Catholic professor: Pope's visit to England was "a failure"

I missed this one, perhaps because the compost pile in my backyard is already overflowing, thus making regular visits to the Washington Compost unnecessary. Mathew N. Schmalz, Professor of Religious Studies at the College of the Holy Cross, judges the Pope's visit to England to be "a failure". However, he doesn't really explain why:

Now that Pope Benedict XVI has returned from the UK, most commentators will surely label the trip a failure, in spite of Vatican characterizations to the contrary. Preceded by a major gaffe by a highly placed cardinal and by rumors that charges would be brought against the pontiff himself, the trip seemed to confirm the depth of negative reactions that Benedict has evoked since his election. To be sure, the trip perhaps did not fulfill the gloomiest forecasts: there was an apparently cordial meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury and attendance at papal events was greater than had been predicted. But overall, the impression was one of humiliation. Benedict himself acknowledged this humiliation and did so in a surprising and compelling way.

"Most commentators" being...whom? (Angry American dissenters: see below.) You gotta love the vague and heavily qualified language: rumors...seemed to confirm...the trip perhaps....apparently cordial meeting...the impression. What Schmalz is certain about is that a lot of people dislike Benedict and the Catholic Church. To which I say: give this man a Pulitzer and a Medal for Stating the Obvious Repeatedly While Relying on the Usual Suspects:

The Pope's arrival in the UK was heralded by a facetious, and leaked, Foreign Office memo suggesting a simultaneous inauguration of a line of "Benedict condoms." Condoms, along with pink mitres, were also fashion accessories for protestors for a gathering near the site of the Benedict's vigil at Hyde Park. American media commentators were no less scathing in their criticism. Lisa Miller argued that the Pope's concern with "arcane" doctrines shows that he's fiddling "while Christianity burns." The image of a Nero-like Pontiff--oblivious, persecutory, and licentious--finds parallel in a number of cyber photo-montages mocking Benedict's papal regalia. Also playing on papal sartorial pretense, Gary Wills wrote that Benedict is "the best dressed liar in the world." Wills went even further by suggesting that the Pope's characterization of cardinal Newman as a defender of papal authority would have led the now deceased cardinal to have called for the pontiff's "demise"--a wish that has been echoed in different contexts throughout the blogosphere. This is the language not just of substantive criticism that seeks to challenge, but of seething anger that seeks to humiliate.

Again: suggesting... suggesting...suggesting. Miller's thinly veiled hatred (and that is the right word) for Catholicism is well-documented—just read anything she writes about the Catholic Church (see here and here and here for examples). As for Wills, his description of the Pope and his bizarre channeling of Newman says it all; to describe it "as substantive criticism" is beyond embarrassing. My compost smells better and does better than this sort of "commentary".

See:

Comments

[joe]

Miller, a 'religion reporter' who published a book questioning basic belief in Heaven and wrote Newsweek's takedown of traditional marriage, posted her piece before the pope trip even took place. Such is the state of journalism.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

'there was an apparently cordial meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury and..'

How desperate are the haters of Catholicism when they have to reach for obvious lies and insults.
Great comment Carl, you nailed it quite right.

[Salome]

Oblivious -- to what? He seems to have all his marbles about him and to know exactly what's going on in the Church and the world. He may not at times known of things that were deliberately kept from him, but he's never made a claim to omniscience and shouldn't have it expected of him. Persecutory -- of whom? O.K., so he's been known to call to account those who insist on teaching a different faith from the one they are meant to teach--but would the CEO of Coca Cola be called a persecutor if he were to sack a salesman who kept recommending Pepsi? Licentious? Oh, puhleeeeeze! Anyone seen any evidence?

[Francesca]

I was at Cofton Mark, and it was fantastic. Schmalz's comments are simply not true, that is, bizarrely out of line with the reality of the pope's visit.

[Donna]

>My compost smells better and does better than >this sort of "commentary".

Well, of course. Compost makes things grow, whereas this is meant to make things die - things like faith, hope and charity.....

[Tantumblogo]

Surely you won't begrudge the media for trying to establish the accepted narrative, will you? They are the self-annointed guardians of truth!

Revealing? - I put more stock in the analysis and reportage of various blogs than I do such discredited and biased sources like anything coming out of the Washington Post companies. Haven't they folded yet?

[Jack]

Holy Cross continues to be plagued by papacy-phobic "religious studies" professors I see. What a pity. I'm sure the Jesuits who founded that place are rolling over in their graves.

[Lynn Kramer, Boise Idaho, USA]

This letter is neither an encomium of Prof. Mathew N. Schmalz nor a panegyric to his ballyhoos. Instead, it is a fact-filled reportage intended to convince you that the union of theory and practice, in Prof. Schmalz's hands, becomes a union of pomposity and boosterism. Let's start with my claim that Prof. Schmalz's jibes are crass. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that you don't need me to tell you that Prof. Schmalz says that he is a spokesman for God. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. Even if our society had no social problems at all we could still say that if Prof. Schmalz's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) were intended as a joke, Prof. Schmalz forgot to include the punchline. In a nutshell, Prof. Mathew N. Schmalz's squadristi have decided, behind closed doors and in closed sessions, to step on other people's toes.

[Lynn Kramer, Boise Idaho, USA]

This is a letter I have planned on writing for some time, a letter that I aver is extremely important and one that really must be heeded if we are to undo the damage caused by Holy Cross. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to throw down the gauntlet and challenge Holy Cross's comrades to maintain social tranquillity. Nevertheless, its mottos reek of McCarthyism. I use the word "reek" because I've heard it say that it is omnipotent. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Holy Cross secretly trying to respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech? In answer to that question I submit—and millions of people in this country and abroad certainly agree with me—that you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: Holy Cross is completely insane. We all are, to some extent, but it sets the curve.

When one looks at the increasing influence of cannibalism in our culture one sees that Holy Cross's signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found? My answer is, as always, a model of clarity and the soul of wit: I don't know. However, I do know that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that Holy Cross indisputably intends to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. The direful sequence of that result, so flagrantly supercilious and namby-pamby in itself, is that meretricious brutes will mute the voice of anyone who dares to speak out against Holy Cross in a lustrum or two. The experts agree with me that anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that Holy Cross's expositions constitute an instigation to perpetuate harmful stereotypes. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. Holy Cross harbors a sense of entitlement and an expectation of success beyond reason. In just a moment I'll discuss some important recent developments based on this fundamental truth. First, however, I want to add a bit to what I wrote previously. I unmistakably gainsay Holy Cross's notion that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Be patient; I won't ask you to take that on faith. Rather, I'll provide irrefragable proof that Holy Cross wants to harm others or even instill the fear of harm. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.

There is not much demand for independent thinkers in Holy Cross's peuplade. I'm not saying that facetiously; as people who know me surely realize, I always mean what I say and say what I mean. They also realize that Holy Cross wants us to feel sorry for the spiteful know-it-alls who muster enough force to control, manipulate, and harm other people. I maintain we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that Holy Cross's obiter dicta have become. A final note: I'm tired of narrow-minded adulterers.