The more vocally a Catholic declares his support for ecumenism, the more bitterly will one hear him denouncing “fundamentalism” and “Calvinism”.
Their idea is that Catholics should cooporate with the right sort of Protestant. Ecumenists never want us to get all chummy with Southern Baptists, Mormons, or Pentecostals.
Filed under: Bonald's Maxims |
Throne and Altar 
[…] (Here is the first.) […]
That’s funny stuff. I see the same thing as a Mormon. I went to a Catholic school, follow Catholic bloggers, and have an interest in Catholic thought. To the liberal Mormons who call for us to be less exclusive and judgmental and etc., this doesn’t win me any brownie points. It makes me mad, bad, and dangerous. “Ecumenicism” doesn’t mean more respect for and efforts to understand other religions. It means less respect and understanding for one’s own.
Ecumenists never want us to get all chummy with Southern Baptists, Mormons, or Pentecostals.
Well I think if you ever asked George Weigel he would probably tell you with a straight face that he shares more in common with Evangelicals and Mormons than he does with you, the SSPX or other “illiberal Catholics.” I am certain John Zmirak said pretty much the same thing recently. Heck most Church officials, including the current Holy Father it seems, would rather break bread with heretics and nonbelievers joining forces with them over meaningless “religious freedom” causes than make Latin Mass more available.
Maxim #1 is directed at liberal Catholics. Maxim #2 is directed at neoconservative Catholics. Weigel is obviously a “Jews can do no wrong (as opposed to those Lefty Episcopalians)” Catholic, not a “Baptists are intolerant scum (not like the vibrant and peaceful faith of Islam)” Catholic.
Bonald,
Do you think a Catholic reactionary shares more in common with a “leftist Catholic” like Pierre Maurin or with a mere Christian/Mormon such as Bruce Charlton?
I’d have to decide that on a case-by-case basis. Among those two, I’d say Maurin, given that Charlton’s speculations basically reduce God to a fairly (but not overwhelmingly) powerful creature that the universe as a whole could get by without. On the other hand, I’ve read a lot more of Bruce’s stuff than Maurin’s, so there’s more for me to quibble with.
And, of course, who I have more in common with might be different from who I think is a more valuable ally. If Maurin were alive today, his “social justice” focus might lead him to forget his Catholicism and fall in with Obama, in which case I’d say to hell with him. Bruce has defied the sexual revolution (at least as much of it as one would expect a Protestant to). That makes him someone we can trust, even when we disagree with him about very profound things.
If Maurin were alive today, his “social justice” focus might lead him to forget his Catholicism and fall in with Obama, in which case I’d say to hell with him.
Well he actively opposed communism in his own day. I found it intriguing that his vision for his Catholic Worker houses were to function like the Irish monasteries of old. A lot of Maurin’s writings struck me as having their origins in your namesake-
http://www.amazon.com/True-Only-Wealth-Nations-Economy/dp/1932589317/ref=la_B001K75TEY_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1398491009&sr=1-2