The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

Though I haven't finished this book yet, I hold Jenkins in very high regard, as one of the few writers on religion who knows what he's talking about and consistently tells us little-known truths. The pervasiveness of anti-Catholicism in American elite culture is one of those truths. The incidents catalogued in this book are a real eye-opener. The hostile reviews of this book illustrate the problem this book is about; the authors exhibit the characteristic symptoms of prejudice--a willingness to blame the victim combined with a willful distortion of facts. To take a few examples: the Church does not condemn gays (or anyone) as "hellbound" nor "attempt to frustrate their efforts to reach an accomodation with the larger society" ["accommodation" is hardly the word for the current effort to publicly redefine sex and marriage as having nothing to do with procreation, a view that directly attacks the very notion of human society as the Church understands it], freedom of conscience is not a "dead letter" in the Church (and it is grotesque to compare the contemporary Church to the Soviet Union--the Church is more tolerant of dissent on political matters than the University of Washington, where I have studied), Catholics do not believe or tend to believe in subverting the US Constitution, and I have never known any Catholic to "engage in seditious activity against fellow citizens" or advocate anything that "denies the democratic nature of the United States, as well as the rights of every individual". I defy anyone to produce a single contemporary example of Catholics, as such, engaged in sedition or subversive political activities. Consider for a moment whether anyone could make comparable blanket accusations about Jews, or Muslims, or any other human beings, and go untainted by the accusation of religious bigotry, especially when no evidence is cited in support of these claims. If someone said that certain Jews were engaged in sedition and subversion of the Constitution (and we have heard such claims, of course), giving no evidence to support the accusation, what would you think of them? What if someone says that Islam is incompatible with democracy and Muslims are enemies of America? If a Jew or Muslim complains about such things, does anyone argue that this is asking "special reverence" for Judaism or Islam? Jenkins' book is an impassioned plea for simple justice, on behalf of a religion routinely singled out for vilification in ways no-one would dare apply to any other group of human beings without fear of public obloquy. Please heed it.

When my local public library purchased Professor Jenkin's study of anti-Catholicism I was ambivalent. I checked out the book with the intention to skim through it, but soon I began to more deeply read individual chapters, and eventually ended up reading the entire book. Prof. Jenkins (a non-Catholic) presents a solid and balanced portrayal of the radically changing face of American anti-Catholicism, as well as how American Catholics have both combatted and contributed to this anti-Catholicism in the past and present. The superficial similarities and profound differences between modern anti-Catholicism and past prejudice is simultaneously astounding and unsurprising. The only book I know which surpasses this one in presenting the history of American anti-Catholicism is out of print ("John F. Kennedy and American Catholicism"). Coincidentally, that other work was also written by a non-Catholic (a Jewish scholar to be exact). I highly recommend this book to Americans of all backgrounds who wish to understand the story behind American anti-Catholic prejudice today.

Philip Jenkins again demonstrates that he is one of the best scholars in the field of religion in the world today. With a depth of insight that undoubtedly comes from his own place within the academic world, Jenkins uncovers the depth of anti-Catholicism today in elite circles, particularly emanating from the media, the academic world, and strains of contemporary liberal feminism as well as the gay rights movement. The same people who promote multiculturalism and tolerance have no quams when it comes to expressing unmitigated hostility to the Catholic Church. In contrast to the claims of those who suggest that somehow the Church deserves it for being "anti-democratic," Jenkins shows that the true roots of the hostility are directed against the Church for its refusal to go along with the sexual revolution and has nothing to do with an alleged desire on the part of the Church to violate the separation of Church and state. The state is separate from the Church and the Church fully respects that. That is why no Catholic organization ever lobbies for a law ordering people to go to Church on Sunday. However, the state is not separate from morality. Millions of other people share the Church's stands on moral issues. Moreover, democracy in the West, and in the American founding, is based on the existence of an objective moral order that transcends the state. The state's recognition of fundamental moral principles properly limits the powerful from doing whatever they want. The Church defends such limitation. The problem is that many elites in the political, legal and academic classes seek to overturn the influence of traditional morality, particularly in the area of sexuality, and attempt to impose this via the courts and the bureaucracy, bypassing the unwilling public. These elites therefore despise the Church. The uncritical tendency to identify the Catholic Church as an enemy of American democracy is one of the worst expressions of the anti-Catholic prejudice which this most excellent book exposes. Jenkins work is very well-researched and historically on the mark. Although focused on the contemporary scene, Jenkins'insights into the problem reflect a profound grasp of the history of the problem. Although written by a scholar of the first class, the book is quite accessible to the general reader.

This is a really scholarly investigation into the blatant bias against the Catholic Church as promulgated by all forms of media and tolerated by American society. The author,a former Roman Catholic, now an Episcopal teaches religious studies and history at the Pennsylvania State University. Although he has made a decision to remove from his Catholic roots he is none the less very fair in his analysis of the bias which has pervaded the Church for the whole of our country's existence; in fact I believe he may be much more credible because of his independence from the Church. Philip Jenkins takes many issues including abortion,homosexuality,race,contraception,Church hierachy and papal infallibility and discusses these issues in light of historical perspective. He clearly shows that in an earlier era the "conservatives" of the populace were most threatened by Catholicism and were the most vigorous in trying to suppress it. Now, however, it is clearly the "liberals" who for totally different reasons and for different agendas are vehemently opposed the the Catholic Church. Dr.Jenkins brings to light issues that have become unpopular to discuss or even intelligently critique due to the transformation of social "norms" that even a generation ago were considered fair game. Even I, an orthodox Roman Catholic, find myself falling for some of these new acceptable prejudices. Dr. Jenkins clearly demonstrates the fallacy of these new biases.

Jenkins has done it again. Hopefully this will be the first of many exposes of anti-Catholic bigotry. He has done all religions a great service by revealing the discrimination and hate that are heaped on Catholicism. Usually in the name of tolerance and by the most "liberal" of people. People who would never make a remark or joke about Jews, Muslims, or African-Americans have no problem doing so about Catholics. This book is a good scholarly first step towards fairness and respect. Make sure your library has a copy of this book on its shelves.