![\"DeadEnd\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2006\/10\/DeadEnd.jpg\")
<\/div>\nDead End sign at an interruption in 3rd Street in Elko, Nevada. Photo by \u201cFamartin\u201d (3-25-15)<\/span> [Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0 Creative Commons<\/a> Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International<\/a> license]<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n (10-29-06)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [Fr. O\u2019Leary\u2019s words will be in blue<\/span>]<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n<\/div>\n I don\u2019t spend much time refuting Catholic liberalism because, frankly, I don\u2019t think it deserves the dignity of a reply, as it is fundamentally wrongheaded and intellectually dishonest, and tries to pretend that the Catholic faith is something that it clearly is not. Nevertheless, as a Catholic apologist, I can\u2019t totally ignore it, much as I would like to (as with anti-Catholic Protestantism and Catholic \u201ctraditionalism\u201d \u2013 concerning which I have very similar feelings). And so I have a web page devoted to it and roughly half of one of my completed book-manuscripts.<\/p>\n If you want to see encapsulated in one person all of the standard, typical, droningly and cloningly predictable characteristics of this tragically mistaken mindset, you could do no better than Fr. Joseph O\u2019Leary<\/a>. I have written about him once before. Recently, I came in contact with him on the Against the Grain<\/span><\/a> blog, talking about the issue of the intrinsic immorality of torture<\/a>.<\/p>\n By this reasoning [my own, that he cited]<\/span>, any evils the Church has blessed \u2013 for instance the massacre of Protestants in 1572 and the judicial murder of natives in India, the Philippines and Latin America under the Inquisition \u2013 are rendered innocent and we are free to commit them ourselves. Confinement of Jews to ghettos, forcing them to hear sermons on their blindness, and to wear a distinctive costume, would be a moral practice according to David Armstrong. Neocaths are poisoning our religion at its source and turning it into a form of Talibanism \u2013 torture and all.<\/span><\/p>\n Isn\u2019t that wonderfully tolerant and charitable? That\u2019s odd, since we all know<\/span> (from endless self-trumpeting) that liberals are the most tolerant, winsome, unassuming people around<\/span>, and far<\/span> more tolerant than we wicked conservatives or (Fr. O\u2019Leary\u2019s preferred term) \u201cNeoCaths.\u201d * * * * * Not at all, as stated. Nothing could be further from the truth. I\u2019m as committed to religious liberty and tolerance as anyone on earth, including you. My goal is simply to understand the Inquisition within its historical context, and to understand the reasoning behind it, not to extol its virtues, or bring it back today. Furthermore, I live out my view on tolerance by trying to treat anyone I dialogue with respect (including atheists and those who despise me as an apostate, etc.).<\/p>\n I may vigorously argue my point, and utilize sarcasm and satire if it is appropriate (as Cardinal Newman did, and also St. Paul and Jesus), but I don\u2019t accuse opponents of nefarious motives sinply because they take a different view than I do. This all flows from my intense commitment to ecumenism and mutually-respectful dialogue, which in turn is a result of a certain approach to religious tolerance.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n \u201cWhen news of the St Bartholomew\u2019s day Massacre\u2026 reached Rome, [Gregory XIII] celebrated it with a Te Deum<\/span> and thanksgiving services as a victory for the church over infidelity as well as the defeat of political treachery; and he actively subsidized the Catholic League against the Huguenots. When his dreams of an Irish invasion of England collapsed (1578 and 1579), he gave his personal support to plots to have the queen assassinated.\u201d Kelly, <\/span>Oxford Dictionary of Popes<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t know if all this is true or not. This is a Protestant work by a pretty good Anglican historian (J.N.D. Kelly) but one, it should be noted, with a pronounced bias against the papacy. It should be understood accordingly.<\/p>\n (10-26-06)<\/p>\n A Te Deum<\/span> was sung in Rome after the<\/span> [St. Bartholomew\u2019s Day] massacre, if I remember correctly.<\/span><\/p>\n That is correct, but the question is, \u201cwhat was it sung for<\/i>? According to Catholic historian Warren Carroll:<\/p>\n Pope Gregory XIII ordered a Te Deum<\/i> said in thanksgiving for the deliverance of the French royal family and Christendom from Coligny\u2019s alleged plot to murder the king, seize the crown, support the rebels in the Low Countries, and march on Rome.<\/span> But Carroll also notes that a procession of thanksgiving took place in Rome and that the pope \u201ccelebrated the event in a special bull, though it was worded to praise only the execution of the leaders, not the slaughter of the two thousand.\u201d (Ibid<\/span>., 370-371)<\/span><\/p>\n As usual, the truth of the matter is both more complex and interesting than the myth.<\/p>\n (10-26-06)<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n Note that Fr. O\u2019Leary\u2019s remarks must be understood within the total backdrop of his extreme, antiquated 60s-style theological ultra-liberalism. Here is a sampling from just one article of his: Americans are hungry to torture Islamic bodies, though each tortured body causes a thousand new \u201cterrorists\u201d to spring up. Neocath priests are happy to pander to this bloodlust, much as Taliban mullahs no doubt whitewash the tactics of terrorism.<\/span><\/p>\n David Armstrong, lay \u201capologist\u201d (for the Gospel?) writes: . . . <\/span><\/p>\n [then he rehashes the \u201ctextual criticism\u201d that I have now replied to by removing unclear portions of my paper. You gotta love the \u201capologist\u201d in quotes routine: used by critics of mine from all sides, as if I am not what I am, or that it is somehow an unsavory endeavor to do apologetics as a vocation]<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n Benedict XVI has indeed fulfilled the neocath dream in one respect: it now looks as if the entire Curia has devoted itself to the \u201cinquisitorial\u201d task of ensuring orthodoxy.<\/span><\/p>\n [heaven forbid<\/span>! We can\u2019t have popes engaging in such outrageous, \u201cByzantine\u201d activities as that<\/span>! What is the Catholic world coming to anyway?]<\/p>\n They have taken on a distinctly sectarian cast, regularly calling into question the legitimacy of Vatican II, and pouring scorn on other Christian denominations and other religions in a manner not only incompatible with Vatican II but with the entire ecumenical labor of the Church over the last eighty years or so. . . . Neocaths, who constantly attempt to undermine the authority of Vatican II.<\/span><\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n The sterility of the neocath mindset is seen in the prodigious labors they devote to showing that official Catholic doctrine has never contradicted itself. See especially [<\/span><\/span>Mike Liccione\u2019s blog<\/a>]<\/span>. <\/span> These extraordinary exercises, predicated on the alleged infallibility of<\/span> Humanae Vitae<\/span>, stand refuted by the clear facts of history, as found for instance in Charles Curran, ed. <\/span>Changes in Official Catholic Moral Teachings<\/span>, Paulist Press, 2003. Cardinal Dulles, favorite neocath theologian, carries this Parmenideanism so far as to maintain that the Church today, as in 1866, upholds the compatibility of slavery with divine and natural law.<\/span><\/p>\n The neocaths used to present themselves as responsible thinkers on sexual ethics. But increasingly it has become apparent that the most primitive homophobia, based far more on Sodom\u2019n\u2019Gomorrah biblical fundamentalism than on any responsible consideration of Catholic tradition, is the bottom line in their sexual thinking.<\/span><\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n The leading neocath thinkers are converts from Anglicanism or Protestantism, who speak of their former denomination in tones borrowed, at their most charitable, from the quite out-dated polemic of Newman against Anglicanism; see especially<\/span> [the Pontifications<\/a> blog]. <\/span> They bring to Roman Catholicism a testy, superior attitude, . . . They really feel it is their mission to save the Roman Church from the evil \u201cProtestantizing\u201d influence of Vatican II.<\/span><\/p>\n [Fr. O\u2019Leary, of course, being an obvious paragon of tolerant virtue. I\u2019m against Vatican II [???] \u2013 myself being one he lists as a \u201cNeoCath\u201d \u2013 , when I have always credited my friend John McAlpine for being the primary human influence on my conversion, precisely<\/i> because he was following Vatican II\u2019s ecumenical injunctions for sensible discourse with Protestants, in terms they can understand? Hmmm; very curious.]<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n A Church that recognizes the charisms of women and of gays is surely one that points to the future.<\/span><\/p>\n In contrast, the neocaths cling desperately to fetid relics of a half-imaginary past. <\/span><\/p>\n And in comments:<\/p>\n I urge the superiority of loving and faithful sexuality, which is why I back committed unions among gays over the promiscuity that is in practice valorized by the homophobic brigade. Recently it has been discovered that a huge percentage of hate crimes against gays are motivated uniquely by religious concerns. The neocaths have their share of blame to bear for this.<\/span><\/p>\n (10-26-06)<\/p>\n Chris Sullivan wrote:<\/p>\n Instead of ad-hominem attacks on Fr O\u2019Leary \u201cextreme, antiquated 60s-style theological ultra-liberalism\u201d . . . <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I concede that, technically, this is ad hominem<\/span>, but note that it is perfectly acceptable and standard practice to highlight a person\u2019s stated predispositions as a factor in how he approaches things.<\/span><\/p>\n Fr. O\u2019Leary, after all, returns the favor. He calls me a \u201cNeoCath\u201d which is, as far as I am concerned, a rank insult. Not only that, he feels perfectly free to make asinine, absurd generalizations of this supposed class, as if, e.g., ones he wrongly classifies as \u201cNeoCaths\u201d make it their life\u2019s mission to blast Vatican II. I\u2019ve rarely seen a more ridiculous portrayal of my own position (and that\u2019s saying<\/span> something if you know the history of many folks who have criticized me).<\/p>\n I only call myself a Catholic, or (if it must be clarified) an \u201corthodox<\/span> Catholic.\u201d I don\u2019t appreciate having self-serving polemical qualifiers attached to the label I am extremely proud to wear.<\/p>\n But in Fr. O\u2019Leary\u2019s case, he is clearly a theological liberal, or (if you will) a dissenter (however you protest against my flower-powery descriptions). Or do you deny this? And I think he would be proud to readily identify himself as such (or some equivalent high-sounding term, like \u201cprogressive\u201d).<\/p>\n (10-26-06)<\/p>\n In fact there are no specific moral teachings of the Church that have been pronounced infallibly \u2013 if there were <\/span>Humanae Vitae<\/span> would be a prime candidate.<\/span><\/p>\n The Doctrine of Infallibility is actually saying that VERY, VERY RARELY can the Church claim infallibility. Even the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception may not meet the criteria for infallibility laid down by Vatican I.<\/span><\/p>\n [See Fr. O\u2019Leary\u2019s entire post<\/a> from which these were drawn]<\/p>\n Etc., etc. This comes from a priest (God help us): Fr. O\u2019Leary. I\u2019m not gonna waste my time arguing with viciously circular liberal dissent of this sort.<\/p>\n Excuse me, but this is a smear. The vast majority of Catholic theologians hold that Humanae Vitae <\/span>is not an infallible document. Very many theologians believe that Humanae Vitae<\/span> is a mistake; . . . <\/span><\/p>\n [there are plenty of liberal theologians. ut they don\u2019t ultimately determine Catholic doctrine and its authoritative interpretation. As to whether this document is infallible, see: The Ex Cathedra<\/span> Status of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae<\/span><\/a>, by Brian W. Harrison]<\/p>\n Theologians of the stature of Fergus Kerr OP have argued that the two Marian doctrines I mentioned do not meet Vatican I\u2019s criteria of infallibility \u2013 for instance there was no fluctuatio in the minds of the faithful which the infallible decision was to resolve.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m interested (the vast majority of the time) in discussing matters with orthodox Catholics or those (including many Protestants) who take Catholic doctrine seriously and don\u2019t transform it into Liberal Anglican Lite.<\/p>\n I\u2019m content that Fr. O\u2019Leary and I (despite his atrocious dissenting views and my orthodoxy) basically agree on the \u201ctorture\u201d issue, and will leave it at that. One can\u2019t have a discussion on Catholic doctrine when one party picks and chooses what he will from the body of infallible Catholic teaching.<\/p>\n I\u2019d much rather have a discussion with an atheist. At least he doesn\u2019t attempt to pretend that his own ostensible belief system is not what it is.<\/p>\n A = A. Fundamental to any logical, constructive discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholicism = Catholicism, not a watered-down, insipid, grotesque version of Broad Anglicanism with more smells and bells and ecumenical councils that supposedly usher in the New Glorious Liberal Age.<\/p>\n Scoffing at ecumenical councils is a very very uncatholic thing to do.<\/span>
\nHere are further exchanges with Fr. O\u2019Leary. Note how this man thinks and argues, and the falsity of his presuppositions. This is the ragged, pathetic face of liberal dissent. If we don\u2019t understand how wrong and misguided such heterodoxy is, we may be taken in by it.<\/p>\n
\n
\nYour hermeneutics of forcing Catholic morality into the dimensions set by the past could lead to a rehabilitation of slavery, persecution of Protestants and Jews, etc.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>However, the Pope was horrified by the cruelties of the massacre, sheeding tears and saying, \u201cI am weeping for the conduct of the king [Charles IX], which is unlawful and forbidden by God.\u201d Spanish ambassador Zuniga described him as \u201cstruck with horror\u201d at the details of the massacre. Later the Pope said he wept for the many innocent dead, and refused to receive the assassin Maurevert in audience.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>(The Cleaving of Christendom<\/i>, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 370).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nThe Decline of the NeoCaths<\/i><\/a>.<\/p>\n
\n