I'm not quite sure how using the term "web-based McCarthyism"...

... as an exhortation to charity and calm discussion works, or is meant to work. But Fr. James Martin, S.J., gives it a try:

"Taliban Catholicism" is John Allen's description of web-based McCarthyism on the rise in the Catholic blogosphere.

He then links to the AP piece I remarked upon yesterday that reports on how certain "conservative" Catholic blogs are viewed as harsh and negative in tone because they liken liberals to women-mutilating Islamicist radicals and ultra-right-wing Red Scare Commie hunters. Oh, wait. I guess it isn't the conservatives who are using that language. Well, it's all very confusing, isn't it?

I've e-mailed and talked on the phone a couple of times with Fr. Martin, and I like him. He's a smart, well-spoken, and thoughtful man, and a talented writer as well. Which is why his use of such language puzzles me, especially since it undermines many of the points he makes further in his post. I won't look at each one, but do want to comment on this statement, which is apparently made about those in Catholic blogdom that Fr. Martin describes as "inquisitorial bloggers" and "attack-bloggers" of the left, right, and middle:

Third, the focus of their blogs is almost risibly narrow.  Here are the sole topics of interest, in the order in which they cause foaming at the mouth (or on the keyboard): homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, birth control, liturgical abuses and the exercise of church authority.  Is this really the sum total of what makes us Catholic? 

Well, I think it is fair to say (and I say it with all seriousness), that, for example, for Andrew Sullivan it really is almost all about homosexuality, and for Sister Joan Chittister it is about women's ordination, and for nearly everyone at National "Catholic" Reporter it is all about questioning and rejecting Church authority. Of course, "liberal" bloggers don't generally complain about liturgical abuse (since they are often so busy fomenting and actualizing such abuses), so I suspect Fr. Martin is, in fact, more focused on bloggers on the "right" (goodness, I really do dislike those terms).

But, to his question: "Is this really the sum total of what makes us Catholic?"

This is misleading to the degree that it suggests that because Blogger Bob focuses on, say, the issue of homosexuality it means that Bob is not interested in or knows nothing about the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the Cross, the Church, and the Sacraments. Put another way, there are numerous Catholic blogs out there that don't address controversial topics, but instead focus on spirituality, devotions, prayer, the Saints, and so forth. Does it mean those bloggers aren't concerned about controversial, hot button topics of great moral import? I doubt it; my guess is that it means those folks feel called to focus on certain issues and topics. So also with those bloggers who focus on the issues listed by Fr. Martin.

The fact is, it's hard to deny the vital importance of these topics, for at least a couple of reasons. First, they are points of serious contention among Catholics, and they have been used over the past few decades to confuse many, mislead others, and to compromise the faith of many more.

Secondly, at an even more fundamental level, these topics do indeed directly touch on what it means to be a Catholic because they are closely rooted in and related to what it means to be human and to have a right relationship with God, which is, of course, the heart of being Catholic. Just yesterday I was teaching my five-year-old son from the Baltimore Catechism, and together we read the following: "Why did God make us? God made us to show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven." And: "What must we do to gain the happiness of heaven? To gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world." And when you skip ahead a bit, you read that mortal sin "is a grevious offense against the law of God" and that it is called "mortal" because "it deprives the sinner of sanctifying grace, the supernatural life of the soul."

If we take Church teaching seriously, and if we believe that sin is real and should be avoided, then we should also recognize that homosexual acts, the use of contraceptives, abortion, abuse of the sacraments, and the rejection of Church authority by Catholics are objectively grave sins. And all of these hot button topics have to do with right order and right relationship—with our nature, with our fellow man, with the Church, and with God. Homosexual acts are a perversion of sexuality, which is a gift from God intended for marriage; abortion is the murder of unborn innocents; women's ordination is a direct rejection of Christ's teaching about the priesthood; liturgical abuse involves a renunciation of proper worship of God; denial of Church authority is ultimately a denial of Christ himself. Put in a positive way, concern for these issues is a properly Catholic concern because we are made to know ourselves, to love our neighbor, to love the Church, and to know, love, worship, and serve God.

The fact is, if a person is in mortal sin, he is in danger of losing his soul—and the salvation of souls is at the heart of what it means to be Catholic, for, as the Catechism states in the first paragraph, "God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life."

If this isn't clear, one must wonder, "Why not?" Is there a denial of these facts? Or is there a failure to take them seriously?

Fr. Martin writes that the focus of certain blogs on these serious and very real dangers is "almost risibly narrow"; that is, such focus is ludicrous and even laughable. Since when is sin a laughing matter? I know he doesn't mean it in that way, but I would suggest that when taking sin seriously is considered a fault among Catholics, then Catholics probably have a serious sin problem, beginning with a failure to either name the sin or face up to its existence. Perhaps there is a concern that a focus on such matters betrays a certain judgmental narrow-mindedness. Perhaps. But being narrow is not always a fault. On the contrary, a proper narrowmindedness is at the service of liberating narrowgatedness, something Jesus spoke of in rather stark fashion:

Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. (Matt. 7:13-14).

And, yes, quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder (2 Cor. 12:20) are sinful as well. There is, unfortunately, more than enough failings and sin to go around. I think that Fr. Martin and I agree that more charity, maturity, honesty, integrity, and humilty are needed on Catholic blogs. But, really, don't we need more of those qualities in every Catholic heart, parish, chancellery, sacristy, home, classroom, and office? Is it only blogs that attack? That go on witch hunts? Back stab? Condescend? Bait? Mock? Smirk? Slander? Snarl?

Could it be that this focus on blogs is almost risibly narrow?

UPDATE (Oct. 27, 2010): Fr. James Martin, S.J., praises the AP piece and then laments the "web-based McCarthyism" that he claims is rambant in Catholic blogdom. Here is my response.

Comments

[David K. Monroe]

What's truly risible is the craven attempt to dismiss valid concerns with the empty question, "Is this really the sum total of what makes us Catholic." Is there such a thing as a "vow of comprehensiveness" that bloggers are supposed to take? So as to not confuse the hoi polloi as to what is "the sum total of what makes us Catholic?"

Homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, birth control, liturgical abuses and the exercise of church authority are hardly marginal issues, and neither are they arbitrary. Three of them concern fundamental aspects of human life and human identity, and the other two concern fundamental issues of church government. For the purposes of supercilious Fr. Martin (and many others, surely), they are all united under the heading, "Topics I am sick of hearing about and I wish would go away, because thinking about them leads me to uncomfortable conclusions." That, in my experience, is often the impetus for such objections as, "Well, that's not really all we're about anyway, is it? Please broaden your focus from the five silly and marginal issues you seem to b obsessed with to the one really-o, truly-o important issue of 'social justice.'"

[Teo Matteo]

Narrowmindedness. I have imagined (i.e. hoped for) that at my judgment our Lord says: "you were very narrowminded. You were so narrowminded- your field of view so narrow- that you put ME before you and you could not see the godless world around my image. You could only see me in others, thru me. But your view also extended vertically and heavenward - to infinity. To my Father. Narrow in one sense but infinitly broad in another."

[Tim Drake]

Good commentary, Carl. I share many of your thoughts.

It's interesting that Fr. Martin identifies what I've come to call the WOCHA (women's ordination, contraception, homosexuality, abortion) Mantra, as these are the very same issues that the secular media tends to focus on whenever it's reporting about the Church.

How rich that both Fr. Martin and John Allen feel free to question the motives of those who are considered "orthodox," without taking a look at the motives of their own (America and the National Catholic Reporter) publications, which so often feel free to dissent from the Church and "question and reject all Church authority."

Do some Catholic bloggers and commentators lack charity? Certainly. Does that make all Catholic bloggers, commentators, and pod-casters "Taliban Catholics"? Hardly.

The original article is a rather one-sided look at the Catholic blogosphere. It uses one of the more inflammatory commentators (who doesn't even blog) and makes him into a straw-man. The very use of the phrases "Taliban Catholics" and "web-based McCarthyism," are divisive.

[Christopher Manion]

As Stan Evans clearly demonstrates in his recent best-seller, "Blacklisted by History," McCarthy was right. The left has hated him ever since, of course, but have you noticed how they hate some other truth-tellers with equal vehemence or more? Even some popes?

The term "McCarthyism" was created to exploit a pliant and ignorant liberal community's desire to defend itself, when its behavior was indefensible: cheering on Stalin (New York Times's Pulitzer Prize winner Duranty), cheering Ho Chi Minh, applauding the Ukraine famine, you name it.

Catholics above all should be truth-tellers. To rise in certain hierarchies, however (and not only clerical) requires that one wink now and then, or lose his chances for promotion and/or recognition.

We should be grateful that there are some, like Joe Sobran (+2010), Michael Voris, Phil Lawler, and other who are willing to tell it like it is, while many in the church parade around beating the drum for amnesty and Obamacare.

Where is their brave preaching on Humanae Vitae? Why do our bishops support the Foreign Aid Authorization bill (and ask us to) that provides half a billion for Hillary's worldwide contraceptive and Depo-Provera campaign, and sixty million more for abortions with US taxpayer money?

[Randy]

It boils down to what happens when Catholicism collides with our culture. Fr Martin's instinct is to change the subject. Find clever words that can make everyone happy. Do whatever you have to do to avoid confrontation.

The reality is there are huge differences. We need to understand them. Why can't we accept female ordination? If you can't understand it that is a huge problem. It does not just mean you don't get one article of the catechism. It means your whole idea of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman is not Catholic. It is secular. That is a huge problem that will effect the whole of you spiritual walk.

It is also interesting that this comes up just days before an election. I wonder how much of the motive is political.

[Fernando Umberto Garcia de Nicaragua, Prefectus Minimus: The Jacksonian Institute]

Popes St. Pius V, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Pius X, and many others would all be branded as "Taliban Catholics" by these heretics. This is all I need to know.

We need a new Inquisition.

[Ed Peters]

CM writes: "As Stan Evans clearly demonstrates in his recent best-seller, "Blacklisted by History," McCarthy was right." Ok, well, I've not read MSE's study, so I offer no opinion on it. But I have watched hours of the kinescopes of JoeMc, and I'd need A LOT of convincing that he wasn't 1 part right and 4 parts nutjob jerk who set back Conservatives a decade or more.

[jp]

Interesting.

Fr. Martin is the one with the narrow views. While I have probably hit on all the subjects he names (I know I have discussed liturgy more than once) on my blog, I have certainly mused on many other topics related to being a loyal, Canadian, Catholic.

My reading of other, much better, Catholic blogs has shown me that 'conservative' Catholics (I prefer the term loyal) do think and write about many other things. Fr. Martin seems to be choosing to see what he wishes to see.

Name-calling just seems childish. Taliban? McCarthy? Really folks...

[joe]

When Fr. Martin writes a clear column offering full support of church teaching on homosexuality, or female ordination, or even birth control, I may give his protests more credence. As it is, I read him always carefully allowing for dissent, but NEVER defending those church teachings. If anyone can point to me to where he does, I'll be grateful. I read his most recent book on Ignatian spirituality, and it had some very helpful stuff, but I was especially struck by the topics left unaddressed. How an urban Jesuit today, connected to the culture, can give general advice about sex and celibacy and leave homosexuality totally undiscussed, for example, mystifies me. Just saying...

[joe]

As a follow-up upon reading Martin's piece, he talks like most blogs are conservative blogs are annonymous, while that is not my experience at all. I wonder which ones he means. Certainly none of the most popular ones are anonymous whatsoever: it is not the comboxes that make the impact, but the published material. But he knows that.
Also, the phrase 'Taliban' is used three times, and he engages in that pre-Vatican II theological elitism that suggest most bloggers are theologically unversed because... they do not have religious degrees. Horrors. Apparently someone just out of college will '"cherry pick" ideas, whereas the Jesuit priests would never ever do that. His piece is about as lopsided as something coming out the Obama White House. He does mention that liberals also get upset when the sense church authority being exerted. The obvious difference is such exertion does no contradict established doctrine. Liberal insurrections over the hitbutton issues do, plain and simple.

[meg]

Joe is correct - Fr. Martin never defends Church teaching on those issues.

Moreover, on the anonymous blogging thing - as someone pointed out at the Curt Jester blog, what Catholic blog has the highest proportion of anonymous bloggers?

That bastion of rabid right-wingers Vox Nova, of course.

I mean, who is the nastiest, most judgmental blogger and commenter on the Catholic internet? Besides Michael Sean Winters, that is - that fellow Morning's Minion, who is everywhere, dripping snideness and condemning fellow Catholics. Who *is* he?

[Todd Newbold]

Im going to watch "The Mission" today.

[Patrick]

The irony is amazing. In the America blog post, as Carl notes, Fr. Martin complains about 'attacks' and the lack of 'civility'--or, more dramatically, those who 'spew venom'--particularly through name calling that is, and I quote, "devoid of any sense of Christian charity." Father goes on in reference to a particular instance of the lack of civility: "Calling someone a 'cancer'? Does that sound like Christian charity?"

Just ONE line above, Father employs John Allen's term "Catholic Taliban" to refer to those Father wishes to take issue with.

Other terms Father uses: "Inquisitors", "craven and cowardly", "watchdogs", "McCarthyism" (if someone made a Hitler comment...).

Father laments baseless ad hominem attacks too; I suppose the one he levels against those who call him out on his blog can serve as an example: "It is quite another to be attacked with snide comments by someone barely out of college who spends his days cherry-picking quotes and thumbing through the Catechism in an endless game of Catholic gotcha."

Does that sound like Christian charity?

"They", claims Father, that is, "the Catholic Taliban," "say that calls for charity just mask dissent."

Well, in Father's case--and this is merely the opinion of a nobody on the internet--I think that is precisely the tactic being used. As others here have astutely pointed out, Fr. Martin never defends Church teaching on those issues. No he doesn't, and one is left to wonder why he doesn't. I have my guess.

The "those Catholics over there who 'attack' me aren't really very kind or nice" is a fair critique of behavior, but it doesn't address the problems the meanies raise with the unwillingness to address certain issues like homosexuality, abortion, women's ordination, birth control, liturgical abuses and the exercise of church authority.

Slippery, I say.

[Pete Lake]

Carl, an excellent post. You are spot on that Christ calls us to a most narrow focus: Him. Once we are focused on Him, then we can, together with Him, focus on love of neighbor, etc. Otherwise, we have, as Pope Benedict reminded us in his encyclical, love without truth.

Also, not only is the salvation of souls at the heart of what it means to be Catholic, it is at the heart of Ignatian Spirituality. Very disappointing from Jesuit website, like America, to continually write these pieces which have the potential to spread error and mislead souls.

[Maria]

Carl, excellent commentary as usual. I'm sorry but it's really ridiculous to act like things cannot be called by their name or what they are. Jesus had no problem calling it as he saw it! He called the devil a "liar, cheat, and a murderer from the beginning." Can you imagine him saying the devil was just a "poor deceitful, life taking, confused angel from the beginning." He called the Pharisees hypocrites, serpents, brood of vipers. Sounds loving to me LOL! While we should never forget to be charitable sometimes you just have to tell it like it is. These days just stating church teaching is considered uncharitable and that's an embarrassment.

[LJ]

WOCHA

I like that Tim Drake. Hope you don't mind if I borrow it.

[Todd Newbold]

IMHO, Trying to get through a Narrow Gate is futile, "The Church" has the the keys to open the Gate "Eat G." for all.

[Tony]

I'm going to be a centrist on this issue. While the orthodox Catholic blogs I read are written by civil, rational people, the people who sometimes leave comments in their comboxes can be foaming-at-the-mouth out of their minds. They claim to defend orthodoxy but are so vicious, I wonder if the New Testament has had any real impact on their hearts. Disagreement and correction are necessary components in our faith lives. And I'm all for taking a clever shot at Nancy Pelosi once in a while. But sometimes things descend into a level of nastiness that's hard to justify.