I’ll bet

Matthew Franck at First Things recommends George Weigel’s, new summons for Catholics to be useful stooges for classical liberalism.  At least, I think he does.

I urge our readers to go read the rest of Weigel’s piece, which is as cogently argued as they will have come to expect.

(As always, when traditionalist Catholics respond to being attacked, it somehow proves that they must be as bad as the insulter claims.  There needs to be a name for this fallacy.)

6 Responses

  1. John Courtney Murray has done more destruction to the Catholic Church than any other cleric in the last 500 years.

  2. What’s the point of Schmitz’s defense? If Weigel writes with such care, then we shouldn’t have to ask him what he means. And if his point was so innocuous that it ought to be taken as uncontroversial, then why did he make it at all? It’s almost a surprise that Schmitz isn’t asking us to take “catacombs” literally: “Come on, guys. If you’re not digging tunnels in the ground, then Weigel is not talking about you.”

  3. One can only view George Weigel’s speech with a kind of sadness

    He is torn between spiritual and earthly concerns. He loves the promise of Fr. Murray’s We Hold These Truths, and so he believes that Catholicism can make the American project live again. Furthermore, he believes that if we articulate our message just right, that America will experience “a new birth of freedom.”

    He has a sort of reading list of essentials. He has read After Virtue. He has read Fr. John Courtney Murray. He has read Braque. But he is also pleased with being called “the Aaron Rodgers of Catholic public intellectuals.” He also writes lines such as the following, “But as an introduction to the heavy lifting, I’ll begin on more familiar terrain.” (Does starting on familiar terrain prepare one to lift several hundred pounds? No. But such is the state of American discourse.) Somehow, the pretensions of being a public intellectual coexist with trivial pop-culture references and confused, overly metaphorical forms of speech.

    Perhaps it is also symptomatic of American thought that he thinks a new thing is necessary. His new idea is Evangelical Catholicism. It is not so much that I wish his project to fail as I know that it will.

    It won’t succeed because none of are saints. What must move us to great sadness is that only saints could offer our nation a better future.

    As we meditate on that tragedy we realize a further tragedy: we were supposed to be those saints that would give our country a better future.

  4. sorry, Franck; I can never tell the Matthews apart

  5. The comments at FT are depressing. Weigel evidently has no problem at all with traditionalists, as long as they are on board with the Enlightenment. And this is seen as a perfectly sensible position. Or, at least, as sensible as we will have come to expect.

  6. Actually, I agree with Weigel that the “challenge” of reinvigorating Murray’s fool’s errand of buttressing the Masonic republic will not be met by traditionalist Catholics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: