Does criticizing the Pope make you anti-Catholic?

Great Debates
1

A couple of recent events have me wondering about how objections to Papal actions or policy are viewed in this country, particularly among Catholics.

A Houston Chronicle columnist took Pope John Paul II to task earlier this year for not forcefully objecting to a statement made by an Arab leader during the Pope’s visit to the Mideast (I don’t recall the details, but I believe it involved Yasser Arafat). The column went on to liken the incident to Pope Pius XII’s alleged failure to sufficiently denounce the Holocaust. In response, a Catholic bishop from Texas stoutly defended Pius and blistered the columnist as a “Catholic-basher”.

In another arena, the Republican candidate for New Jersey governor, Bret Schundler, has attacked his opponent, James McGreevey for referring to Schundler as an extremist on abortion. Schundler claims this is an example of Catholic-bashing, which is sort of interesting because Schundler is a Presbyterian and his opponent is Catholic.

Are these charges of virulent predjudice against Catholics justified or unreasonable?

My own feeling is that since Papal policy is intended to provide moral/spiritual guidance to the world as a whole rather than just to Catholics, it’s legitimate for critics to take on Papal policy without it being viewed as an assault on rank and file Catholics. Pope Pius’ role during the Holocaust is debatable, with some claiming he didn’t sufficiently act to denounce the Nazis, while defenders argue he did all he could under the circumstances. In New Jersey, Schundler’s raising the issue of Catholic-bashing appears wholly without merit.

In today’s political and social climate, can you legitimately criticize a Pope?

2

If you’ve ever heard of James Carroll you’d know you can be a devout Catholic and criticize the Pope. James Carroll (who puplished Constantine’s Sword recently) is a Catholic theologian who feels no human can be infallible and the Church needs to make some serious changes to fully repent for the mistakes made by it’s members (including the head, the Pope).

Much of Papal policy deals specifically with how Catholics are to behave to each other or other people and so is meant for Catholics. Of course since Catholicism is the way of God, all people should heed his word (and also become Catholic), but as a leader or type of head of state his statements have as much right to be criticized by non-Catholics as the policies of Bush or Jiang Zamin can be criticized by people of other countries. Remember, though, that as a non-Catholic, there is no presumption of respect, understanding, or good will. If a Jewish person makes fun of Jews, especially to other Jews, it’s taken differently than if a Southern Baptist does.

3

Sure you can criticize the pope without being a Catholic-basher. I do it all the time.

The New Jersey incident sounds too bizarre to fit into any pattern.

The Texas incident could fit into a number of categories:

  • the columnist could have a history of taking cheap shots at the RCC of which this is simply the most recent and the bishop is aware of this practice;
  • the columnist could have written the article in such a way as to imply that “once again the Catholic leadership is failing as it always seems to” which would certainly look to me as though it was Catholic-bashing;
    or
  • the bishop may be a supporter of the Catholic League or some similar outfit that has a knee-jerk reaction to any statement that portrays any act by the RCC or any of its members as an assault on the Church. (These folks have complained that bus-side billboards advertising Madonna were intended to antagonize Catholics.)
4
  • the bishop may be a supporter of the Catholic League or some similar outfit that has a knee-jerk reaction to any statement that neagtively portrays any act by the RCC or any of its members as an assault on the Church
5

My take is that it was political opportunism, pure and simple. Or that the G.O.P is running a loon for governor. **

I would post a link to the column, if the Chronicle didn’t find it necessary to charge non-suscribers through the nose for access to its archives. Any cheap-shot history would have to be greater than 5 years old, because I’ve never seen this particular columnist (Craig Hines, Washington bureau chief for the Chronicle) single out the Catholic church or Popes in the past, and I didn’t feel his column did anything more provocatory than criticize Pope Pius XII for failing to speak out against the Holocaust.

Viewed another way: if “artists” can be charged with Catholic bashing or gross insensitivity toward the faith for taking venerated Catholic symbols and decorating them with body parts or submerging them in urine, can Papal critics be similarly characterized for attacking another category of venerated symbol?*

*apologies if this is an inadvertent gross misstatement of Catholic doctrine. I’ve got nothing in particular against any of the Popes, except that a few of them around the time of the Schism seemed to take the concept of “party animal” a bit too far. :slight_smile:

6

Well, depending how this was done, it might be an example of Catholic bashing,
or
the bishop might just be a Catholic League fan as I noted before.

7

When I first moved back to this area, we went to Mass at a church I hadn’t been to before. During the homily, this Opus Dei wannabe pastor was railing about media coverage of the Pope, essentially saying we couldn’t consider ourselves to be Catholic unless we were equally outraged.

I waited until the homily was finished, but that was the first (and only) time I’ve ever walked out during Mass.

8

Bashing the Pope no more makes you anti-Catholc than bashing George W. Bush makes you anti-American.

9

You do realize, of course, that there are people who think bashing Dubya does make you anti-American, right? Some of them are even posting messages on this board, even…

10

I completely agree with Schundler, and don’t see anything in what he said that is not completely factual. At least in the quotes attributed to him in the linked article. Unless you guys are aware of other things that he said that are not in the article, I can’t understand what there is to oppose in his position.

11

I should clarify that this refers to his Catholic comments. I think his Ayatolla analogy is not an apt one.

12

First of all, though I’m a rather conservative Catholic, I DON’T believe that anti-Catholicism is necessarily a form of bigotry, not in the sense that racial animosity and/or anti-semitism usually are. After all, if I’m uncomfortable with criticism of my church, I can LEAVE at any time! On the other hand, Chris Rock can’t stop being black, and Rodney Dangerfield can’t stop being Jewish.

If I renounced Catholicism, and declared myself a Unitarian/atheist/whatever, I would NEVER have to endure “anti-Catholic” statements again. In that sense, being a Catholic is more like being a Republican or Democrat, than like being black or Jewish. I have chosen to embrace a certain set of beliefs and values, and sometimes those beliefs are going to set me at odds with millions of people. Are those people supposed to bite their tongues when my values offend them (as they’re BOUND to, at least occasionally)? Of course not!

I Live in Texas, I DO read the Houston Chronicle from time to time, and I HAVE read occasional columns by… I believe Craig Hodges is the name of the “offending” journalist. He’s never been one of my favorite columnists, and I think he’s frequently a jerk. But I couldn’t find much to disagree with in his column about Pope John Paul II.

Based on what I read, I would guess Hodges is a man who takes a dim view of the Catholic Church for a LOT of reasons (some valid, some not). Does that make him a vile, repulsive bigot, on a par with a Klansman? No, I don’t think so. In THIS particular case, I happen to think Pope John Paul II was ASKING for criticism, and it was well-deserved. It saddens me that John Paul, who has done so much to improve Catholic-Jewish relations, and who doesn’t (as far as I can tell) have an anti-semitic bone in his body, would sit silently and listen to a hateful, anti-Jewish diatribe without protest, without getting up and walking out.

To Hodges, the Pope’s inaction was reminiscent of Pius XII’s silence during the Holocaust. Now, I reject the popular notion that Pius was “Hitler’s Pope,” and that he bears major responsibility for the Holocaust. But he was NOT a hero, he did VERY little to help Jews (not nearly enough), and Catholics should acknowledge that. Moreover, the possibility that Pius may be made a saint is extremely disturbing.

Do I think Hodges was smug, supercilious, and unnecessarily insulting to my Church? Yes. On the other hand, how can anyone deny that the actions… or rather, INactions, of the two Popes in question, MERITED condemnation?

13

The Catholic Church inactive? It seems pretty active: Italy’s Roman Catholic church yesterday spirited into hiding a Rwandan priest wanted by the international war crimes tribunal for allegedly murdering 2,500 parishioners during Rwanda’s genocide.

The Catholic Church, we specialise in molesting boys and helping war criminals.

14

Not defending everything the church does-but can you back that loaded statement up?

15

Nahh…it’s so much more fun going for the shock value…next up: Gay Men-we specialize in pedophilia :rolleyes:

16

>> can you back that loaded statement up?

Shouldn’t that be “can you back up that loaded statement?” At any rate, what part of “Italy’s Roman Catholic church yesterday spirited into hiding a Rwandan priest wanted by the international war crimes tribunal for allegedly murdering 2,500 parishioners during Rwanda’s genocide” don’t you understand? I interpret this to mean a Catholic priest is accused of murdering 2500 people and the RCC is helping him escape from the law. Maybe this interpretation is mistaken? There have also been in the news several instances of coverups of priests who had molested young boys.

FTR, I do not believe the RCC is any better or any worse than any other major religion, now or historically. Yes, my post went for shock value, because I was shocked by reading that news. Obviously it was not meant literally.

17

Lemme get this straight:
[ul]
[li]Schundler expresses his support for a certain public policy position, that a certain action should be made against the law. As it happens, this public policy position is one which is shared by the Catholic Church.[/li][li]Schundler’s opponent criticizes the public policy position Schundler has taken.[/li][li]Schundler then accuses his opponent of “Catholic bashing”.[/li][/ul]

So, if the Catholic Church takes a stance on an issue of public policy, no one is permitted to question, disagree with, or criticize that policy position without being called “Catholic basher”?

:rolleyes:

Oh, and according to the article Schundler himself has compared people with different views on this issue to “murderers, Nazis and slave owners”. So I guess Schundler is a United Church of Christ- Reformed Jewish- United Methodist- Evangelical Lutheran- Unitarian Universalist-basher.

18

Okay, I apologize for the many references to Craig “Hodges.” The columnist’s name is Hines. I blew it!

Fact remains, I DID read the columns he wrote, and while I found his tone a bit offensive, I couldn’t really quibble with the basic thrust of what he was saying.

19

MEBuckner

The abortion issue is not a winning one for Schundler in NJ, and he has tried to downplay his stance in the race. It is his opponents (first Franks, now McGreavy) who seek to bring it up for political advantage - fair enough. When a political opponent such as McGreavy uses this position to state that Schundler is an extremist, he is not merely noting that as a practical matter, electing Schundler would cause such a law to be passed. This would have little impact, because no such law is likely to be passed and because most people are not much worried, as a practical matter, that they will be the victiims of rape or incest and need an abortion in that circumstance. No, what McGreavy is doing is using that position to paint a scary picture of Schundler as a sort of wacked out right-wing fringe character, and thereby scare people away from votiing for him. To this Schunder correctly points out that the position for which he is being tarred as an extremist is one which is shared by the Pope and many orthodox Catholics. So that when McGreavy says that Schundler is an extremist merely for holding this position, he is saying, by implication, that the Pope and orthodox Catholics are extremists as well. This is factual. (I should note, FTR, that Schundler has another “extremist” position as well - in favor of concealed weapons. But there’s no doubt that his position on abortion is to be a large part of Denocratic attacks in this campaign).

Your suggestion that Schundler has criticized McGreavy merely for questioning, disagreeing with, or criticizing Catholic dogma is at odds with the linked article, which makes it clear that he was objecting to the holders of such positions being labelled as extremists.

I’m not sure what you mean by saying “against the law”. Anyone who favors any public policy change is favoring a position that is “against the law”, be it campaign finance reform, tax reduction or anything else. What was your point with this?

This is misleading, as noted above.

This is nowhere to be found in the article, although the OP also used this phrase. The complete statement, as quoted by the NYT is

The second sentence - the one being dealt with here - is a factual one, and I don’t see how you might disagree with it. If you believe that Schundler is an extremist who cannot be elected to a statewide office in NJ because of his position on abortion, then you believe this about anyone who adheres to Catholic teaching.

20

There is a difference between “adhering” to Catholic teachings and using your power to force others, including non-catholics, to adhere to those teachings. There are many Catholics who are not opposed to abortion and many more who say they are “personally” opposed to abortion but wouldn’t fight to take that right away from American women. That McGreavy guy clearly never meant to paint people like this as extremists ans therefore should not be considered prejudiced against Catholics as a group.

Getting back to the OP as to when someone should be called “anti-Catholic”, bear in mind that “Catholic” can mean three different things:

  1. A powerful organization, headed by the Pope.

  2. A dogmatic set of beliefs and ideological positions.

  3. A group of people with an ethnic identity.

If you think that te Catholic Church has abused its power, you have the right to criticize it. If you think that Catholic teaching on certain issues is wrong, you have the right to disagree without people putting on hat #3 and boo-hooing about how you’re being bigotes toward little-old ladies.

Why is it that just some people’s opinions are protected with a bubble of potential victimhood?