By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
Even though most of those who inveigh against the Church and Catholics are on the political and cultural left, we can’t assume that will always be the case. There are harsh critics of Catholicism who would be generally thought of as conservatives: people with strong anti-Communist convictions, free-market views, and a commitment to traditional values, individuals most of us would view as allies in the clash between the left and right in the modern world, Bible Belters, Middle Americans.
Catholics in Europe know the phenomenon. Late 20th-century British politicians Enoch Powell and Ian Paisley were men of the right, but as harsh in their denunciations of Catholics as a radical Marxist, albeit for different reasons.
Catholics in the United States in the late 19th century and early years of the 20th century knew the syndrome too. The Ku Klux Klan and the Know-Nothings were militant in their hatred for Catholics, putting us in the same category as African-Americans and Jews. Yet if we saw these folks heading for church on Sunday or at a village picnic we would think of them as pillars of society, as “good folk.”
What got me thinking along these lines? I had a flashback while reading the news accounts of Pope Francis opening the doors to St. Peter’s Basilica late last year to inaugurate the Jubilee Year of Mercy. The flashback was to the televised coverage of Pope Paul VI opening those same doors back in 1975.
I was watching ABC News in New York at the time. The announcer was a local reporter for the station, a man who struck me as a genial fellow with no ideological axe to grind, someone middle-of-the road politically and culturally. Which is why I was surprised by his reaction when Paul VI, who was a frail and elderly man at the time, in full clerical vestments and papal tiara, had difficulty opening the doors. The Pope did not fall to the ground, but he stumbled backward awkwardly as the large doors resisted his pull.
The camera cut to the ABC announcer. He was chuckling in reaction, with raised eyebrows and a smirk, in the manner most people would if they saw someone who deserved to be knocked off his high horse suffering through an embarrassment. I can remember saying to myself that the announcer exhibited a disdain for the Catholic liturgical ritual he was watching. I thought at the time — and still think so today — that he would have made a concerted effort to not treat an elderly Robert Frost or Golda Meier in the same manner.
There are other examples of what might be called a “populist anti-Catholicism,” reflections of a disparaging view of us that is held by a broad strand of Middle America. In most cases they are no reason for alarm, things we can shrug off as silly and inconsequential.
I have in mind the way the villains in the old 1930s and 1940s Saturday afternoon science fiction serials often wore a version of Catholic vestments. Think back: the scheming advisers of the wicked rulers in the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials always wore a version of a chasuble and the papal tiara.
There are also the jokes we hear about someone who thinks he is “infallible.” Also the use of the term “hocus pocus” for a silly incantation mean to bring about a magical reaction. This is, of course, an expression meant to mock the words “Hoc est enim, corpus meum” spoken at the consecration. Hardly anyone using the expression nowadays knows that, but those who first coined the term were aware of what they were doing.
I hesitate to bring up the term “pope’s nose” as another example. Making an issue of it could come across as comparable to the politically correct activists who go out of their way to take offense at words and phrases that are not meant to insult or belittle anyone. Still, it is true: the use of the term for the protruding rump section of a cooked chicken or turkey was invented by 19th-century Protestants as a way to mock the prominent noses of certain Popes.
So how should we react to right-wing anti-Catholicism? Well, if we come across modern versions of the Know-Nothings, American versions of Ian Paisley and Enoch Powell, we must be firm and resolute, and support Catholic groups and publications that are on guard for this possibility. But I must say that I have never encountered a truly threatening expression of this kind of anti-Catholicism in my life. Perhaps I am naive, but it strikes me that the United States is a good country in this regard.
But there is a difference between the Know-Nothings and friends and neighbors who are “solid citizens” and “good folks” but who harbor an animus against Catholics and the Church rooted in ignorance and a lack of familiarity with Catholics and Catholic life.
How should we interact with them in the public square? We should keep in mind that not everyone shares our warm memories and affection for what it means to be Catholic. There are people who view us as exotic and “different,” much as we might view fundamentalist snake-handlers and Muslim women in full burkas we see in the supermarket.
I would say the answer is doing what we have been doing for over a century now: There is no reason for us to become apologetic or defensive. All we have to do is behave as good Christians and good citizens who do not fit the caricatures promoted by anti-Catholics. It seems to me that this approach has worked. I have read the stories about Knights of Columbus members battling nativist mobs to protect Catholic churches in the streets of 19th-century New York City, but those days are long past and seem to be part of some other country’s history. We are now part of the American mainstream.
But isn’t it true that our schools and churches seek to convert Americans to Catholicism and that some people will resent us for that, no matter what we do? It is. But we are not jihadists seeking to impose our beliefs on anyone by force. We can make that clear by our behavior. We are no different from members of Protestant sects that seek to promote their beliefs. The conversions we hope for are voluntary.
What about our attempts to end abortion on demand and same-sex marriage? Is that not a threat to members of society who disagree with us on these matters? Well, they may oppose our goals, but we are not doing anything different from those who promote their views on, for example, racial equality and feminist causes. The First Amendment protects our right to express our beliefs publicly in the hope of shaping government policy.
There is nothing un-American about us acting in that manner. On the contrary, it would be un-American to deny us that right.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress