Anti-Catholicism has a long history in America. And as Philip Jenkins argues in The New Anti-Catholicism, this virulent strain of hatred--once thought dead--is alive and well in our nation, but few people seem to notice, or care.
A statement that is seen as racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, or homophobic can haunt a speaker for years, writes Jenkins, but it is still possible to make hostile and vituperative public statements about Roman Catholicism without fear of serious repercussions. Jenkins shines a light on anti-Catholic sentiment in American society and illuminates its causes, looking closely at gay and feminist anti-Catholicism, anti-Catholic rhetoric and imagery in the media, and the anti-Catholicism of the academic world.

This is a hard one to rate; Jenkins brings up some excellent points, and draws our attention to insensitive actions which, having become unthinking habit, need to be addressed. In doing so, though, he often seems both to vilify certain groups (feminists and gay rights activists in particular) and to equate contemporary Catholic victimhood with that of people historically (and presently) discriminated against due to race. ( )

In the end, it appears that by "anti-Catholic prejudice", Jenkins means a failure to regard what he considers to be the core of the Roman Catholic church with sufficient reverence. He would probably characterize most of the practicing Catholics I know as near-heretical. Jenkins uses related but distinct words like "bigotry" and "prejudice" interchangeably. It is clear by the end that a great deal of what he is terming "prejudice", which is usually applied to hostility from outsiders, is in fact internal dissent and dissatisfaction from current and former Catholics. I refuse to be embarrassed on behalf of my society at large if the hierarchy of any organization is having problems keeping the flock in line.

The book is quite interesting, containing a vast amount of information, including a lot which seems to argue against Jenkin's point. I don't know whether to congratulate him to have the honesty to include it or to suppose that he has completely failed to understand how others might see it.

Jenkins is attempting to gain momentum from the various "liberation" movements that have arisen in the wake of the Civil Rights movement that became prominent in the 1950s. To this end, he employs the tried and true propaganda technique of beginning history at a point where one's own side can be made to look like an injured innocent, i.e., the anti-Catholicism of nativists and Know-Nothings. If he really wants to trace the history of Protestant/Catholic conflict, he needs to go back to the Reformation at least. It would also be appropriate to mention the Vatican's anti-Americanism during the same period; many churches were offended that Americans considered the people, rather than God,to be the legitimate source of political power.

In any case, it is irrelevant, since the book largely ignores the unfortunately still extant strains of real anti-Catholic prejudice, such as the fundamentalist Protestant groups who regard the Pope as the anti-Christ. Jenkins's real foe is people whose argument with the Catholic Church is not really religious but social. Representatives of the Church have often argued that it is their duty to enter into debates of public legislation and morality and I can't disapprove of the participation of any citizen in public debates. They all enter at the same level, however, and those who participate in the brawl of public debate (excuse me, the marketplace of ideas) must expect sometimes very harsh criticism, although I shall always hope, often in vain, for a level of civility and honest consideration of differing viewpoints.

Jenkins feels that the Church should be accorded special reverence by all; he seems to suggest that any criticism borders on bigotry. The Church should be permitted to make strongly worded pronouncements without risking strongly worded retorts. To Jenkins, any dispute between the Church and any other group, including dissenting Catholics, is proof of anti-Catholic prejudice. He would probably deny this and attempts at several points to explain the difference between prejudice/bigotry and acceptable dissent, but the main difference seems to be that acceptable dissent is removed in time and place. Jenkins mentions that the Masons were originally welcoming to Catholics, but after what he admits to be a campaign of slander and libel by the Church hierarchs, became decidely less friendly. Jenkins blames the Masons for the ill-will, even though he admits that the Church threw the first rhetorical punch. In many ways, Jenkins does as much as any "Know-Nothing" to argue that "real" Catholics are unable to live in a secular, multireligious society.

It is in his discussion of homosexual issues that this becomes most clear. I share Jenkins' outrage at the invasion of St. Patrick's Cathedral by Act-Up, but for the most part he discusses the incident as if the police refused their assistance and society at large applauded; he does eventually admit that even many gay activists were appalled. I have enough sympathy for the points that Jenkins raises about the problems of expecting rapid change with regard to a long-standing and widespread condemnation of homosexually that I would expect to be charged with homophobia. As an outsider, I would not presume to tell the Church how to regard homosexuality or insist that they sanctify gay marriages. At the same time, if the church is going to condemn gays as hell-bound and attempt to frustrate their efforts to reach an accommodation with the larger society, it is ridiculous for him to take umbrage at non-violent complaints.

Jenkins completely misses the point in his discussion on pedophilia. The issue for most people is less that some priests are pedophiles than the apparent inability of the Church to deal with the issue. People being what they are, this has presumably been an organizational problem for more than 1500 years, yet the Church seems baffled. Some people do see this as an opportunity to beat the Church and its policy of celibacy over the head, but in fact civil authorities have in the past tried to spare the Church embarrassment by declining to prosecute and trusting the Church to deal with erring priests. Jenkins ignores this and complains that the organizational strength of the church makes it a tempting target for grandstanding prosecutors, forgetting that this is the very reason that the problems were concealed for so long. The Church is paying more for its own failure to deal with the problem than for the individual transgressions of certain priests. ( )

What can I say, people hate us.