Customer Reviews

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"The New Anti-Catholicism" is a comprehensive, timely study of modern anti-Catholicism. Drawing on recent events while simultaneously mindful of history, Philip Jenkins makes a solid case that Roman Catholicism is subjected to a disproportionate amount of scrutiny, satire, and scorn in American life. The subject of some ugly anti-Catholic remarks myself, I impulsively bought this book as soon as I learned of its existence. What I found was not the polemical denunciation of anti-Catholic prejudice that I had craved (in order to feel vindicated) but rather a careful, erudite--at times sociological--study of anti-Catholicism which I ultimately found no less fascinating!

Chapters 2 and 3 (there are ten total) concern the history of American anti-Catholic bigotry. Consisting of largely classic nativist paranoia about anti-Catholicism, the history itself I found to be rather dry. But I stuck with it, and I'm glad I did. Understanding the history of the prejudice, Jenkins demonstrates, is necessary to understand anti-Catholicism as a whole. Indeed, many of the vicious ultraliberal attacks on the Church that we encounter today are strikingly similar to the ultraconservative bigotry of a century ago. The book picks up pace after Chapter 3, however, as Jenkins explores topics like gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, Catholicism and the news media, Catholics in art, Catholics in Movies & TV, the recent sex abuse scandal, and what he calls "Black Legends," distortions of Church history. The chapter on clerical sexual abuse is so engrossing that it is almost worth the price of the book by itself!

Throughout the book, Jenkins explores the definitional aspects of anti-Catholicism in addition to the topical aspects that I listed in the previous paragraph. He explains the difference (however slight) between anti-Catholicism and anti-clericalism. He notes that to spitefully disparage "the institution" of the Catholic Church, as opposed to "the members," is to practice de facto anti-Catholicism since, unlike other religions, the institution is so deeply central to the Roman Catholic faith itself. He also explains that "it is not anti-Catholic simply to assert that the Church's position on a given issue is dead wrong, nor that Bishop X or Cadinal Y is a monster or menace to the public good. ... It is quite a different matter [however] to say that some essential features of [Catholicism] give rise to evil or abuse and that the evil cannot be prevented without fundamentally changing the beliefs or practices of the religion." The author is a realist, not a sensationalist or somebody looking for controversy. Readers will be impressed with Jenkins.

It is important to note that Philip Jenkins himself, a distinguished professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University, is an Episcopalian. Indeed, he has no vested interest in defending Catholicism and doesn't hesitate to criticize the Church when the situation merits. But he calls on America to recognize that harmful anti-Catholic intolerance pervades popular culture in such a manner that would be unimaginable concerning Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, or blacks.

This is a really scholarly investigation into the blatant bias against the Catholic Church as promulgated by all forms of media and tolerated by American society. The author,a former Roman Catholic, now an Episcopal teaches religious studies and history at the Pennsylvania State University. Although he has made a decision to remove from his Catholic roots he is none the less very fair in his analysis of the bias which has pervaded the Church for the whole of our country's existence; in fact I believe he may be much more credible because of his independence from the Church.

Philip Jenkins takes many issues including abortion,homosexuality,race,contraception,Church hierachy and papal infallibility and discusses these issues in light of historical perspective. He clearly shows that in an earlier era the "conservatives" of the populace were most threatened by Catholicism and were the most vigorous in trying to suppress it. Now, however, it is clearly the "liberals" who for totally different reasons and for different agendas are vehemently opposed the the Catholic Church.

Dr.Jenkins brings to light issues that have become unpopular to discuss or even intelligently critique due to the transformation of social "norms" that even a generation ago were considered fair game. Even I, an orthodox Roman Catholic, find myself falling for some of these new acceptable prejudices. Dr. Jenkins clearly demonstrates the fallacy of these new biases.

When my local public library purchased Professor Jenkin's study of anti-Catholicism I was ambivalent. I checked out the book with the intention to skim through it, but soon I began to more deeply read individual chapters, and eventually ended up reading the entire book. Prof. Jenkins (a non-Catholic) presents a solid and balanced portrayal of the radically changing face of American anti-Catholicism, as well as how American Catholics have both combatted and contributed to this anti-Catholicism in the past and present. The superficial similarities and profound differences between modern anti-Catholicism and past prejudice is simultaneously astounding and unsurprising. The only book I know which surpasses this one in presenting the history of American anti-Catholicism is out of print ("John F. Kennedy and American Catholicism"). Coincidentally, that other work was also written by a non-Catholic (a Jewish scholar to be exact). I highly recommend this book to Americans of all backgrounds who wish to understand the story behind American anti-Catholic prejudice today.

Jenkins has done it again. Hopefully this will be the first of many exposes of anti-Catholic bigotry. He has done all religions a great service by revealing the discrimination and hate that are heaped on Catholicism. Usually in the name of tolerance and by the most "liberal" of people. People who would never make a remark or joke about Jews, Muslims, or African-Americans have no problem doing so about Catholics. This book is a good scholarly first step towards fairness and respect. Make sure your library has a copy of this book on its shelves.

Though I haven't finished this book yet, I hold Jenkins in very high regard, as one of the few writers on religion who knows what he's talking about and consistently tells us little-known truths. The pervasiveness of anti-Catholicism in American elite culture is one of those truths. The incidents catalogued in this book are a real eye-opener.

The hostile reviews of this book illustrate the problem this book is about; the authors exhibit the characteristic symptoms of prejudice--a willingness to blame the victim combined with a willful distortion of facts. To take a few examples: the Church does not condemn gays (or anyone) as "hellbound" nor "attempt to frustrate their efforts to reach an accomodation with the larger society" ["accommodation" is hardly the word for the current effort to publicly redefine sex and marriage as having nothing to do with procreation, a view that directly attacks the very notion of human society as the Church understands it], freedom of conscience is not a "dead letter" in the Church (and it is grotesque to compare the contemporary Church to the Soviet Union--the Church is more tolerant of dissent on political matters than the University of Washington, where I have studied), Catholics do not believe or tend to believe in subverting the US Constitution, and I have never known any Catholic to "engage in seditious activity against fellow citizens" or advocate anything that "denies the democratic nature of the United States, as well as the rights of every individual". I defy anyone to produce a single contemporary example of Catholics, as such, engaged in sedition or subversive political activities.

Consider for a moment whether anyone could make comparable blanket accusations about Jews, or Muslims, or any other human beings, and go untainted by the accusation of religious bigotry, especially when no evidence is cited in support of these claims. If someone said that certain Jews were engaged in sedition and subversion of the Constitution (and we have heard such claims, of course), giving no evidence to support the accusation, what would you think of them? What if someone says that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims are enemies of America? If a Jew or Muslim complains about such things, does anyone argue that this is asking "special reverence" for Judaism or Islam?

Jenkins' book is an impassioned plea for simple justice, on behalf of a religion routinely singled out for vilification in ways no-one would dare apply to any other group of human beings without fear of public obloquy. Please heed it.

Philip Jenkins, author of other books on Christianity, takes another look at a contempoary issue involoving Christainity - this time specifically the Catholic Church.Reading at the title, one would think that Jenkins is a polemic for the Church. Far be it - he does take the Church to task for some of the way they have handled certian things like the Child sex abuse scandel.

With that said, he defends the Church from silly and often agenda type attacks where individuals and groups opposed to the Church distort much of current events and reconstruct history to fit in with their agenda. He calls to task the illogical and disingenious assertions thrown by those people concerned only with their agenda.

Topics discussed are: Feminizism, gay-rights, and the new media, just to name a few. The one real fault in this book is probably that it is too short for such a polemic topic. In order to probably please his editors, this book is only about 216 reading pages. However, it is exhaustively researched so one can go to primary source documents for themselves if needed.

Oh, by the way, Jenkins is not Catholic and neither am I, just in case someone thinks his book or my review is denominationally swayed.

Jenkins' book is an interesting read but he fails to fully articulate on many of his main assertions. The book is difficult to follow early on but gets easier as it goes long. His use of resources and endnotes seems excessive at times but, overall, they are useful in helping him to support his thesis.

The strongest claim in the book deals with the bias regarding the portrayal of the church in television and movies. Jenkins illustrates this bias using concrete examples from Hollywood favories such as "The Godfather Part III." If I hadn't already seen the movie, I would most certainly rent it as a result of reading the book.

Jenkins falls short in other areas. He does not expand enough on the biases regarding pedophilia and homosexuality. Considering that these issues are very controversial now more than ever, one would have expected a more thorough analysis.

Jenkins does bring up some good statistics regarding pedophilia but needed to talk more about how this is not solely a problem in the Catholic church but in other demnomiations as well. The media has sunk their claws into the Catholic church's role in these crimes while few reports have surfaced regarding the same situation as it exists elsewhere.

Overall, the book is good but fails to fully deliver. I would recommend it to people who want an overall picture of the bias towards Catholicism.

Philip Jenkins again demonstrates that he is one of the best scholars in the field of religion in the world today. With a depth of insight that undoubtedly comes from his own place within the academic world, Jenkins uncovers the depth of anti-Catholicism today in elite circles, particularly emanating from the media, the academic world, and strains of contemporary liberal feminism as well as the gay rights movement. The same people who promote multiculturalism and tolerance have no quams when it comes to expressing unmitigated hostility to the Catholic Church. In contrast to the claims of those who suggest that somehow the Church deserves it for being "anti-democratic," Jenkins shows that the true roots of the hostility are directed against the Church for its refusal to go along with the sexual revolution and has nothing to do with an alleged desire on the part of the Church to violate the separation of Church and state. The state is separate from the Church and the Church fully respects that. That is why no Catholic organization ever lobbies for a law ordering people to go to Church on Sunday. However, the state is not separate from morality. Millions of other people share the Church's stands on moral issues. Moreover, democracy in the West, and in the American founding, is based on the existence of an objective moral order that transcends the state. The state's recognition of fundamental moral principles properly limits the powerful from doing whatever they want. The Church defends such limitation. The problem is that many elites in the political, legal and academic classes seek to overturn the influence of traditional morality, particularly in the area of sexuality, and attempt to impose this via the courts and the bureaucracy, bypassing the unwilling public. These elites therefore despise the Church. The uncritical tendency to identify the Catholic Church as an enemy of American democracy is one of the worst expressions of the anti-Catholic prejudice which this most excellent book exposes. Jenkins work is very well-researched and historically on the mark. Although focused on the contemporary scene, Jenkins'insights into the problem reflect a profound grasp of the history of the problem. Although written by a scholar of the first class, the book is quite accessible to the general reader.

"The New Anti-Catholicism" is sure to be good reading for any individual interested in the long saga of politics, scandal, pride and prejudices associated with the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. This is a semi-scholarly investigation into what this author perceives as blatant prejudice and bias against Catholics and Catholicsm from many sources throughout the ages. Of particular value in this address is Jenkins' attempts to define the concept of 'bigotry' on a sociological level, as well as raising consciousness about 'hate crimes' and the proliferation of new laws and administrative codes which are entering American courtrooms in efforts to suppress Catholics. While every group imaginable seems to have some immunity to blatant hate language and other hate crimes, Catholics and Catholicism seem immune from such protection. Jenkins' book is dedicated to the task of providing evidence that anti-Catholicism is not only widely tolerated, but even promoted in a type of public attempt to demonize the Catholic Church as part of society's ever greater need to create and maintain a "folk devil" which will symbolize the worse attributes that can be found in any given culture. Jenkins major thesis is that anti-Catholicism is significant and remains one of the last unconfronted prejudices in modern America.

The book is divided into ten chapters to deal with specific topics or areas of sensitivity that serve as targets for the type of prejudice Jenkins is talking about. In these chapters the Catholic Church is described from the viewpoint of liberal and protestant politics who view the church in general as "anti-American" and "anti-Christian." The roots of the prejudice are old, inextricably linked with Anglo-American" and political ideologies from the seventeenth century forward. Jenkins provides some speculation for this prejudice. In his speculation Jenkins provides fertile ground for critics, or reactionaries, to dispute the issues, but largly attributes the existence of these fears to the fact that the Roman Church has attempted to impose it's truth and opinion into the mainstream for many years. Right or wrong, Jenkins seems to capture attitudes that have dominated public opinions and have been tolerated with little sympathy for those Catholics who feel bullied by them.

While many internal debates within the Catholic Church are occuring to challange, reform or renew Church teaching today,
Jenkins feels particularly strong in holding the news media responsible for encouraging anti-Catholic bigotry, in part because the media makes little effort to educate the public about the historical or theological nature of Catholic praxis.
Jenkins' asserts the media uses it's power to gather support for their own liberal agenda, creating the image that the Church is practicing bigotry towards certain groups in the oppression of their rights, as if the Church is a democratic institution with civil right codes of the same order as state and national policy. Jenkins criticism is leveled against the media's lack of sensitivity to the religious sensibilities of Catholics, many of whom have no opposition to traditional teachings and policies of the second Vatican Council. In a similar detailed manner Jenkins outlines a number of other sensitive issues which he believes the media go to extremes to display sacrilege, rather than a more balanced and politically correct discussion. Although many legitimate issues are raised by the public about the Church, is it fair that the faithful and the problems belonging to the institutional structures are not separated in an effort to be more respectful and fair? In this sense Jenkins' point is that Catholic bashing has become an admirable trait -- and no subject is out of bounds.

One short coming of the book is the obvious fact that it was written before the release of the John Jay study, which already makes his persepctive some what out dated. In his bent to blame the media for distortions that paint the Church as perverse and corrupted, Jenkins seems to adjust the statistics and redefines the problems related to the sexual abuse scandal as far out claims motivated by the liberal agendas of certain victim groups such as the Link-up and the Survivors Network. In this capacity Jenkins seems to fail to grasp the serious nature of the betrayal of trust, by narrowing the crisis to only pedophile instances of abuse, and in this way minimizes the extent of the problem. It is obvious, I think, to any professional in the mental health field that Jenkins' attempts to discuss the entire abuse issue lack sensitive insight into the magnitude of trauma any victim, no matter what age, experiences when a betrayal of trust with a cleric happens. In his attempts to be fair minded he directs attention to the fact that no other denomination has received such public scrutiny, even through sexual abuse crimes are also part of their household. On this issue Jenkins may lose some credibility. Although the current scandal will generate more fodder for anti-Catholic bigotry in the future, there is some need to excercise a degree of reflective consciousness here -- is all the gossip just stereotyping and witch hunting, or is there cause for serious outrage and challenge? Perhaps Dr. Jenkins will reconsider his opinion after more data emerge.

On the whole Jenkin's book should be read by any devoted Catholic, as well as by those who are devoted to it's demise, so that both bias and brokenness can better be defined for what it is. At the very least this book expresses multiple sides of the tensions that exist between communities. Reading the book can help to promote dialog and self-reflection for groups and individuals that hopefully will work in a direction of sorting truth from bias. No matter what side of the arguement the reader might find themself on, they will also find they stand within and outside each circumstance, and this helps to develop critical reference points for analysis that could not be arrived at through a more insular view of the problems. A book like this inspires futher study, and so it must be considered to have significant heuristic and hermeneutic value. Equally possible is the ever hopeful possiblity that critical dialog and study could result in a sorting of the wheat from the weeds, and in this process the seeds of repair and gathering might eventuate in an act of reconcilation of enormous size. Phillip Jenkins' book seems dedicated to this goal.

Reviewed by Dr. Denise Durak

Jenkins opens up a war on multiple fronts with this controversial essay. While certainly not the only discriminated entity in this country, the Catholic Church has long been a popular and usually safe target for derision.

Jenkins takes the Left and the media at large to task for its callous tolerance of anti-Catholicism, but does not delve deeply enough. For instance, he acknowledges the sentiment of the Bible Belt, personified most famously by Bob Jones University, but then writes that element off in 1 page with little explanation, underestimating the emotional strength of their disdain. Moreover he sticks mostly to news outlets on the coasts, leaving the impression that he conducted his research as a rather casual spectator for 5 years or less.

Finally, his attacks against the Left ring one-sided and pedestrian. He cites a New York Post column as an example of the Left's anti-Catholic bent. Despite being a major news publication in a major media market, there is seldom anything in the tabloid that would pass for liberal. He falls for the trap of using buzz words like "feminists" and "homosexuals" as part of a liberal anti-Catholic movement, but both entities include too many subcategories to pose a single unified partisan affiliation (e.g. Log Cabin Republicans). They could just as easily be libertarian right or "neoconservative" as traditional left anymore and still oppose the Church. More recently Pope John Paul II himself openly opposed the war in Iraq, but liberals were certainly not the only ones to rebuke him for it. Another problem with his conservative outlook is that while he addresses JFK's election, he neglects the subtle prejudice from the current GOP, wherein no Catholic has ever risen beyond the rank of ostracized governor or senator (see George Ryan, George Voinovich), and the most purely Catholic politician has been aggressively marginalized (Pat Buchanan). If anything, that has only increased since the party expanded to former Dixiecrats.

Such a serious subject transcends party lines, but the author unfortunately does not. Such biases are forgivable, and sometimes necessary to provide a point of view in a critique. But in religious matters so integral to identity, it is necessary to stand outside shallow and arbitrary political boundaries, at which Jenkins fails. Despite this criticism, I recommend the book for its clarity and directness. Hopefully Jenkins' word on the subject will not be the last.