Jeremy Beer, reflecting on Newt Gingrich's recent reception into the Roman church, notes that Newt's only the most recent prominent conservative political figure to convert to Catholicism (e.g., Larry Kudlow, Sam Brownback, Robert Bork, et al.). Jeremy makes a smart observation:
It's hard not to notice that new Catholic converts of the Gingrich type seem never to change a single political opinion because they have converted. They do not begin quoting, favorably and honestly, the great social encyclicals of the last hundred years in ways that challenge the party line or might get them in trouble with the Club for Growth.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
And once again, through the miracle of cyberspace,that last of mine came off as much nastier than I meant it to.
O.k., here's the deal with me, like anyone cares!
One of the huge draws for Mr. Dreyer's blogs, books, and philosophical movement (because he really has done something big here) was that he was Catholic. He really was onto something, I think he appealed to a lot of lost souls with his synthesis, his rethinking of what blocks go together on the playground.
So he converts, that's fine, he's no longer Catholic, but he gets it. So few people get it, this guy gets it, and he doesn't have to be like me, and he doesn't have to agree with me, he just has to not hate me and misrepresent and resent and snark at me, and then we can get to all that stuff we do have in common.
But lately I'm beginning the feel like maybe, just maybe, "I used to be Roman Catholic" is kind of a mild version of "but some of my best friends are black", and I am unreasonably disappointed by that. After all, it's not like I even know Mr. Dreyer. But I thought there was a voice out there, and then maybe not.
I never was big on Hannity, but I listened to him for awhile in part because part of his schtick was how he was Catholic. One day he lectured a caller about how people shouldn't have more kids than they could afford to buy computers for, it was a disappointment.
So, there, I'm not trying to play gotcha. I think it matters. But wadda I know.
Lisa,
I understand the lately I'm beginning the feel like maybe, just maybe, "I used to be Roman Catholic" is kind of a mild version of "but some of my best friends are black" thing. Really I do.
But as the Vatican uses "the Roman Church" to refer to itself, it seems that taking offense because an ex-Catholic used precisely the same term is unfair. It isn't the "n-word" after all. It's a historically correct term used in the correct manner.
If the term "Catholic" matters, why don't the terms "One," "Holy," "Apostolic" or "Roman" also matter? Would it not be more offensive to deny the sanctity of the Church than its universality?
No, it's not the "n" word, absolutely that's right. Totally different category, we can definitely agree on that.
I am a former Roman Catholic, now Episcopalian, but I can't deny that I'm still struggling with that decision.
Anyhow, I use the term "Roman Church" all the time, before and after my departure. There is nothing insulting about the term. Many Anglicans now utilize the phrase "Roman branch of the Catholic Church."
Well, back to Rod's original point...
"Tony Blair Slams attitude toward Gays":
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-04-08-blair-catholic-gays_N.htm?csp=34
His reasoning is so beyond facile, that he doesn't even warrant a Rex Mottram quip.
Glad Tony converted...
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.