A Neocatholic Strikes Back — Part I

A response to Father Joseph O'Leary's The Rise of the Neocaths.

A consolidated PDF file with the entire serial may be downloaded here.

Folks, I want to share with you a detailed commentary of Fr. Joseph O'Leary's essay, The Rise of the Neocaths, which you may read at his blog. The Spirit of Vatican II. Needless to say, the essay has captured the attention of many in the Catholic Blogosphere, and also brought out responses from the best known members of our community, such as Dr. Phillip Blosser (The Pertinacious Papist), his son Christopher (Against the Grain) and Apolonio Latar III, among others.

As a lesser light of St. Blog's, mostly reflecting the light of others, I've decided to throw my hat into the ring and make a point-by-point commentary and response to Fr. O'Leary's essay. I guess that since he's trying to define me, I might as well take away his cards and define myself. His words are in blue and block-quoted, with my comments following below each paragraph. I foresee this will be a three or four part reply.

In a strong article in THE JAPAN MISSION JOURNAL, Autumn 2005, Edmund Chia draws attention to one of the most disturbing phenomena in Roman Catholicism today. He speaks of a younger generation that is "becoming more and more traditional and conservative in their thought patterns" and which Newsweek magazine refers to as the JP2 generation. Andrew Greeley discusses the same phenomenon under the heading "Young Fogeys" in Atlantic, Jan.-Feb. 2004.

Framing the argument in terms of generational conflict is telling. Baby boomers such as Fr. O'Leary, or gurus to baby-boomers like Fr. Greeley, find themselves today leading an aging population of liberal boomers who are as conservative in their 60's dogmas as their parents were before them with their own worldviews. Thus, Frs. O'Leary and Greeley are puzzled and angry that they can't keep a large young audience Neither Fr. O'Leary nor Fr. Greeley are used to be seen as passé by any segment of Catholic public opinion, even less the younger generation who these good priests thought would be their natural constituency.

Yet, there's more to this than a mere generational gap. It is not solely a matter of children rebelling against their parents. Maybe it is because the 60's ideas were not all good in terms of their consistency, coherency, or consequences. Maybe we don't like the world Fr. O'Leary is leaving to us and that by itself deserves a critical approach. Fr. O'Leary does not dwell too much on the real reason why we reject him and his confreres.

Indeed the one person most responsible for bringing the Neocath generation into existence is John Paul II. I saw the beginning of it in Ireland at the beginning of October, 1979. When the Pope delivered the words, "Young people of Ireland, I bless you, I love you", the youthful crowd roared for twenty minutes until Fr Michael Cleary, the emcee, called on them to quieten down. Even amid the euphoria of Ireland's first papal visit, voices were raised to denounce this as crowd-manipulation. It is said that the Pope viewed the film of the scene over and over again in the Vatican.

The late Servant of God Pope John Paul the Great—you can certainly see where I'm leaning—was blessed with a gift for communication , but foremost, with an unparalleled moral authority supported by a holy life dedicated to combat all the pagan ideologies that under the guise of different totalitarian systems threatened to destroy us throughout the 20th century. Pope John Paul II was a scholar, a pastor, a philosopher, a theologian, a worker, an athlete, an actor, a poet, a priest, a bishop, a Vatican II father, even a Catholic feminist. He was all the things the Left holds as paradigmatic and yet, they hate him, and in that "they" I include Fr. O'Leary, who dismisses this man's magnetism as he would that of a rock star surrounded by fanatical groupies blinded to the threat he presents.

Why is this? Why do they hate Pope John Paul the Great? Because Fr. O'Leary—and Küng, Greeley, among others—cannot accept the fact that the Pope considered himself to be in a very real way the principal interpreter of the Second Vatican Council, of its documents and legacy. Pope John Paul brought to an end the pretensions held by many tenured theologians that they were also part of the Church's Magisterium. Pope John Paul II moved the Church away from the amorphous "spirit of Vatican II" and put her firmly on the objective basis of what the Council really said, not on what it was purported to say. Fr. O'Leary et al. resent that Pope John Paul effected this needed change in direction without him asking their leave.

A stunning essay by Alberto Melloni, the distinguished Italian church historian, in a recent issue of RECHERCHES DE SCIENCE RELIGIEUSE, accuses John Paul II of making his voyages the main form of his magisterium, and substituting a cult of mediatic images for substantive educative communication. (The entire issue of the review, dedicated to the need of a new Ecumenical Council, is worth reading closely.)

Again, it is the rock star accusation, the theory that the Showman must be dismissed as lacking substance and as mesmerizing his gullible followers. Fr. O'Leary apparently thinks that we can't read the Magisterium of the late Pope by ourselves, or that if we can, that we are somehow unable to understand it, some glib, selected quotes aside. But is not only his words, is also his example, captured in so many biographies— for example, that of Tad Szulc and the one by George Weigel—that I've been privileged to read, in Spanish and English. John Paul's aura was captivating precisely because of his exemplary holy life, and holy death. Absent these qualities, then, Fr. O'Leary would be right, it was all a show. The fact that John Paul's life stands this scrutiny grates on Fr. O'Leary.

Throughout the world, the most visible face of Church and of Christianity for a quarter of a century was that of the travelling Pope, and his privileged target audience in every country was the youth. What psychological need drew them to this super-father-figure?

"Super-father-figure?" Another telling remark, instilled with Freudian overtones. What's the implication here? Was the adulation young people heaped on the late Pontiff but a manifestation of unresolved Oedipal tendencies on a mass scale? Was the late Holy Father but a more down-to-earth epiphany of the great Sky Father we all neurotically project as the great solution to all our problems?

Perhaps I'm overstating Fr. O'Leary's argument. It's just that I don't like the good priest's amateur attempt to subject "neo-catholics" to a global pop-psych diagnosis. Us so called "neocaths" deserve better.

Continues in Part II