence to deal with civil authorities. Therefore, his church-sect and sin-crime formulations negate his points dealing with anti-Catholicism.
In conclusion, Jenkins’ analysis grossly overstates anti-Catholicism and anticlericalism. The media propagates those falsehoods out of sloppiness, not anti-Catholic bias. And by Jenkins’ own admission, the Catholic laity wielded the media very powerfully in stating its case. All the laity cannot be dismissed as having an agenda wholly antithetical to the hierarchy. Thus, with the impetus for change coming from within, this dilutes the anti-Catholic claim. The increasing power of Catholic laity was the prime mover in getting Church concessions, and the reason why the bishops could not rely on the long history of anti-Catholicism to resist change. Catholic assimilation into the larger society casts more doubt on the relevance of anti-Catholicism in the contemporary debate, since the scandal came to light after assimilation, by and large. By failing to account for an enormously powerful laity in most Protestant cases, Jenkins falls back on the history of anti-Catholicism to account for lack of media interest. Another aspect of the Protestant avoidance of media scrutiny was their openness to civil authorities, something that is relatively new for Catholicism, and mitigates claims of anti-Catholic bias. Even so, his work is a good starting point for this compelling issue.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un