John Allen is credited with inventing the term "Taliban Catholics" in regards to Catholics who desire the Church to return to orthodoxy and who promote the "hermeneutic of the reform of the reform with continuity" as Pope Benedict himself has set out as an agenda of his papacy.
William Oddie of the Catholic Herald in the United Kingdom writes:
John Allen, to be fair, isn’t himself entirely happy about having invented the term. This is how he explains himself. At a university meeting in Dallas, he spoke of the existence of two polarities in Catholic opinion: “On the one extreme lies what my friend and colleague George Weigel correctly terms ‘Catholicism Lite,’ meaning a watered-down, sold-out form of secularised religiosity, Catholic in name only. On the other is what I call ‘Taliban Catholicism’, meaning a distorted, angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate, condemn, and smash the TV sets of the modern world.’
“Some in the audience chuckled, but others weren’t so amused. One younger faculty member rose during the Q&A period to offer a thoughtful, and heartfelt, challenge:
” ‘To say things with clarity is not to be the Catholic Taliban,’ she said, adding that she found the phrase ‘profoundly offensive.’
” ‘There are no suicide bombers in the Catholic church,’ she said, ‘but we have had an epidemic of Catholicism Lite for the last 30 years.’ Younger Catholics, she insisted, should not be dismissed as fanatics simply because they seek ‘fidelity and clarity’.”
Read the full article in the Catholic Herald of the United Kingdom by William Oddie by Pressing this full sentence!
23 comments:
I think it shows clearly the power of words and the image generated by simple phrases. Which is what Talban Catholics say and and the release of the new Missal confirms.
rcg
Theologians, leaders, others in the Church and world, are welcome to hang whatever moniker they like on me. I will continue to believe, practice, and promote the authentic teachings of Christ and his Church to the best of my ability.
Being only human, I readily admit that I may be mistaken in some things, but I have great confidence that the core of my belief is correct and will withstand the judgement that follows this life.
Paul
A few months after the attacks of 9/11 we invaded Afghanistan. I shocked my co-workers at that time by predicting that the war begun that day would not be over for a LONG time, and likely not in my natural lifetime (I was 39 at the time). I still believe that to be true, although I remain unsure of the ultimate results of such a war here on Earth. I think the determining factor will be whether or not the mentality of "Catholic Lite" wins out over "Catholic Taliban". Islam recognizes that Catholicism is the one real threat to their domination of the world, and frankly they are winning the war at the moment.
Call me Catholic Taliban if you wish, I prefer the Term Church Militant.
I agree with Templar: call me Taliban Catholic if you like, but the proper term is Church Militant. I pray for the grace to work patiently for the restoration of all that was lost in the rupture of reform following Vatican II.
Church Militant is excellent!
popping in...
Could one call a "Taliban Cathoic" a zealot?
A close friend of mine has now twice within a year been called a Zealot.
The first time for standing up for Orthodoxy to a Spirit of V2 bully.
The latest time for the same thing to an atheist.
~SqueekerLamb
Welcome back sqeeker lamb!
When Catholics are happy to be called terrorists (that is what the Taliban are) then Catholic "orthodoxy" has reached a new and self-destructive low point.
Terror and terrorism are vanquished by the death and resurrection of the Christ. It is an accomplished reality. That some Catholics choose to act in a Talibanesque manner indicates that they have not yet recognized and accepted the Truth of Christ's cross.
I would not say that I will be happy to be called a terrorist, I merely acknowledge that I cannot control what names I may be called in ignorance of fact.
Perhaps I should rephrase my question...
Could one call a Traditional Catholic (vs. a Spirit of V2 Catholic)a Zealot?
Could one call a Catholic (vs a Secular Athiest)with Conviction a Zealot?
Is it ever GOOD to be labeled a Zealot?
Personally, I think YES...but want to give my firend appropriate advice.
~SqueekerLamb
This quote is from a different philosophical source, but fits neatly into our thinking: The Name that is Named, is not the true Name.
If I am DOING something I could not care less what the other person calls it. Any action can be a terrorist action to someone. It may simply be a revelation about the weak character of the other person. But if I refrain from what I know is the correct action from fear of what another person will call me I have committed a sin of omission.
rcg
Anonymous/Probably Ignotus again; You have absolutely no sense of humor nor any understanding of irony. Interestingly, this is true of most libs and progressives.
If John Allen's description as quoted above is used to describe me, then I am proud to be a "Taliban Catholic."
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
I may be on shaky ground, theologically, but I am not aware that Christ's resurrection vanquished terror or terrorism. It simply offers a way through the event that terrifies us.
Again, I say that if I wait to do an act that I know is correct until I have the approval of all around me then I am sinning. The world is messy, you can't keep your hands clean and sometimes you will be put in a situation where you have to exhibit strength and conviction. I will also say that if you steel yourself and state that you are prepared to do what needs to be done that about 75% of the time people will step aside peacefully. (This cuts the opposing force to a manageable level.)
Finally, the 'Taliban' epithet is not given to people who are actually planning violence against someone, but that are refusing to bend their will based on apparent authority. That that intransitive action would strike 'fear' in someone gives me doubt of the fearful person's conviction and the truth of his position.
rcg
Easter Preface IV: "In him a new age has dawned, the long reign of sin is ended, a broken world has been renewed, and man is once again made whole."
We, however, fail to live in "the freedom of God's children." Rather, humans choose to live in sin, including terror and terrorism.
Yes, all sin has been vanquished, but we choose the sin in spite of grace. That is our fallen tragedy.
Anon/Ignotus, That is an eschatological statement. No matter how "free" our will, we still bear the taint of original sin. Even if it were theoretically possible for someone to always choose a sinless path, we are still mired in original sin. We cannot "choose" grace, as you seem to imply.
Now, on a more Augustinian note, free will is more than being free to choose to take a walk or go swimming. It is more than choosing a soft response as opposed to a harsh one. It is more, even, than being able to choose not to commit adultery, murder, or blasphemy. Free will is being "in bondage to the will of God" (Confessions), which means being in harmony with the will of God. Since we cannot fathom God's will, cannot understand it, then we cannot possibly live in harmony with it...or live a sinless life. So, it is not just that we choose sin, it is that we can do no other. This is, after all, why Christ had to die to redeem us. We live for the future in Christ, not the temporal future, but the eschatalogical, salvation history future. But, being a well-educated Catholic Priest, you know all this. So, why the Methodist sounding view of sin...could it be that it better fits your secular/progressivist/utopist other side?
Anonymous, please don't think of this as a slam on you personally, but the context of you reply would indicate that terrorism (sin) is non existent, when it obviously does exist. It is the power of sin to affect the spirit, soul, of man that is removed by Christ, not its physical presence. The complex burden God gives us as men is to deal with the real world; he backs us up by assuring us that our eventual failures can be forgiven and overcome. This is a fight for the soul and spirit, not the body. To imply otherwise is an obstacle to faith for others and temptation to God.
rcg
rcg - No, I plainly do NOT imply that terrorism (or any sin) does not exist. Like you, I live in the real world where sin abounds.
The reason sin abounds is that we have not yet accepted the grace that can, in all cases, turn us from sin.
God has called us to be Saints and has given us ALL that we need to turn away from every temptation. We choose to do otherwise. This is not some "theoretical" offer of grace. If it were, we could say that God's call to holiness is only "theoretical" which is utter balderdash.
By grace, I am free to choose, in every case, to turn from sin. That I do not do so is my own fault. I cannot blame God for failing to give me what is needed to do what He has commanded me to do. This is not some "unfunded mandate." To suggest otherwise is to allow us to blame God's lack of provision for our sins. That is further balderdash.
Ignotus, that is Pelagian. Grace is more than a predicate of free will, some theological sports drink that gives us extra energy to fight sin. You neede to browse through Paul's Epistles once more...Romans would be a good place to start...
No, it is not Pelagian.
By Grace (unmerited, of course) I am free(the true freedom of the children of God) to choose (choice under the operation of Grace) in every case to turn (by the power of said Grace) from sin.
You offer a God who has commanded us to turn from sin, but has failed to make this possible.
I offer a God who has called us to turn from sin AND made it possible so to do.
Ignotus,
I believe your view tends to view sin as a collection of discrete acts and behaviors which, if somehow avoided or eliminated, will lead to salvation or righteousness. It tends to gloss over original sin and the "non posse non peccare" of Augustine. I say "tends" because you may not actually believe this, but careless theology abounds even among the theologically educated.
There is a kind of spectrum of thought regarding Imago Dei and sin that ranges from Calvin at one extreme, where the image is shattered completely and man has no initiative at all; Augustine in the center, where the image is broken but still recognizable through the cracks and distortion and man can cooperate somewhat with Grace; and the Methodists and Disciples of Christ at the other extreme, where we are all rocking along to perfection on the coat tails of a smiling Jesus.
I also like to view it as like a see-saw, with man's initiative on one end and Christ's redeeming act on the other. As one goes up in significance, the other goes down, or diminishes. I know this is simplistic, but it gets the point across. It appears to me that your see-saw has man in the ascendancy.
I see Sin and Grace. I see a God who calls us to holiness and who makes that holiness possible by Grace.
This is not, as you state, a Pelagian approach. It is wholly orthodox Catholicism.
I do not agree with you when you state, "So, it is not just that we choose sin, it is that we can do no other." Were that the case, then the Ash Wednesday admonition to "Turn away from your sins and be faithful to the Gospel" is a farce, a pipe dream, since you say we can do no other than choose sin.
I understand the reality of both Original and Personal Sin; but I also understand the reality of the power of Grace to overcome sin.
Post a Comment