Imagine the outcry from Catholic leaders, a fully justified response, if a highly influential group of Protestants obtained a million dollars a year from left-wing sources to generate a propaganda campaign against the leadership of the Catholic Church over the issues of the ordination of women and divorce. Moreover, this Protestant-directed group constantly sought to undermine Catholic leaders and missions through twisted and demeaning distortions of what they said, while seeking no reforms in their own communions. This is exactly the situation we have at IRD.
IRD constitutes the most grievous breach in ecumenical good will between Roman Catholics and Protestants since the changes initiated by Vatican II. Since that time there have continued to be differences between Catholics and Protestants, as well as internal divisions on both sides. What has been remarkable has been the mutual respect among Catholics and Protestants and their ability to work together on many matters. We believe that the sustained attempt by one segment of the leadership of the Catholic Church to undermine the leadership of mainstream Protestantism is a unique breach of ecumenical relations. How other Catholic leaders deal with the debates internal to the Catholic Church introduced by its Neocons is a matter with which Protestants have no business interfering. But Protestants have the right to expect that those Roman Catholic leaders who wish to maintain ecumenical relations with Protestants will publicly disown and reject the activities of the IRD.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Neoconservative Catholic Attacks on Mainline Protestants Exposed
Andrew Weaver has written a scathing expose of the neo-conservative Catholics associated with the Institute for Religion and Democracy that have been working to undermine mainline Protestantism for a quarter century. Here's a quote that summarizes some of the issues:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
IRD is, of course, the brainchild of Richard John Neuhaus. When it began Neuhaus was a formerly liberal Lutheran minister who supported Reagan's contra wars and used IRD to try to undermine liberation theologies in Latin America--including nonviolent movements. So, IRD was always Neo-Con but began as Protestant Neo-Con.
When Neuhaus converted to Catholicism and became Father Richard John Neuhaus, IRD remained Neo-Con, but became Catholic.
I think Weaver has a point, but a question arises. When IRD was Protestant and undermining Liberation Theology, it was naturally undermining more Catholic work than Protestant since Latin American Liberation Theology began among Catholics and had its strongest hold in the Christian Base Communities. So, was Weaver or were other Protestant leaders working hard to stop IRD from undermining progressive Catholic leadership then?
If so, then Weaver is right to expect a similar response by Catholic leadership now that IRD's target is mainline Protestantism. But if not, then this sounds a bit hypocritical--even though IRD remains despicable with a name that besmirches both religion and democracy.
Michael,
Your point about IRD undermining Catholic Liberation theologians in Latin America is well taken.
There were also a number of Protestants involved, but I don't know the ratio between Catholics and Protestants.
Yes, I have met Protestant liberation theologians in Latin America--since 1983. But the movement started with Catholics and IRD deliberately targetted the movement--was largely responsible for the rep. in the US of Lib. Theo. being nothing more than "Marxism with a thin religious veneer," of gun-toting priests, etc. It was quite the hatchet job.
Some Protestants, Harvey Cox and my Doktorvater, Glen Stassen, come to mind, DID call IRD on the carpet--but I don't recall a huge defense of Catholic progressives by liberal Protestants when IRD was a Protestant group. Instead, Protestants of all stripes were falling all over themselves to prove that Neuhaus was wrong that the U.S. had a "Naked Public Square."
Weaver is right to call out IRD, but unless we were defending Catholics when IRD was Protestant, I don't think we have much moral ground to expect Catholics, concerned with internal troubles, to take more time to defend us than we did them.
Neuhaus' critics don't seem to have been very successful.
People still think the public square is naked -- especially those evangelical Christians who have taken it over.
Well, when we hear "People's Liberation Army", we all know that tyranny and genocide is what is actually meant by the word liberation. So when we hear similar vocabulary, such as "Liberation Theology", why should we presume that the meaning of liberation is any different?
Post a Comment