Fr. O'Leary and the "NeoCaths"
Posted by: tony on 08/03/2005 12:53 PM
Updated by: tony on 09/07/2005 08:24 PM
Expires: 09/03/2005 12:00 AM
Jeff Miller at The Curt Jester gets the high five for turning me on to this screedarticle (Update: it seems that this particular link has been taken down or is unavailable. The whole text of the article is available by reading the text in the boxes below):
I became acquainted with Fr.1 O'Leary from reading the comments section of Phil Blosser's blog. Fr. O'Leary is a prolific commenter (as of late, abandoning his handle of Joe O'Leary and picking up an apt moniker of "Spirit of Vatican II"; more on that later). When I say "prolific", I mean prolific as in four fifth's of all the comments being from him. Sometimes he even comments on his comments. But Fr. O'Leary is indeed an educated man, and he has his own ideas on how the Church should be run. There was another gifted theologian, also a Catholic priest who had his own ideas on how the Church should be run. His name was Martin Luther.
I remember back in June, a man I consider a friend was ordained. Our parish choir was lucky enough to be invited to the diocesan cathedral to provide the music for the ordination. At one point Fr. Kevin was asked by our Bishop: "Do you promise to obey me and all my successors"? He answered with a resounding "I do" that we could hear all the way up to the choir loft.
I wonder if Fr. O'Leary took a vow like that, when he writes like this:
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.
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 good father believes that loving his flock with a pure love is "crowd manipulation"? Father, do you believe that the crowds throwing branches down at Jesus' feet on Palm Sunday were victims of "slick marketing and crowd manipulation".
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.) 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?
John Paul II thus bypassed and reached over the heads of the educated baby boomers, influenced by Vatican II, in order to address an audience who were a tabula rasa, and to communicate to them a world view that the Vatican II generation would find problematic on many points. His tactic recalls that of Mao in China. At the same time critical theology was ruthlessly discouraged and suppressed throughout the Catholic world. Fr Chia's article tells how this was done in Asia. The fates of Kung, Drewermann, Leukel-Schmidt, Curran, McNeill, Boff, Lavinia Byrne and many others are a tip of the iceberg of the same process in Europe, the US and Latin America. The more warmly the youthful crowd applauded, the deeper the intellectual chill that fell on the Church.
Interesting. St. Paul wrote letters. I believe if St. Paul lived today, he would buy TV time, he'd publish a mass produced journal and he'd have his own web page with blog (no comments section, though).
St. Paul would have shaken his head in amazement if he saw that he could reach millions of people at one time, as the Vatican did with Pope John Paul II's funeral.
In addition to a tribute to who I consider a great man (not a self serving crowd manipulator) non-Catholics all over the world had a chance to view an authentic Catholic mass. Not a Clown mass. Not a folk mass. Not a mass replete with "liturgical dancers" and hoards of "EME's", but an authentic Catholic mass. I would not be surprised if JPII's funeral brought thousands into the Catholic Church.
Edmund Chia says that the JP2 generation are "distinguished by their unflinching devotion to all that the beloved and late Pope John Paul II stood for. They were present in huge numbers at the late pope's funeral. Unlike the baby-boomers or the generation X-ers, the JP2 generation has a greater sense of uncritical loyalty and obedience to ecclesial authority and is more likely to prefer conventional values and traditional church life. Tradition and uniformity are their bywords, while conformity and submission are their operating modes.
This is called "obedience", Fr. O'Leary. You know, the obedience you promised to your Bishop, and he promised to the Pope and Magesterium of the Catholic Church.
But obedience is tough, isn't it Fr. O'Leary, when much like Martin Luther, you know more than the Catholic Church. These mssives are your "church house door" notices, aren't they father. But unlike Martin Luther, who wrote in Latin so as not to lead the illiterate masses astray, you choose to write in the vernacular. So instead of attempting to change the Church from within the hierarchy, you are formenting rebellion.
This is the JP2 generation's way of "rebelling" against their elders, especially those wont to employ a hermeneutics2 of suspicion when apprehending religious symbols and ecclesial institutions. In a way this new generation is the "born again" generation and feeds perfectly into the restorationist programs advocated by the pontificate of John Paul II, where the hermeneutics2 of retrieval is given greater emphasis. This involves retrieving what the previous generation questioned or threw out altogether, e.g., the doctrine of papal infallibility, devotional activities, the wearing of the roman collar, cassock or habit, and the reception of holy communion on the tongue."
The only reason that the previous generation "threw out" these things is the abysmal catechesis with regard to Vatican II. I can speak with a bit of authority about this because I was a victim of Vatican II. I was 8 years old, and all of a sudden, all of the things I had been taught all of my life was turned on it's ear. They said I could take the host in my hand, while I had been taught that only consecrated hands were allowed to touch the Body of the Living God. As for the Precious Blood, only a priest, ordained by God, could partake.
These were God's rules, and they were being changed so frivolously, my 8 year old mind said: "If it is this easy to change it, it must be bull****".
38 years later, I understand that it wasn't easy to change. A lot of hard work, thought, discernment and the voice of the Holy Spirit went into the Council. There were legitimate changes that made perfect sense. Reform has happened in the Church many times over 2000 years. What you have to do is make sure that any changes are Holy Spirit inspired.
In fairness, the generation of John Paul II Catholics are often blessed with vibrant and joyful faith, and I have been moved and impressed by many who are adherents or products of Opus Dei or the new movements known as "the Pope's Armada". Generally, their wholesome piety is not associated with right-wing ideologies but with a love of the Church as seen through the prism of theologians like Hans Urs Von Balthasar.
I reserve the term Neocaths for a vocal ideological wing of the younger generation which is in alliance with older voices and organs such as The Wanderer, Catholics United for the Faith. They are particularly well represented in the blogosphere. They are led by academic mentors such as the philosophers Peter Kreeft and Philip Blosser, and some of the more flamboyant voices are those of Christopher Blosser, Jeff Miller, Jimmy Akin, Oswald Sobrino, Mansfield Fox, Earl E. Appleby, Amy Welborn, Arthur Tsui, and at the youngest (and perhaps most genuine) end of the spectrum, Apolonio Latar III.
Awww... I didn't make the list. Give me time, I'm new. I find it incredibly arrogant, Fr. O'Leary, that you find yourself competent to judge who belongs in the first group, and who belongs in the second.
You speaks of the Spirit of Vatican II (SOV2). If Satan tried to design a mechanism to annhilate the Catholic Church, he couldn't have come up with something better than the SOV2. SOV2 adherents substitute the authentic teaching of the Council with their own interpretation. This is what got Satan his new underground digs, so this isn't a new thing to him. It is exactly the same story as when he approached Eve with the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil", SOV2 is the "fruit of the knowledge of proper worship". Father O'Leary, you seems to have eaten your fill of that particular fruit.
Here are a few traits that seem to recur frequently:
The Neocaths are Catholics, with a certain prominence of converts from Episcopalianism or Protestantism. They are people of faith and piety. Their sincerity is not in question.
The Neocaths tend to sexual puritanism. Appalled by the consequences of the sexual revolution, AIDS, abortion, cohabitation, adultery, divorce, pornography, they retreat to the strictest Catholic doctrine as an ark of refuge. They are very vocal advocates and practitioners of a strictly-interpreted concept of sexual fidelity, with a strong emphasis on procreative sexuality. They insist that masturbation is mortally sinful, and have an especial enthusiasm for the teaching that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and that homosexual acts can never be countenanced. They denounce as apostasy a massive rejection of Vatican teaching among Catholics and call for bishops and priests to stand up against the tide of laxism instead of floating along with it.
This is called "sin". There was a time when priests, real priests, spoke out against sin from the pulpit. Our parish is currently blessed with a pastor like that. He does what he's called to do, and what is right regardless of how his popularity suffers.
Nowadays, priests don't want to mention sin, possibly risking angering wealthy parishioners. So what has happened in this case is that the inmates are running the assylum. Pope Benedict XIV spoke of a "smaller more faithful Church" and was roundly critized for it. Many U.S. diocese practice "big tent Catholicism" where "all are welcome", and it's fast becoming "big top Catholicism" where the sacred celebration of the mass has become a circus, sometimes with real clowns.
There is nothing wrong with welcoming everyone to church, but as Karen Hall from Some Have Hats said with regard to "the wheat and the weeds". Jesus said, and I paraphrase: "Leave them together and I'll sort them out". He didn't say: "We'll just call it all wheat until I sort it out".
The Neocaths are combative apologists. Their apologetics is sometimes directed against Protestantism, which they have no hesitation in branding a heresy. But it is more often directed against liberal Catholicism. They devote treasures of ingenuity to proving that the Church has never changed her teaching on anything -- not on usury, slavery, torture, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and above all not on sexual matters.
Our separated bretheren are in heresy (you don't hear that word much any more). And what is "liberal Catholicism"? If we've had another schism, I must have missed it. You are either Catholic, or you're not. You either believe the Pope and Living Magesterium is guided by Almighty God in the person of the Holy Spirit, or you don't. You either believe that Jesus is really, truly and fully present body, soul and divinty in the species of bread and/or wine or you don't. There isn't a whole lot of wiggle room here.
The Neocaths are "young fogeys" -- they take a delight in sporting old-fashioned references, such as Chesterton, Belloc, C.S. Lewis, Garrigou-Lagrange, Sertillanges, and in exhibiting all the trappings of traditional Catholic piety -- the Latin Mass in particular. They distrust a list of Vatican II generation writers such as Rahner, Schillebeeckx, Raymond Brown, Richard P. McBrien, whom they often hastily denounce as modernists. At their best they draw they favour those they see as "ressourcement" writers, sometimes including even Congar (a hate-object of many conservatives), over the "aggiornamento" wing (a rather dubious opposition). They often seem to yearn for an idealized church of Pius XII, a vibrant flawless Catholicism that never was.
Oh, but I remember a much more mystery inducing mass when I was young. This was how I connected with an unknowable God. There was an altar rail we couldn't cross unless we became altar boys. The consecrated hands of the priest were the only hands allowed to touch the true presence of our Creator in the eucharist.
We had angels and saints on the walls. Some of them gruesome, reminders of what early Catholics had to endure to worship like we were worshipping now.
We had stained glass, and statues. We had the eternal twilight darkness punctuated by the flickering of votive candles. Front and center we had Jesus in agony on the cross.
We had the scent of incense, the chant of high mass, the sound of the organ music combined with our voices rising heavenward toward God. The mass was much more sensual then, and this is something that many of the young Catholics yearn for (even if they don't know exactly what "it" is). The priest was a man, chosen by God to minister to us. He wasn't "better" than us. As a matter of fact, he was a servant to us. But he held a special respectful place apart from the laity.
But the 60's brought us a prohibition against Latin (never envisioned by Vatican II). It brought us "folk masses" with guitars and feel good hymns. This brand of Kumbaya Catholicism stopped regarding Jesus as of the God of the Universe who became man to die for our sins. What we began seeing was the "Jesus is our homeboy" model with songs such as "what a friend we have in Jesus".
It brought us a blurring of the roles of the priest and laity where you have extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist (EMEs) who have become ordinary. You have lay persons giving homilies. You have EME's congregating in the sanctuary during the Eucharistic prayer like concelebrating priests. You even have the laity dressing up like priests to perform their pseudo-priestly roles.
The Neocaths combine biblical and magisterial fundamentalism. They argue by proof texts, in complete contempt of biblical scholarship and hermeneutics. Their ingenuity in defending their fundamentalist stances is extreme, and will draw on ad hoc hermeneutics when necessary, but they are estranged from the broad current of Catholic biblical scholarship. A Neocath who would admit, for example, that the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden in not historical would not be a worthy representative of militant Neocath ideology.
Is this the "Spirit of Sola Scriptura", father? Is this where each of us reads and interprets our own Bible? Or maybe it's a "liberal Catholic" expansion of Sola Scriptura where you also get to interpret Church documents, encyclicals and writings of the Doctors of the Church and interpret them in your own special way.
I am not a theologian, I don't even play one on the internet. I quote faithful theologians to try and increase my understanding of the mystery of God. One must approach the magesty of God with a humble heart while "hermeneuting". You remain quiet to the whisper of the Holy Spirit while discerning God's intent. One cannot hear the "small whispering sound" of God while our own overblown ego is shouting in our ear.
The Neocaths are ill at ease with modernity. They feel they have seen through the myths of secular humanism, and the liberal culture of democratic discussion which they see as relativistic. They bewail confusion and uncertainty and call for a firm voice of authority to put an end to it.
The Neocaths are ideological and political rightists. Issues of social justice never appear on their agendas and Church documents such as Populorum Progressio, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Octagesima Adveniens, Centesimus Annus are ignored. Their papolatry commonly goes hand in hand with Busholatry. They play down papal opposition to the Iraq War, torture and capital punishment. Some may be active on social issues, but in their internet polemics this is scarcely in evidence.
My, my, my. This is an argument one expects of political leftist commentators who are trying to discredit the Catholic Church, not from one of her own priests. This has a very relativistic flavor to it. "Papolatry" and "Busholatry". Very cute.
Here is the deal. I am politically to the "right" only because the right has co-opted the most important issues. These are life and family issues which go to the very heart of our faith and civilization. Stopping the murder of innocents is a top priority for all Catholics. When we have accomplished that, then we can worry about feeding the poor, a living wage and all of the other social issues that we need to address.
Since you brought it up, I only voted for Bush because I found the "Catholic", Kerry, to be an evil man. I say evil because he claimed that he believed life began at conception, but he supported a woman's "right to choose" (translation: kill her progeny in the womb). This makes him a monster. People who don't believe life begins at conception, you can almost understand. In the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, when telling us how to vote: "If you are looking for a saint, you will end up not voting for anyone because no politician is a saint. Rather, you need to look at both candidates, determine which is most evil and vote for the other guy." This is precisely a "lesser of two evils" voting style.
When the Democrats put forth a candidate who is pro-life, pro-family and pro-social justice (in that exact order), I'll be honored to vote for him/her (that goes for the Republicans too).
The Neocaths are well organized, and have as yet no equivalent on the Catholic left. They know which lines to push and which to avoid. For instance, they will attack gays with a show of concern for the welfare of their souls, and in harmony with the letter of Catholic doctrine. At the same time they will be found bewailing the demise of sodomy laws.
Because sodomy is a sin maybe? It's consistent with hate the sin, love the sinner. Jesus even said: "...neither do I condemn you. Go forth and sin no more".
But modern facets of the Catholic Church seem to claim: "There is no sin, love everyone". Oops... I was wrong about that. There is one sin, "intolerance".
The Neocaths are very quick to denounce liberal Catholics as heretics. Authority looms very large in their mental world, and is indeed its dominant theme. However, authoritative documents, or early utterances of Joseph Ratzinger, that go against their reactionary convictions will be whittled away. This is notably true of Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes.
No, we denounce heretics as heretics no matter what their poltical affiliation. There is Catholic teaching and then there is that which is not Catholic teaching which does not directly go aginst Catholic teaching (SOV2). There is also that which goes against Catholic teaching which is heresy.
The Neocaths believe strongly in Hell, and play down the views of Von Balthasar and John Paul II that we may hope the Hell is empty. They insist on the physical pain caused by hell fire. They invoke Hell against liberal or what they call "dissident" theologians and against those they consider sexually deviant.
The Neocaths are joyfully uncharitable in their speech, trampling not only on political correctness but on the laws of libel.
I wish hell would be empty. I really wish I'd be able to see everyone in heaven. I heard some of the names you attributed to the "Neocath" title. None of those people would assign anyone to hell. You mentioned "libel", father. I think you are skating dangerously close to libel yourself.
And sexual "deviants" are no more or less sinners that those non-deviants who misuse God's gift of sexuality. That means those who commit adultery and fornication. The only problem is that the sexual deviants (most notably homosexuals) are the only ones trying to get the Catholic Church's stamp of approval on their "lifestyle" with "movements" like "Rainbow Sash". They are not only sinning, they are committing scandal much like a remarried divorcee without benefit of annullment. Neither are eligable for communion.
There is surely much more to be said about this social phenomenon. Its future evolution will be followed with interest. We can only hope that like the Neocon movement with which it has so much in common it will turn out to be an ephemeral excess.
Happily there is another side to John Paul II and his successor -- their concern for social justice and their ecumenical outreach -- which should ensure that the hothouse world of the Neocaths is not the future awaiting the Roman Catholic Church as a whole.
The ecumenical outreach is one of the things that has watered down our catholicism and made our Churches look like white walled warehouses. Statueless, featureless, antiseptic smelling edifaces with no whiff of incense to be found.
I certainly hope this particular brand of ecumenism is rolled back. Dialog with our separated bretheren should continue, but we should not forget that they are the ones who are separated and need to be brought back into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic fold.
[1] I have no reason to believe that Father O'Leary is not a Catholic priest. As such, we are required to show respect for the office, even if we don't feel it for the man.
[2] Main Entry: herˇmeˇneuˇtics
Pronunciation: -tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
: the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)
Update: The forecast for the following week is overcast with lots of thunder of righteous indignation and lightning of illumination. In other words, a blogstorm
["Neocatholics"] often seem to yearn for an idealized church of Pius XII, a vibrant flawless Catholicism that never was.
The kids are bad because they listen to the Pope and not to "educated baby boomers." I see why that's not good for boomers but utterly fail to see why it's bad for the kids. I listened to boomers all through school, and in university, and I still hear them in the media and the workplace. I've had quite enough of them. You can keep that tired shibboleth about conservatives wanting a 'time that never was' too. We want to keep things we see as valuable, no matter what period they are from.
And to that I join in the refrain with Andrew, one of Jeff's commenters: "Heh heh heh... I am a very proud member of the JPII generation. We are not just a bunch of mindless sheep, rebelling against our liberal parents. Fr. O'Leary's column sounds like sour grapes. Oh well. We have more babies, so we'll win in the end! JP2, WE LOVE YOU!!!!!!!!"
And B16, that goes for you too! Light the fire in their hearts and minds and souls at WYD 2005 and set the stage for a new generation of NeoCaths!
Mostly O'Leary seems to be offended because the kids - the "JPII generation"- are actually alright. That they're not full to the brim with existential and sacramental angst, but rather are seeking to replace some of the babies that the boomers threw out with the bathwater after the Second Vatican Council - a Council which, it must be said, was heavily participated in by both Popes John Paul the Great and Benedict XVI.
And it cannot be said enough that both of those holy men have spent the last 30 years trying to get the boomers to actually read the VCII documents as they were written, rather then flit about "interpreting the SPIRIT of VCII."
Anway, Joe was swept up in the Spirit Of Vatican II(c) and hasn't come down since. His blog's most recent post, attacks the JPII Generation for our failure to listen to him and other progressive catholic voices. Joe puts his intellect to work and coins a new term. We are (dramatic pause with music building).......NEOCATHS! That's right, the catholic left has found their own cute pet name for us. We are closed minded and ignorant of all the wonderful things that our Church could be if we just stopped being so judgemental and devout.
What Fr. O'Leary charcterizes among the youth as militantism (is that a word?) or an unwillingness to think for ourselves is in fact a response to the relativism ushered in during the botched catchesis of the late '60's and 70's (and even '80's. I thank God for the Sisters of Immaculate Heart of Mary of Philadelphia for their teaching me the right stuff when I was in Catholic elementary school in the '80's).
The youth of today look around and see that our culture tells us is that there are no absolutes. And in our hearts we know that is false. Our grandparents know that there is good and evil: not everything is smudged gray. These men and women sacrificed much to rid the world of the Axis powers of world War II. Theirs is a generation of, yes, flawed (aren't we all?), but selfless poeple who suffered during the great Depression and who saw heavy combat in Asia and Europe and then did not discuss it when they got home. They wanted to save us and spare us.
By contrast, the parents of this "Neo-Cath" generation are selfish, ushering in an untold era of consumerism and waste in every facet of their lives: from the gas-guzzling cars they drive to the babies they killed for convenience's sake. This is a generation of women who bought into the myth of "having it all:" career, children, and a husband. The spouse and the kids became a symbol of status for some, while most other women struggle with the daily grind of trying to do the job of two women. Marriages have suffered and ended leaving an unprecedented number of children without strong male and female parent figures present to them on a consistent basis. They have brought up children who feel entitled to everything. "Who works for anything anymore? If mom or dad whine long enough or yell loud enough I won't have to do this or I'll just get that."
And at the end of the article, she states:
I'm probably not as smart as Fr. O'Leary, and I am certainly not as well-studied as he is, but I think I make my point.
Yes, mommy, you did make your point. And if you are indeed a DRE as your URL suggests, I'd say the children in your parish are blessed.
Granted, some reactions are a bit, well, reactionary, that is however no surprise after the nightmare of the 60s and 70s and all the junk that entered the Church, from bad music to bad liturgy to pro-abortion "Catholics." As a Catholic convert c/o 2005 I certainly feel cheated in some ways. "On Eagle's Wings" is not a fair trade-in for "Tantum ergo."
As far as the author of this blog is concerned: I'm afraid your time is up, you guys had your chance.
The Neocaths are very quick to denounce liberal Catholics as heretics. Authority looms very large in their mental world, and is indeed its dominant theme. However, authoritative documents, or early utterances of Joseph Ratzinger, that go against their reactionary convictions will be whittled away. This is notably true of Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes.
Yeah, you know us reactionaries. Always ready to light a good bonfire for those book-burnings. Pass the marshmellows! Actually, what many Faithful Catholics reject are specious interpretations of the Second Vatican Council that demonstrate no reasonable interpretation of Dignitis Humanae or Gaudium et Spes. These fallacious reasonings have led to less-than-Catholic doctrinal interpretation and pastoral practice. Find me someone besides a dyed-in-the-wool Sed Vacantist or RadTrad that denounces the texts of the Council in question. Oh, that's right. You can't.
What I find the most irritating about the whole thing is the condescending attitude that so many of the Boomers have for those of us who have rejected their narcisism and lame attempts at replacing religion with 'spirituality'. I liked some of the responses to Mr. O'Leary's blog much more than I liked the blog itself (although, the blog certainly DOES demonstrate the sort of narcisistic nihilism that seems to permeate so many people of that generation... their 'disappointment' that we did not all turn out to be hyper-sexualized little robots that would simply spew their irrational skepticism and, again, narcisistic nihilism. As someone working in the Academy, I must say that this is the thing for which they hate us the most (and make no mistake, it is hatred)... we bear witness to their lies!
The Neocaths are ideological and political rightists. Issues of social justice never appear on their agendas and Church documents such as Populorum Progressio, Evangelii Nuntiandi, Octagesima Adveniens, Centesimus Annus are ignored.
Again, most of these folks aren't in a position to do things like exploiting workers, they write to what they know. Come to think of it, you'd do well to try writing about things that you actually know about.
Hey. Let's try a thought-experiment. Imagine that you could choose only one of two possible situations: (a) a Dorothy Day/Peter Maurin polity governing economic, military and diplomatic matters coupled with unflinching adherence to the strictest standards of sexual morality - including making all forms of sexual immorality, abortion and contraception into felonies; or (b) absolute lassez faire capitalism with a unilateral interventionist foreign policy coupled with complete tolerance of all forms of sexual expression, abortion and contraception. Which would Fr. O'Leary pick? Which would the "neocaths" pick? What's the reason for any difference?
Theophilus from Vivificat! counters Fr. O'Leary handily in A Neocath Strikes Back (can't you just hear the Star Wars music?). This excellent 6 part series pretty much puts the icing on the cake of rebuttals to the good father's Neocath missive.
He writes:
For other people, reason has achieved precedence over faith in their minds. In this scenario, in the inner dialogue every man and woman of faith has within their selves, they have reached a decision that circumscribed the assumptions and demands of faith into a tight little circle within their volitions and worldview to the point faith became more of a feeling and less of a sense of knowledge . Persons in this camp grant a higher status to those conclusions reached through the inductive method of empirical science than to the unseen facts of faith reached by contemplation and study of the Deposit of Faith.
Next to the Eucharist, sex is just about the closest thing we have to understanding heaven. Why? Because sex foreshadows or prefigures the kind of union we will have with God when we get to heaven.
But this overlooks crucial, fundamental distinctions (pun intended) between the Protestant methodology of sola Scriptura, and the Catholic apologetic and/or exegetical use of Scripture within the overall framework of Sacred Tradition and the Church's teaching.
