This
paper was presented at the
"Anti-Catholicism
The Last Acceptable Prejudice Conference"
May 24, 2002, Fordham
University, New York, NY
co-sponsored by: The American Catholics in the Public Square Project, Commonweal Magazine,
and Fordham
Universirty's Center for American Catholic Studies
Anti-Catholicism:What
it is and What it Isn’t:
Elizabeth McKeown
Click
here for a printer-friendly version of the complete text
On May Day, I finished a paper for this Colloquium titled
“Drawing Lines.” It grew out of a request from Margaret Steinfels, who had
asked that I “draw lines” between what is anti-Catholic and what is not. But
the paper failed to do that. Instead–as often happens with my
undergraduates–this paper developed an agency of its own and decided to address
a different topic–to draw lines of a different sort–connecting things rather
than dividing them.
Three connecting lines appeared in the essay: a line
connecting American nativism to contemporary secularism, a line connecting
mid-century Catholic Action to contemporary Catholic League, and a line
connecting the data of Andrew Greeley’s social science to the imagined
Catholics of his work in sociology and in fiction. The first of these lines
seems to me to be weakly analogical; nativism as a source of animosity toward
Catholics shares some similarities with contemporary secularist opposition to
religion/Catholicism in the public square, but there are significant
differences. The second line–between Catholic Action and contemporary counter
action–is strongly genealogical. The third line–between empiricism and
imagination–is (just) fine.
I concluded the paper with some cross-over suggestions:
perhaps Andrew Greeley and NORC would undertake to do an in-depth analysis of
the membership of the Catholic League, for instance. And perhaps secularists in
the academy would consider paying more attention to the role of religion, of
Catholicism in particular, in the development of their disciplines. And
wouldn’t it be a good idea to concentrate on the question of Catholic identity
which lies behind the concern about contemporary anti-Catholicism_ For this
purpose, I suggested a particular focus–what David Tracy calls the “Catholic caritas tradition of Christian
charity”–as the key to Catholic identity. I keep wondering what he means–and
how it works in New York.
After I sent that paper to New York, and had time to think
about what it had become, I not only realized that I had failed to addressed
the assigned topic, but discovered that there was another question that I had
failed to ask–namely, Why are you people
so interested in anti-Catholicism_ And why now_
So I thought I would ask you that question this morning. And
perhaps I can also respond more directly to Margaret Steinfels’s original
request to “to set out what anti-Catholic is and is not.” She suggested that,
to do this, I might want to “take cues”
from “common understandings of other prejudices and stereotypes.” I think this
is a provocative suggestion, and I will sketch the rough outlines of a response
by looking at two recent collections: Jerome Chanes, ed., Anti-Semitism in America Today (1995) and T. M. Devine, ed., Scotland’s Shame (2000).
American Jews are vitally interested in the question of
antisemitism, because the issue is intrinsically linked to the question of
American Jewish identity. And Scottish Catholics have been newly-alerted to the
question of anti-Catholicism in Scotland, in the wake of the creation of the
Scottish Parliament and the persistence of associated issues of national
identity and practice. So are there cues in these other contexts that might
shed light on the current salience of the question of anti-Catholicism in
American culture. But first, a cue or two from the inside.
Setting Out:
Catholic League president, William Donohue, has frequently expressed his
concern with appearance of a double standard–the absence of parity in
the public treatment of Catholicism. This suggests the basis for a rule. The
absence of parity in public treatment seems a reasonable kind of evidence of
prejudice in the culture. The persistence of contemptuous attention could also
be the basis for a rule. As Donohue says, “If we see that the same person or
organization repeatedly comes to our attention, it suggests that something
other than [legitimate] criticism might be at work.”[1]
Patterns of disdain, carping and ridicule with respect to things Catholic
signal the presence of bigotry and suggest a general rule for setting out what
is anti-Catholic and what is not.
The FEAR Rule:
And there are precedents for such rule-making. An earlier form of attention to
persistence comes from the work of a Jesuit, whose rule-making efforts were
directed to a sphere of human behavior perhaps even more complex and demanding
than that of anti-Catholicism. In Modern
Youth and Chastity, an advice book published by the Queen’s Work in 1941,
Gerald Kelly drew clean lines in a signature area of Catholic practice.
Prospective marriage partners should aim both at spiritual friendship and at
rational mutual appraisal, Kelly said. Sex attraction should not be allowed
to interfere with the development of these two goods. To establish boundaries,
he instructed modern youth to observe the F-E-A-R
Rule: “When even modest signs of affection are frequent and enduring and
ardent, there can be no just reason for them.”[2]
Out West, where I was a Modern Youth, the rule was presented somewhat more
redundantly: If an act was frequent, enduring, ardent and repetitive, it was a
mortal sin.
Applied to anti-Catholicism, the FEAR Rule might be a useful
shorthand for identifying expressions of anti-Catholicism. When criticisms of
Catholicism are frequent and enduring and ardent, there may be no just reason
for them. ....And then again, there may be a very good reason for them. Part of
the difficulty of attending to this topic right now is that the crisis of
leadership has upped the ante considerably with respect to the threshold of
acceptable criticism. Much of the nightly cable television expression of
outrage seems self-promoting and self-anointed, but the general consensus seems
to be that frequent, enduring and ardent criticism of ecclesiastical
malpractice is now both acceptable and relatively immune to charges of
prejudice. And in fact, the magnitude of this crisis will probably mean that
the standard accounts of anti-Catholicism in American history will be revisited
and reassessed.
Nonetheless, I think we can still use a version of the FEAR
Rule as a kind of shorthand. The heart of the matter seems to be the very
difficult question of intention: if your criticism of Catholics and/or the
Catholic church is persistently contemptuous, aimed at ridicule or insult, with
no further aim than diminishment or destruction of ideas and practices that aim
to foster the tradition of Christian love–caritas–then
more than likely, you’re a bigot.
But that’s setting the bar pretty high. And having so marked
you, it is unclear exactly what we have gained. Sympathy from the public, and
perhaps a more effective public presence_ A reinforced sense of internal
coherence_ The approval of the saints_ It’s hard to say.
The Chanes Rule:
And now to “take cues” from the Jews. Jerome Chanes thinks prejudice against
Jews is in some sense unique, and he offers a distinction that (he thinks) sets
antisemitism apart from other forms of group conflict. “Antisemitism
presupposes that the Jews are radically
‘other.’ This simple central point is a universal, timeless characteristic
of antisemitism.”[3] If Jews are always and
everywhere “radically other,” they can never be an integral part of the
majority culture. This is the heart of the antisemitic agenda.
Even though he insists that this is an exclusive
characteristic of antisemitism, Chanes’ insistence on the role of “otherness”
is a useful cue. “Difference” has become a position of privilege in this
culture, and it is therefore tempting to use “difference” to reinforce a
collective identity, but Chanes’ stern bottom line reminds us that being
“other”isn’t always a good thing.
Our Fordham host, Mark Massa, has recently presented an
analysis of anti-Catholicism that bears on Chanes’ analysis. For Chanes’, the
hallmark of antisemitism is the insistence that Jews are radically other, and
this “marking” is aimed at exclusion of Jews from public life. But Massa seems
to want to employ “otherness” for other purposes in the case of American
Catholics. He suggests that “many Americans... perceive Catholicism to be
different, and perhaps disturbingly different, from the American way of life,
as least as that way of life can be understood to have religious values.” But,
he adds, “that may not be such a bad thing; indeed, for growing numbers of
Catholic intellectuals, that is probably a good thing indeed.” Difference need
not be explained away or apologized for, but “reveled in.”
Massa does not engage the issue with respect to the Jews,
and to their experience of the history of difference, in order to test his
suggestion. Instead he turns to David Tracy’s analysis of analogical and
dialectical imaginations–to the histories of Protestant and Catholic thought
and practice. This is consistent with Massa’s larger concerns in the article,
but I wonder if the “analogical imagination” in the case of religious prejudice
would be better served by taking cues from the Jews. Catholic efforts to
preserve a distinct sense of identity in the culture by emphasizing Catholic
“otherness” will need to draw a careful line between the “otherness” that has
marked Jews for the dark role of cultural demon from more benign kinds of
“difference” that aim to enrich a common conversation.[4]
The Hertzberg Rule:
There is a complementary cue in the challenge that Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg has
issued to Jewish defense organizations. After noting the data that shows large
discrepancies between the perceptions of Jews and Gentiles toward survey
questions about “Jew-hatred” (90% of Gentiles believe that it is residual and
vanishing; 75% of Jews think it is still a serious threat), Hertzberg argues
that the continued sensitivities of Jews on this question is part of a larger
story: “It is the question of the significance of antisemitism in modern Jewish
history... how Jews have used antisemitism as a force for preserving the
community.” He thinks that Jewish counter action organizations use the specter
of antisemitism to try to reinforce Jewish identity; which is in transition in
the comparatively benign environment of contemporary American life. “At some
point,” he concludes, “the Dihtmlora will be constrained–by good fortune–to face
the question that has been implicit from the very beginning of its drive for
equality: On what basis will the Jewish community survive in a completely open
world_”[5]
The Hertzberg Rule, then, would require vigilance about the
advantages and liabilities of “The Catholic Use of Anti-Catholicism”–even as
Catholics struggle with their own version of the Hertzberg question–“On what
basis will the Catholic community survive in a completely open world_”[6]
The Reilly Rule:
Another recent collection of essays offers the opportunity to compare
anti-Catholicism in the U.S. with recent discussions along the same lines in
Scotland. Sparked by a very public address by Scottish composer James MacMillan
at the 1999 Edinburgh International Festival, the Scottish public has spent a
great deal of time and energy evaluating the issue.[7]
T. M. Devine has compiled a group of essays which attempt to lay out the issues
and evaluate them. Roman Catholic minority, Irish immigration, rising
middle-class, benign impact of globalization on Scottish employment practices.
And sports: soccer provides synedoche for the larger debate. The rivalry of the
Celtic/Ranger football clubs, red-carding the Sign of the Cross, cross-bow
assaults and cutthroat violence.... Patrick Reilly, “Kicking with the Left
Foot”: What’s the rule here_ Keep your eye on the Irish.
New York Rules: When
I lived out West, I used to imagine that New York was the City that John
Courtney Murray was talking about. The climate of the City is distinctive, he
said. It is not feral or familial but cool and dry, with the coolness and
dryness that characterize good argument among responsible men.” “Civic amity
gives to this climate its vital quality. This form of friendship is a special
kind of moral virtue, a thing of reason and intelligence, laboriously
cultivated by the discipline of passion, prejudice, and narrow self-interest.”
Murray separated the City from the Church where–charity– fortis ut mors–was the mark of distinction.
I learned, eventually, that New York was not that City,–that
it is hot and humid and feral and familial. And that it is also very Catholic.
On 9/11 a stunning story of death and renewal began to be
broadcast from this City. In the aftermath, much of the iconography and grammar
of the story was Catholic. The heroes in fire helmets and hard hats, the
priests attempting to provide last rites, the requiem masses, the mayor
announcing the distribution of first-class relics from Ground Zero–urns of dirt
with the elemental presence of those destroyed in the fall, the charity–fortis ut mors–of the Catholic tradition
in the lives given during rescue attempts. The City–and its Catholics–cared for
dead heroes and bereaved families, and honored the newly-enlarged communion of
saints.
And then, just as suddenly, the City turned its attention to
the scandal of clerical misbehavior, and Catholicism began (again) to take on
the dark role of cultural demon. When public iconography and grammar changes so
swiftly, how can you sustain a conversation in the noisy public square_ And in
particular, how can you talk wisely
about anti-Catholicism–in this City in this year_
footnotes:
1. Donohue,
Executive Summary, 1994. Michael Novak recently useds the same
indicators in a stinging criticism of Daniel Goldhagen’s “What Would
Jesus Do_” (the New Republic,
January 21, 2002): “The reason Goldhagen is quite guilty of the charge
of anti-Catholicism lies in the breadth and passion of the smears he
spreads across a broad history, the distortion and hysteria of his tone,
the extremity of his rage, and the lack of proportion in his
judgments...” Michael Novak, “Bigotry’s New Low,” National
Review, January 28, 2002.
2. Gerald
Kelly, S.J., Modern Youth an d
Chastity, A book for college men and women (St. Louis: Queen’s
Work, 1941).
3. Jerome Chanes,
“Antisemitism and Jewish Security in America Today: Interpreting the
Data. Why Can’t Jews Take ‘Yes’ for an Answer_” in Jerome
Chanes, ed., Antisemitism in
America Today: Outspoken Experts Explode the Myths (New York: Birch
Lane Press, 1995),
4. Mark Massa,
“Anti-Catholicism and the Analogical Imagination,” Theological Studies 62 (2001): 549-570.
5. Arthur Hertzberg,
“How Jews Use Antisemitism,” in Jerome Chanes, ed., Antisemitism in America Today (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1995):
337-347. The question of the “use” of the Holocaust in the American
Jewish community was subsequently–and also controversially–developed
in a monograph by Chicago historian Peter Novick, The
Holocaust in American Life (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1999). And the
discussion has continued, e.g., in Spencer Blakeslee, The Death of American Anti-Semitism(Westport, CN: Praeger
Publishers, 2000).
6. There is another
dimension to this issue that deserves a closer look. Catholic and Jewish
counter-action initiatives seem to be increasingly at odds. The Catholic
League has found signs of anti-Catholicism in the actions of the ACLU
(the subject of three Donohue volumes prior to his coming to the CL),
the Anti-Defamation League. (1999/ 2000), and the American Jewish
Congress. The AJCg and the CL had a major falling-out over censorship. (Catalyst,
Jan/Feb 1997. See also, New
Republic, 12/30/96, v. Neuhaus, First
Things and Commentary for
evidence of growing unease between Catholic and Jewish conservatives.)
And see: Catalyst, July/Aug
1998 on the Holocaust Museum and film Anti-semitism;
Catalyst Nov 1998 on Jews and
gays at Corpus Christi; Catalyst October 1999 on the Holocaust Museum; and NY
Times op-ed ad on Catholic suffering in Holocaust. There is an irony
here because arguable Jewish community organizations have provided
steady models for organized Catholic counter action.
7. See T. M. Devine,
ed., Scotland’s Shame_ Bigotry
and Sectarianism in Modern Scotland (Edinburgh: Mainstream
Publishing, 2000).
back
to the top
|
