• Get Crisis in your Inbox

  • Chris Matthews, John Allen, and Odious Comparisons

    by Deal W. Hudson

    John Allen, senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, routinely uses the phrase “Taliban Catholicism” to describe “an exaggerated allergy to anything that smacks of secularism, liberalization, or corruption by modernity — an angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate and condemn.” Allen says it’s become part of the “standard stump speech” that he delivers to various groups, such as the students and faculty at the University of Dallas (which he visited last year).

    In defending the characterization, Allen explains that he intended it as the opposite of George Weigel’s use of “Catholicism Lite” to describe secularized Catholics. But the obvious flaw in this comparison is that there is no group of hard-line Catholics who have formed a worldwide terrorist network to kill innocent people.

    Official reports of alleged Taliban atrocities include the killing of eight boys who laughed at soldiers, the burning alive of an entire family, and the killing of 100 Afghans whose bodies were hung from lamp posts as a warning to possible defectors. When members of the Taliban captured Afghanistan’s capital city of Kabul in 1996, they castrated the country’s president and tortured and killed his brother. Genocidal slaughter, murder, torture, kidnapping, and mutilation are typical Taliban tactics used to enforce their version of Muslim orthodoxy.

    Allen’s comparison of certain Catholics to the Taliban is outrageous, and he ought to know better. No matter how finely he tries to draw the distinction, the phrase will continue to be used as shorthand for conservative Catholics who are trying to hold the line against secular hegemony.

    Odious comparisons seem to proliferate these days when media spokesmen for the Left attempt to describe the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and religious conservatives in politics. Oddly, Muslims seem to have become the favored example, replacing Nazis as the damning comparison of choice. (Because everyone is afraid of Muslims, right?)

    While Allen compares conservative Catholics to the Taliban, Chris Matthews has lately compared the Tea Party with the Muslim Brotherhood. Discussing the demonstrations in Egypt, Matthews asked GOP strategist John Feehery: “So the Muslim Brotherhood has a parallel role here with the tea party. They’re the ones who keep you honest and decide whether you’ve stayed too long. Whether you’ve got a ‘sell by’ date looming.”

    The Jesuit-educated Matthews is, obviously, thinking by analogy here — but the analogy fails when you press even lightly, comparing the manner in which the Tea Party attempts to keep the GOP “honest” and the stated goals and methods of the Muslim Brotherhood. A recent translation of a 1995 book by the fifth leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mustafa Mashhur, who headed the Muslim Brotherhood from 1996 to 2002, tells members of the Muslim Brotherhood that in their effort to reestablish the Islamic Caliphate:

    It should be known that jihad and preparation towards jihad are not only for the purpose of fending off assaults and attacks of Allah’s enemies from Muslims, but are also for the purpose of realizing the great task of establishing an Islamic state and strengthening the religion and spreading it around the world.

    Comparisons with Islamic extremists and terrorists are not only odious, they also trivialize the genuine threat these groups pose to human life and freedom in the Middle East and around the world.


    There was some buzz recently among Catholic bloggers
    on the political Left when Pope Benedict XVI called for Catholic journalists to adopt a “Christian style presence.” Though the Holy Father named no names, some immediately assumed his words were directed at Catholics like me. Indeed, I am singled out by name on one site: “Deal Hudson, the former Catholic outreach coordinator for President George W. Bush, routinely lashes out on his InsideCatholic.com and other venues at ‘fake Catholics.’”

    Yes, I have called Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good “fake” Catholic organizations, because they exist for the sole purpose of supporting a Democratic Party agenda to the exclusion of the Church’s teaching about life and marriage. “Fake” is a pretty tough term, but I didn’t compare them to religious groups who torture, murder, and mutilate innocent people. Which comparison wins the trophy for incivility?

    The Left spends so much time talking to themselves, they become convinced that their own oft-repeated opinions constitute responsible journalism. Evidently, many of the faculty and students at the University of Dallas were willing to let Allen get away with the Taliban Catholicism comparison, but one faculty member described the phrase as “profoundly offensive,” adding that young Catholics should not be dismissed as fanatics simply because they seek “fidelity and clarity.”

    “There are no suicide bombers in the Catholic church,” she went on, “but we have had an epidemic of Catholicism Lite for the last 30 years.”

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Print this   |   Share this

    • Deacon Ed

      they are losing the argument, and so people like Chris Matthews and John Allen are becoming…well..”medieval” (in their sense of the term).

      #2 Deal, did they actually say you were a “former Catholic…”?

    • Carl

      Deacon, I believe the intent was former Bush outreach coordinator.

      I also think anybody who uses these odious comparisons describing others remove themselves from the communion of faith and become “former” cathlolics. Much like politicians who promote abortion.

    • Ron Cowie

      Taliban is not a worldwide organization. You are thinking of Al Qaeda. I would agree that the methods used by the Taliban to achieve and retain political power has little, if anything, to do with God or Islam.

      If one wanted to be a nitpicker, and unfair, you could draw a straight line from the Taliban to the Roman Catholic Church of medieval time. Lots of burning, torture and, general atrocities under the banner of God.

      There is a reason why the church of yore is not the same one as today. Culture changes and the church changes with it. It will continue to change because God’s Kingdom is still being built.

      Arguing over who is a “real” Catholic seems a bit petty. That is a war over words and one of the more secular pastimes I know. It is what politicians do.

      With full disclosure, I’m an Episcopalian (read: Damned).

    • Brian English

      “If one wanted to be a nitpicker, and unfair, you could draw a straight line from the Taliban to the Roman Catholic Church of medieval time. Lots of burning, torture and, general atrocities under the banner of God.”

      Nonsense. In comparison to the secular regimes of the time, and the Protestants of a slightly later time, the Church was very restrained in the use of violence against non-conformists.

      If you want to start drawing lines, draw them between the puritanical versions of Islam that came out of North Africa in the 11th and 12th centuries and the Taliban.

    • Sally

      I’m guessing Allen would say “Taliban” is simply a metaphorical descriptor to point to a harsh, rigid, fundamentalist tendency he observes among certain right-wing Catholics. He has a point. And while you didn’t use a real life group, the word “fake” is probably as much or more offensive when it comes down to it.

      A sense of humor about these things might help bring a little unity. Why kick up a stink with John Allen? He’s not perfect, but he’s one of the best Catholic journalists we have today. Trying to understand where he’s coming from would do a lot more for the Church than being defensive.

    • Jay

      I don’t know where you are getting your facts. More people have been killed in the last year alone by Muslims(importantly, in the name of their religion) than in 350 years of the inquisition.

    • Deacon Ed

      “harsh, rigid, fundamentalist tendency he (Allen) observes among certain right-wing Catholics” = those who adhere to the full Magisterium of the Church as found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Guilty as charged!

      Secularist brands of Christianity, even within the Church, are not the equivalent of faithful Catholicism. No need for another chorus of Kumbaya; one is enough to get the point.

    • Joe Paul

      I would have to question what Sally means in naming John Allen as “one of the best Catholic journalists we have today”. If the standard of quality is how many sound bites then I would agree that he must be one of the best. However, if the standard of quality is offering a faithful adherence to the Teaching of the Church then I suppose that he would fall short of the mark. If one wants to soften the hard edges of faith and belief in the Church, I think John Allen does an admirable job of tearing away at the Church that Christ founded, albeit all in the name of being civil and that apparently he know what Christ really intended all along. After all, John wrote the book on what the Church needs to be in order to move forward into the modern world…. the Church just needs to abandon pretty much everything that makes the Catholic Church what she has always been and the world will accept her and love her and call her George (to quote the big sheep dog in the Bugs Bunny cartoon). I for one will place my eternal bets on the Vicar of Christ and in the promise that Christ gave that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church until the end of the age. We must continue to pray for all Catholics especially those who see the Church as something foreign to the faith.

    • Brian

      Also, an obvious problem with George Weigel’s use of “Catholicism Lite” is that this flavor of the faith has never been shown to have less calories than orthodoxy. But studies have shown it causes cancer in lab rats.

      I think that instead of defining the CT as a “harsh, rigid fundamentalist tendency” among certain Catholics, he should change it to “Catholics who are worried about kites.” This would be a more accurate descriptor, if only analogically. Or metaphorically. Or spiritually. Or something.

      Oh, and Carl – John Allen using the phrase “Catholic Taliban” is not even remotely comparable to a politician who supports abortion. Not even. Not one bit. Nada. Zip. Zero.

      Allahu Akbar! Vivo Christo Rey!

    • Peter Joslyn

      Mr. Cowie,

      “Culture changes and the church changes with it. It will continue to change because God’s Kingdom is still being built.”

      If the church has always been a pure reflector of secular culture, it is hard to account for its origin and early activity; Was it somehow the duty of early Christians to accept the cultural norms of pagan Europe and the Near East–to endorse the worship of idols, the gladitorial games, or the exposure of infants? At what point in history (and from what agent) did the church acquire this imperative to change with the culture?
      I do not contest the claim that God’s Kingdom is still being built.

      With full disclosure, I’m an Anglican (read: Whatever) smilies/smiley.gif

    • Carl

      Brian said “Oh, and Carl – John Allen using the phrase “Catholic Taliban” is not even remotely comparable to a politician who supports abortion. Not even. Not one bit. Nada. Zip. Zero.”

      To say such odious words towards someone can spiritually kill them. It can also scandalize the faith and keep another away from the faith. Words can be worse than the sword.

      “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me,” is a lie and it’s quite often the opposite.

    • Robert Sarto

      As an old retired priest I can say that “Catholic Taliban” is a good description of some of the harsh unbending conservative Catholics I have had to deal with over the years. The Taliban accept only one point of view. So do these Catholics, who are often equally irrational (if not equally violent) in their rage.

    • Sally

      A Catholic journalist is a first and foremost a journalist who seeks to tell the truth and present stories fairly. Allen happens to not only be well-versed about the Church, but is widely respected at the Vatican and considered by even faithful Catholics to be one of the best. Again, nobody’s perfect, but painting him as some liberal is just not accurate.

      As for what he’s criticizing in the Church by using the word “Taliban,” which I agree is not the best choice of word, are you going to argue that there is not this sentiment among right-leaning American Catholics? It does exist. It is not so much about belief as it is about tactics.

    • Rich Browner

      This is almost is like a children’s quarrel.

      Deal complaining about someone calling him out, and then trying to show someone else as FAR WORSE makes me sad for him.

      I know that I can be coarse and unrefined, and at times knee-jerk. I try to freely admit it and at least be humbled when others challenge me. I’m rarely the first to admit I am wrong, so I know what it is like to have need of the social mirror.

      Sadly, Deal doesn’t seem to humbly address what was said about him, but rather needs to point out how, in his mind, others are worse.

      I say we pray for more humility, I certainly need it, don’t we all?

    • crazylikeknoxes

      I am going to guess that you didn’t approve of the “soup Nazi” gag on Seinfeld.

    • Carl

      Catholics either seeking and/or living out orthodoxy, fidelity and clarity are a problem to the Church and those who openly dissent against her teachings are not a problem?

      All of us fall short somewhere of living out all of the Church

    • Carl

      “Allen explains that he intended it as the opposite of George Weigel’s use of “Catholicism Lite” to describe secularized Catholics”

      Mr. Weigel? Mr. Weigel? Mr., Mr. Weigel is bad for the Catholic Faith?

      To all you “taliban catholicism” accusers here you need not present more evidence but any evidence to prove your accusations and its level of discourse.

    • Dale Price

      As an old retired priest I can say that “Catholic Taliban” is a good description of some of the harsh unbending conservative Catholics I have had to deal with over the years. The Taliban accept only one point of view. So do these Catholics, who are often equally irrational (if not equally violent) in their rage.

      Does that mean I can call equally harsh, unbending, my-way-or-the-highway, irrational, rage-filled “progressive” Catholics that I have to deal with “Catholic Bolsheviks”? Even though they, unlike the real Bolsheviks, haven’t actually killed or imprisoned millions of people, but…what the hey. They’re just those people, after all.

    • Jimmy Mac

      ” — the Church was very restrained in the use of violence against non-conformists.”

      Well, that makes EVERYTHING OK, I guess. It’s nice to know that the alleged Church founded by Christ used only restrained violence.

    • Maclin Horton

      I’ve used “Catholic mullahs” half-jokingly to describe very conservative/traditionalist Catholics who seem way over-eager to excommunicate other people. But the term doesn’t imply that the person is violent. And like I said I’m half-joking. “Taliban Catholics” is not only offensive but irrational. “Taliban” can only refer to one specific group of extremely violent and ruthless people. Show me the reactionary Catholics who are doing or advocating the same sort of things. As a normally judicious journalist, Allen should know better and not give in to this cheap and inflammatory name-calling. I wonder if he’s one of those who chatter about the incivility of his opponents.

    • Deacon Ed

      when drawing these comparisons, why not declare outright what it is you accept and do not accept about what the Church teaches. Let the chips fall where they may. Then, it’s oneself who does the incrimination (and excommunication). We need not fear the judgments of others because fortunately the law is written on the heart. We can then leave the righteousness to the only One to whom it belongs.

    • Chris

      Mr. Hudson,

      Fine. You don’t like Allen’s phrasing. You’ve made that abundantly clear. But attacking his language ignores the deeper point he is trying to make: there are a substantial number of “faithful” young catholics who act as though they believe the principal point of the faith is to be against, not for. They know their arguments and they can spot secularism looming any which way or how. But they apparently have little if any interest in deepening their prayer lives, nor are they willing to engage the culture in a positive way. As the pope wrote in his book of interviews, our posture towards the wider culture should primarily be engaging it on what it gets right, not screaming about what it gets wrong and then feeling holy and good about how “unlike those people” we are. If you haven’t seen this trend among young “orthodox” catholics, you aren’t looking. This is not a call to give up the faith or any aspects of it, but it should call us to seek a deeper understanding of what the faith means.

    • Brian English

      “Well, that makes EVERYTHING OK, I guess. It’s nice to know that the alleged Church founded by Christ used only restrained violence.”

      That’s not the point. One of the other comments compared the medieval Church to the Taliban, apparently based upon the inaccurate view of Church history that has been demolished by historians over the last 40 years, but is still current among the general public, including Catholics. If you want to look for medieval counterparts to the Taliban, try the Almoravids.

      If your point is that the Church can never condone any type of violence, you are simply wrong.

    • Brian English

      “They know their arguments and they can spot secularism looming any which way or how. But they apparently have little if any interest in deepening their prayer lives, nor are they willing to engage the culture in a positive way.”

      (1) How do you know they have no interest in deepening their prayer lives?

      (2) How should they engage the culture in a positive way?

    • Chris

      Mr. English,

      Regarding the first, because I’ve interacted with a lot of them. I myself am a relatively young Catholic and tend to run in similar social circles with those who John Allen refers to as the Catholic Taliban, now in three separate cities. I’m not making this claim about all young orthodox Catholics — heck, I am one myself — I’m simply noting that it is a disturbing trend that I’ve seen repeatedly in young Catholic circles in places that I’ve lived.

      Regarding the second, by making something beautiful and proposing something worth knowing. I don’t have time to offer too much more than that, but I suggest that you google “New York Encounter” for an idea of how the wider culture can be engaged in a way that proposes the fullness of the faith — leaving out nothing — without attacking it but by offering something positive.

    • Chris

      Mr. Hudson,

      Additionally, it might be worth reading what John Allen has to say about the terms he uses before misquoting him. I just read the article that you linked, and found the following:

      That said, let me offer two clarifications that may help.

      First, at least when I use them, the phrases “Catholicism Lite” and “Taliban Catholicism” are not intended to describe real people. Instead, I understand them as states of mind, instincts, and psychological tendencies — potential distortions in Catholic life that can flare up anywhere if we’re not careful.

      To be honest, there’s probably a little Catholic Lite and a little Taliban in all of us.

      Second, I suspect many people assume that by “Catholicism Lite” I mean the Catholic left, and by “Taliban Catholicism” the church’s conservatives. Not so.

      In fact, there’s a right-wing form of Catholicism Lite that’s just as watered-down and sold out to secularism as its kissing cousin on the left. In the States, it can take the form of a country club Republican Catholicism — untroubled by the inequities of global free-market capitalism, quite at home with anti-immigrant rhetoric, the death penalty, and the use of armed force.

      At least in my mind, the defining feature of “Catholicism Lite” is not a liberal or conservative outlook, but rather taking one’s cues from secular culture rather than the faith. No ideological camp has a monopoly on that.

      Similarly, there’s a Taliban instinct on the Catholic left that can be just as noxious as its right-wing version. It generally includes paranoia about almost any exercise of authority in the church, coupled with derision of any attempt to defend traditional Catholic thought, speech or practice — a liberal “hermeneutic of suspicion” that can easily shade off into rage. Try telling a certain kind of Catholic liberal that Benedict XVI isn’t actually “rolling back the clock” on Vatican II, for example, and you’ll want to duck and cover before the shooting starts.

      Bottom line: When I talk about “Taliban Catholicism,” I know I’m playing with fire — but the point is to invite an examination of conscience across the board, myself very much included, not to slur one side or the other in Catholic debates.

      In other words, Mr. Allen is not attacking faithful, Orthodox Catholics for being faithful to church teaching. He is attacking a state of mind that separates Catholics of all political stripes from the fullness of the faith.

    • Telemachus

      Right on: “[T]he defining feature of ‘Catholicism Lite’ is not a liberal or conservative outlook, but rather taking one’s cues from secular culture rather than the faith.”

      I think this is what Mark Shea has been trying to get through to people with a lot of his articles on the relationship between the Catholic faith and what its consequences should be in the secular world.

      Then again, I don’t know what John R. Allen, Jr.’s motives are for using the term “Taliban Catholicism.” He writes for National Catholic Reporter, a publication which I find atrocious in its lack of fidelity and its constant criticisms of the institutional Church. His articles are the one exception, in my experience, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t write with the same general mindset: that the Church should completely abandon her past and transform herself into a left-liberal NGO.

      Whatever. If we want unity, it’s probably better to eschew “labels” unless they are absolutely necessary. As Chris has made clear in his post above, labels muddy the waters because of their knack for being interpreted in multifarious ways. When the waters are too muddy, you can’t see your neighbor anymore.

      God Bless,
      Tele

    • Mark

      Chris and Tale,

      Your approach was tried and failed with regards to the homosexual agenda. When It started as merely “tolerance” Cahtolics and other Christians believed that Charity dictated cooperation. When the 90′s came along, tolerance turned to “acceptance” and once again, sincere believers remained silent. So now, here we are today with the emboldened enemies of the Church (some from within) actually promoting the intrinsically disordered behavior as something that sincere Christians should embrace as good.

      “If we want unity” ?? At what price? Dysfunction and darkness mistake kindness as weakness and will only perpetuate deception until it is stopped. It’s too bad that the very vocal minority has determined that the Church Militant should represented with limp-wrists and enabling words rather than truth. If you want to feel good about the unity of humanity, I’d suggest going to YouTube and watching Coka-Cola commercials from the 70′s. But please, try to refrain from lecturing those of us who actually see reality for what it is — the condescension is no longer cute.

      “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.”

      I wonder if liberal Catholics believe that they will straighten Jesus out on judgement day.

    • ClarkB

      Methods and degrees of extremism aside – both the Taliban and many Catholics have similar goals in that they want to institute their religious beliefs ans part of the structure of government – despite the wishes of fellow citizens, or their right to live according the THEIR own beliefs.

      It is a shared disrespect for others who hold a different religious view. Religious doctrine is something which a person follow because of THEIR OWN FREE WILL, not because they are legally compelled to. It is unfair in the sense of a secular republic, and from the Christian sense that one can only come to God of their own free will also. Otherwise it would just be a sham set of religious laws which compel certain behavior, regardless of what is in the heart.

      In that regard, there is much that the Taliban and some Catholics share.

    • Brian English

      “Methods and degrees of extremism aside – both the Taliban and many Catholics have similar goals in that they want to institute their religious beliefs ans part of the structure of government – despite the wishes of fellow citizens, or their right to live according the THEIR own beliefs.”

      This lame argument again? Catholics have just as much a right as anyone else to promote their views for the ordering of society. If enough people agree with them, laws get passed that promote that view (unless of course the Left’s friends in the judiciary have already imposed the Left’s view).

      If you can’t get enough people to support your position, that is tough. Don’t run around crying about “religious beliefs.” How do you obtain your pure political positions that do not equal imposing your beliefs on others?

    • Minaya

      Dear Deacon,

      There was recently a group of “Catholics” who set up terrorist groups based on their religious beliefs. There were numerous examples in Latin America in the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s. Alas, they were not Conservative Catholics, but the Leftist followers of the “Liberation Theology” that joined Communist guerrillas.

    • cj

      Catholics, as all Christians needs to practice the words of our Savior — “My command is this: Love one another as I have Loved you.” As naive as this will sound to most, if we all embrace His commandment leaving all else to His Will, all else will be as it should.
      I don’t mean to suggest that all things are equal, far from it. While I work intently at loving all whom I encounter, that is not to suggest I like what they do in their travels; my role is only to offer them into His Hands, and express His Love for them as best this mere mortal can.
      All things are possible through Christ. Praise the Lord.

    • Cord Hamrick

      I worry that this discussion is looking a bit petty.

      First Things First

      Let’s be faithful to Jesus Christ. Have you given up everything for Him yet? No? Then go and do it. Have you cast or ripped away from yourself every created good whose goodness tempts you to disobedience or divided loyalty? No? Then cast it away and tear yourself free.

      There are, certainly, Catholic Christians who do not think and live in full, submissive, humble, and joyful compliance with the standards which Christ, through His representatives, has imparted to the faithful for their protection, edification, sanctification, and blessing. I am one such and went to Reconciliation earlier today because of it; I suppose Deal Hudson is another and John Allen is yet another. (How about you?)

      For such folk as we, being faithful now, putting Christ first now, is more important than convincing others of the rightness or wrongness of labels even when their rightness or wrongness is perfectly clear. This is not to dismiss the importance of truthful talking; it is only to put first things first.

      A Quick Glance At The (Tedious) Dispute

      The phrase “Catholic Taliban” is sinfully libelous if Allen used it in a serious tone-of-voice intending a serious comparison. But I suspect he was speaking unseriously and carelessly. There is a certain kind of writer or speaker who does not really intend his audience to parse clear meanings from the exact definitions of his words and the logical construction of his sentences, but rather to absorb a loose chain of hazy emotional impressions and subtexts from them. Perhaps John Allen is such a writer/speaker?

      Anyway I expect he was using the phrase “Catholic Taliban” unseriously or carelessly. To speak in humorous exaggeration when no-one misunderstands or is hurt by it is no sin; but to frequently speak that way when misunderstanding or harm is likely sounds to me like a sin against prudence and charity.

      For John Allen, that is between him and God, but also between him and the persons who feel libeled. (“If your brother has something against you….”)

      To call a person a “fake Catholic” directly may only be an objective observation that they self-identify as Catholic but knowingly and unrepentantly espouse an opinion or practice already anathematized by the Church. To the extent that one speculates on the degree to which a person’s dissent has impaired their state of grace, such a label may amount to judging hearts, which is perilous. I don’t know whether Deal has ever done that. If he has, then as with Mr. Allen, that is between him and God, but also between him and the persons so labeled.

      On the other hand, calling a group which self-identifies as Catholic, but which agitates against Catholicism, a “fake Catholic group” judges no human heart, but only an organization’s practices or mission. In some cases, it would be remiss for any of us not to note the pseudo-Catholic character of some organizations.

      Stay Out Of The Weeds

      But this is tedious and unedifying. We can get “into the weeds” quickly in this kind of discussion. And our disunity hurts the cause of Christ.

      Helpfully, we’re taught that graciously bearing up under the unfair accusations of others, while “giving it up to God,” can be an avenue to sanctification. So we can receive it as a blessing…so long as the label is unfair!

      This means that “setting the record straight” is a secondary concern; our primary concern is self-examination: Are we being “Catholic Taliban?” (Not in the serious sense, but in the hazy sense in which the phrase was probably intended; that is, are we being ungracious, nasty, self-righteous, and — if we in fact hold positions of influence or authority — oppressive?) And on the other side, are we being “fake” or “cafeteria” Catholics?

      If so, time to go to Reconciliation. But if not? If we were busy being faithful, and got labeled that way in the process? What a blessing!

      Which is why we’re best served to to put first things first. I suspect there are worthier things to be said and done today, than label-analysis.

      Let’s go be faithful.

    • Michael PS

      I am old enough to remember Catholics, who could, without exaggeration, be described as

    • Cord Hamrick

      Michael,

      My impression is that John Allen’s use of the phrase was not applied to such rarities as the persons you describe, but rather to a strident (to his ear) tone or harsh (in his view) manner of communication found among a broad stretch of “evangelical” Catholics in the United States.

      While Mr. Allen notes that this stridency can be found in all segments of the Catholic population, he uses the phrase primarily in reference to a specific range of wavelengths within the broader Catholic spectrum encompassing Deal Hudson, Thomas Peters, various of the popular apologists, Michael Voris, Archbishop Chaput, Father Z. and some associated Latin-Mass enthusiasts, Mother Angelica and any associated EWTN-addicts, and the like.

      Even that’s a pretty varied wedge of Catholicism, but so far as I know, Mr. Allen did not contemplate the kind of folk you mention, and if he did, there is no suggestion that he limited the description to such folk.

      So, if you do not find the phrase “Catholic Taliban” wholly undeserved when directed toward the folk you describe, I suppose that’s fair. But do you find it at all undeserved when used as Mr. Allen uses it?

    • Greg

      Firstly; I always come to this site with mixed feelings, including apprehension, because I have come to expect the articles and discussion to be engaging and profitable, but time-consuming.

      Secondly; I always enjoy Mr. Hamrick’s contributions, and was not disappointed this time. Thank you, Mr. Hamrick.

      Thirdly, and the reason I am responding; ClarkB’s comments (hopefully) betray an ignorance of at least one of Catholic doctrine and human nature. Revelation completes and reinforces what is and can be known, though often only with difficulty, through human reason. To take an extreme case, if Catholic doctrine were fully implemented as human positive law, the only people who would feel themselves to be in a tight spot would be criminals. Atheists would find a sure defense against anyone imposing religious attitudes or behaviour on them. Those of other faiths or denominations would find themselves free to practice their religion. Society would be well ordered. There would be no legitimate grounds for complaint. Those, on the other hand, who would seek a shelter in human positive law for some violation of the good of society or of the dignity of the person would find no such shelter. They would find, rather, a clear support and defense of justice. I have never understood the claim that there is a dichotomy between a Catholic practicing his faith and a citizen fulfilling his duty.

      God bless you,
      Greg

    • Michael PS

      That it is mercifully rare that circumstances have allowed such Catholics to put their beliefs into practice, I concede.

      However, the alacrity with which they seized such opportunities, in Vichy France, or as the backbone of Paveli?’s Ustase regime in Croatia or in the Falangist movement in Spain, suggests that the will is never lacking, when the opportunity presents itself.

      Now, many more traditional, conservative Catholics hold the Counter-Revolutionary ideas (for that is really what they are) that I described in my previous post than have had the opportunity to translate them into action, but still they hanker for an idealized version of the ancien r

    • Richard

      By what doctrine can there be a Catholic massacre? Is it that if anyone baptised a Catholic commits a murder all Catholics are involved? Did a Bishop in Poland order the massacre? Were Catholic priests leading the attack? My understanding is that Hitler was baptised, is the Church responsible for his atrocities? Stalin was Othodox, does the Orthodox church share blame for the murder of millions?

    • Brother Mark

      George Weigel uses the term Catholic Lite with some humor in the same way John Allen uses the term Taliban Catholicism. I have also seen him use the term to describe angry and aggressive Catholics on the left who quickly dismiss anything coming from Catholics that they disagree with. Lite is a strange term that is easily accessible in pop culture in the same way that Taliban is.

      I do agree that Chris Mathews is out on a limb when comparing the Tea Party to Taliban. I think it is born of some fear of how amorphous the tea party is as a group, without a central defining organization, and as many on the left think that the term Tea Party is a direct reference to getting ready for a revolution through arms. I doubt that there is much to that in actuality, but Chris Mathews is convinced, and that is enough to make for irresponsible reporting and sensationalism.

    • Carl

      It has been said that a gnat can skim the surface of faith and receive salvation, but yet an elephant can drown in the same ocean of faith. Salvation is not a checklist. A high level of education is not required. Religious conservatives can be guilty of pride, lack of patience, and even wrongfully condemn others.

      But no one religious group has a monopoly on any particular sin or group of sins. And the arguments here on this combox thread are not about being someone of the faith of either a gnat or elephant.

      Just what is accomplished with these odious comparisons like taliban catholicism?

      Mathew 23:24

    • Michael PS

      It was a massacre carriedout by Catholics but, more importantly, inpired by a belief, that had long circulated among Catholics in Poland (and elsewhere) that Jewish people practiced the ritual murder of Christian children (the “Blood Libel”). Despite occasional official condemnations of this calumny,it can fairly be described as a piece of Catholic mythology and sustained pastoral efforts to refute it has been conspicuous by their absence.

    • Brian English

      “It was a massacre carriedout by Catholics but, more importantly, inpired by a belief, that had long circulated among Catholics in Poland (and elsewhere) that Jewish people practiced the ritual murder of Christian children (the “Blood Libel”). Despite occasional official condemnations of this calumny,it can fairly be described as a piece of Catholic mythology and sustained pastoral efforts to refute it has been conspicuous by their absence.”

      It cannot “fairly” be described as a piece of Catholic mythology. Popes have condemned it for at least 500 years, if not longer. If I remember correctly, the book The Myth of Hiler’s Pope deals with this issue.

    • Brian English

      Based on the article below from the Virtual Jewish Library, the Kielce Pogrom could more accurately be described as a Communist massacre.

      With regard to the Church, two local Catholic priests attempted to intervene in the initial phase, but were turned away by the police. As the rioting spread, five more priests tried to convince the mob to disperse, but they were ignored.

      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Kielce.html

    • Michael PS

      We are all familiar with report by Cardinal Lorenzo Ganganelli (later Pope Clement XIV. My complain is that the belief remained endemic amongst Catholic populations in Poland, Ukraine, where it led to a pogrom in 1912 and in Lituania, a largely Catholic country that, during WWII, massacred its Jewish population after the withdrawal of the Red Army and ahead of the German advance.

      It is a central thesis of the sort of Counter-Revolutionary Catholics I have been describing, that the Jews, along with the Free-masons, Carbonari, illuminati &c were responsible for the overthrow of the Confessional State that they would love, in their heart of hearts, to see restored.

      With the honourable exception of Charles Peguy, how many notable Catholics were Drefusards? How did the Catholic press treat Leon Blum? It would be tedious to go on

    • Brian English

      I am pretty confident that when John Allen refers to Taliban Catholics he is not referring to French Monarchists.

    • Michael PS

      I took most of my examples from France, the Catholic country (at least historically) that I knoow best.

      However, the fear and hatred of freedom and a belief that the public order, esential to the common good rests on the twin pillars of the Pope and the hangman, (to parody De Maistre) on a divinely sanctioned authority, is common enough among some traditionalist, conservative Catholics.

    • Aaron B.

      A term like “Taliban Catholicism,” like any term containing the word “Nazi,” has one purpose: to marginalize and silence the people you’re talking about. I understand the unserious sense in which Mr. Allen probably first used the term, as Cord says, and that’s easy to shrug off. But to continue using it after various people — including people who respect him as a journalist — point out the unfair and slanderous nature of it, is something else. It appears that he really does draw an equivalence between the kind of people who, for instance, think women should wear veils in church, and the kind of people who think women who go out in public without a full burqa should be stoned to death.

    • Denise

      I’m sure it’s okay for the Taliban to promote jihad to bring down the democracy of the West, torture and murder for those who disagree, and the wholesale enslavement and subjugation of women. We should tolerate their religious diversity. But if His Holiness Benedict XVI suggested we simply pray for the conversion of Muslims the way we prayed for the conversion of the Soviet Union, we would be evil, intolerant racists.