What do you call a guy who leaves the priesthood, rejects fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church, and propagates egregious falsehoods about Catholics? If you're the Los Angeles Times, you call him a "Devout Catholic" - in your headline. Un·be·liev·a·ble.
The subject in a fawning article in the Times is James Carroll. A new documentary film is based on his 2001 book, Constantine's Sword, an awful work that advances the premise that anti-Semitism is central to Catholicism and Christianity.
Who is James Carroll? Here's your first hint: He writes for the Boston Globe. But quite simply, "James Carroll is a professional anti-Catholic," as author/catechist Oswald Sobrino has aptly written. He is an "anti-Catholic Catholic." Even the Times acknowledges that he "rejects the very roots of [the Church's] doctrine." Yet this is the Times' idea of a "devout Catholic"?!?
And Carroll's premise that Catholicism is rooted in anti-Semitism has been roundly discredited. Carroll's terrible work was addressed over several pages in the excellent book by Philip Jenkins, The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. Carroll's book is presented as a modern-day example of anti-Catholic rhetoric. Wrote Jenkins (who is not a Catholic himself) (emphasis mine):
Carroll is simply wrong about anti-Semitism being integral to Catholic Christianity: no direct historical highway leads from the evangelists to Auschwitz. Just as suspect, therefore is Carroll's attempt to discredit traditional Christianity by contextualizing it together with the dreadful crimes of anti-Semitism. He is overpresenting his case in order to justify a "reform agenda" that amounts to a blueprint for the annihilation of the Catholic Church. Much of Carroll's book is devoted to his agenda for a proposed Third Vatican Council, which would cure the Catholic Church of the dreadful faults that have made it a "failed and sinful Church." For all its excellent intentions, its moral fervor, Carroll's book is a frontal attack on Catholic Christianity, and this agenda shapes its interpretations on every page. (p. 190) (Thank you, Oswald Sobrino!)
(For an online shredding of Carroll's book, see "Constantine’s Sword: A Review Article," by Robert P. Lockwood.)
The review in the Times also propagates Carroll's (and others') vicious falsehood that Pope Pius XII "was silent" during World War II as Jews were massacred. Modern scholar after modern scholar has debunked this repeatedly.
Righteous Gentiles: How Pius XII And the Catholic Church Saved Half a Million Jews from the Nazis by Ronald J. Rychlak
The Myth of Hitler's Pope: Pope Pius XII and His Secret War Against Nazi Germany by David G. Dalin
The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII by William Doino, Joseph Bottum, David G. Dalin
Consensus and Controversy: Defending Pope Pius XII by Margherita Marchione
Defamation Of Pius XII by Ralph Mcinerny
For an online shredding of the false attacks against Pius XII, the Catholic League has posted a very extensive list of books, articles, and research papers. Check it out here and here.
Of course, nowhere in the Times' article is there any outside criticism of Carroll and his work. His outrageous claims are taken as (gospel) truth.
Anti-Catholic bigotry at the Los Angeles Times? As we've reported before, it wouldn't be the first time. (See this, this, this, and this for just a few examples.)
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
June 25, 2007 - 07:36 ET by motherbeltAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!
There, I feel better now. I just don't know what else to do when I read tripe like this.
Le me say this.....if you "reject[s] the very roots of [the Church's] doctrine," YOU ARE NOT A CATHOLIC!!!!!!!!!
The media do the same thing when they drag out Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice, (the Church's very own "pro-abortion" wing [sarc]) ....and pretend she is just a mainstream Catholic Mom...you know, like Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic grandmother [more sarc]......
This is one time the media SHOULD be using their qualifier, as in "Carroll, who calls himself a devout Catholic".
But they won't because they want everyone to think that this is how mainstream Catholics think and believe....it's just those old fuddy-duddies at the Vatican who won't go along with "the times they are a-changin'......."
And they don't care that the canard about Pope Pius XII was debunked long ago...it still serves their purpose to throw it out there every time. After all, there are still some people who haven't heard that it was refuted, so it still works to some extent.
This is another example of
June 25, 2007 - 08:20 ET by The Wicked ConservativeThis is another example of the lefts ideology that if you can't live up to a standard change the standard. This attempt at the redifining of Christianity by the left is nothing short of blasphemy. I truly believe that Christianity will be outlawed in our lifetime in the name of tolerance. I suppose Bush is an anti-semite by Mr. Carroll's mock standard. But let me ask this, who's the anti-semite? The President that refuses to abandon Israel in the mid-east or the democrats that cow-tow to the muslim apologists saying we need to get out of Israel so the muslims won't hate us? God doesn't change, only we do. If you believe that "God didn't really mean it" sorry but you're wrong. He meant it and you're guilty of idolatry which is worshipping a false God and you are no Christian.
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice.
Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
James Carroll is--
June 25, 2007 - 08:35 ET by misterbillJames Carroll is--an exceptionally intelligent man who has , in my opinion, taken everything in his life that disturbs him and blames it on the Catholic church. He is old enough to have been in the church when it was very restrictive for the sake of remaining in a state of grace. I have met other former Catholics who feel that the church is responsible for everything bad in their lives. I will not go into how I understand these feelings , but I do understand them and they are wrong. Carroll does not have the courage to stand on his own two legs and assume responsibility for his own life. He is a moral coward and a hater.
Remember when you were a child and there was always someone who would say, "you made me do it"? That is James Carroll. What a shame to be gifted with as much intelligence as he has and to waste it in a life of hate. Sorry, James, you are not powerful enough to destroy the Catholic church even with the help of the MSM.
To the liberal media, anyone
June 25, 2007 - 10:29 ET by GalvanicTo the liberal media, anyone who claims to be a Catholic while trying to induce radical change to the Catholic Church's doctrine, laws, practices, etc., is devout, while those who are devoted to preserving the fundamental tenets of the Church are labeled as reactionaries (or even bigots).
...and those that oppose the
June 25, 2007 - 10:45 ET by TruthMonger...and those that oppose the church teachings are "true, reasonable Christians..." We at NB are the definitive MSM dictionary...
James Carroll is a hater o
June 25, 2007 - 10:31 ET by kathleenirishJames Carroll is a hater of Catholics and Catholicism to the core of his being, along with Christianity in general. These elite liberal 'intellectuals' have one purpose in their writing and support of each other's 'work': to continue the deconstruction of our culture and society. It is, quite literally, the devil's work.
Looking forward to the final demise of the boston globe.....
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Okay. Set your personal fai
June 25, 2007 - 10:51 ET by AtillaKahunaOkay. Set your personal faith in God or that really cool-looking tree down the road aside for a second.
The Catholic Church believes in the Trinity of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirt. The Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christy came to the earth and became a uman being. The Catholic Church believes that Jesus Christ lived his life on earth as a human for about 33 years, was then crucified, died and was resurrected on the third day to take the sins of mankind onto himself.
Who was Jesus Christ? A DEVOUT, OBEDIENT JEW! Jesus (*GASP*) was JEWISH!!!
ALL of the 12 apostles were JEWISH!
How can he claim that “anti-Semitism is central to Catholicism and Christianity” when the entire faith is based on the life and teachings of a Jew?
I’ve tried, and it makes no sense to me.Kahuna
Well, you have to make distin
June 25, 2007 - 10:56 ET by KC MulvilleWell, you have to make distinctions.
A religion is both a family and a faith system, all at the same time. Once you’re baptized, you’re part of the family. That family is a complex heritage. It’s filled with a common history, culture, art … with powerful and emotional bonds, running very deep. To be born into a religious family is to acquire that whole heritage. However, religion is also a faith system. The family demands that you agree to the beliefs. Think of your own family. Families are tough enough to keep together these days. How would you like it if every family member had to agree on a large set of propositions? That’s what religions try to do. It’s a tough job, isn’t it?
Many people love and treasure their Catholic family, but don’t agree with the faith system. Are they Catholic? Before you answer, however, remember that you can’t strip away a heritage. Regardless of what they think, they have the same heritage that every other Catholic has. (Substitute your own religion here ... for convenience, I'll just say Catholic.) You can’t take that away from them, even if you wanted to. (Besides, the church depends on that heritage to invite people back!) James Carroll is a case in point. Even his anger and vitriol against Catholic teaching shows how much it matters to him. In many senses of the word, he may still be Catholic. But you just have to make the distinction between his Catholic heritage and his belief system. He is not a representative of the church, and shouldn’t be presented as if he is.
Just remember that the media puts forward people like Frances Kissling and James Carroll, they’re subconsciously trying to argue that you can be Catholic and yet disagree with the popes and bishops. They’re confusing the distinction between the Catholic family and the Catholic faith. The question is whether they’re encouraging that confusion deliberately, or because they don’t understand religion enough to know the difference. My guess is a little of both.
As someone who was raised C
June 25, 2007 - 11:01 ET by AtillaKahunaAs someone who was raised Catholic, but no longer is, let me ask this question:
Is it still the position of the Catholic Church that the Pope is infallible? I have vague recollections that this either is, or at least used to be the Church's position. Whatever rules or doctrine that the Vatican published was to be accepted by Church members without disagreement or comment.
Please advise. It bears directly on whether or not Mr. Carroll should still be called a Catholic.
Kahuna
I'm not Roman Catholic but th
June 25, 2007 - 11:13 ET by TruthMongerI'm not Roman Catholic but that's what they tell me? How does that factor in?
The Pope is infallible. No
June 25, 2007 - 11:34 ET by motherbeltThe Pope is infallible. Not on everything, as some believe, but on matters of faith and morals, when he speaks "ex cathedra"...that is, from the chair. That means he makes it plain that this is an official teaching of the the Church. It does not apply to his personal opinions or whatever he has to say on any given day on any given subject. It is very specific.
I don’t think that a public
June 25, 2007 - 11:57 ET by KC MulvilleI don’t think that a public forum on media liberal bias is the best place to discuss actual religious questions. If nothing else, non-Catholics would (understandably) be bored. My post was more about how the media exploits religious differences to attack religion. However, let me offer a response, so as not to leave the question hanging.
To be absolutely clear: whether James Carroll is Catholic is between James Carroll and his parish. I'm only speaking in broad generalities. I don't think his ideas are in line with official teaching, but as for his spiritual life, it's not for me to judge him. That's between him and God, and I know better than to interfere there. I may have made a mistake earlier: I certainly didn't intend it to be personal about him. If I did, I was wrong.
Yes, the Catholic church teaches that the pope is infallible. However, let’s be clear on a few things. (1) He is infallible only about questions of faith and morals. If he says that 2+2=7, you can safely call him a dope. I would even encourage you to do so. (2) A Council of the church is also infallible, and it may technically outrank the pope. The synod of bishops also has the claim. (3) The infallibility only applies when they speak ex cathedra, which really means that the pope can’t just toss it off the top of his head. The phrase ex cathedra means “from the chair,” meaning the pope has to be sitting in his actual papal throne. In practice, there’s a huge formality involved, which includes official investigations and formal questions. He can’t just pop off. (4) Although the infallibility doctrine has been around since the beginning, it didn’t find it’s current form until the late 1800s. Since then, it’s only been used twice: once to espouse the doctrine itself, and second to teach about the Virgin Mary. That’s twice in 2000 years. Talk about limited government.
If people are curious about t
June 25, 2007 - 12:26 ET by rbosqueIf people are curious about the faith, they need to pick up a copy of the Catechism ($9 bucks). It is sad that many pick up their "facts" from professional anti-Catholics or other misinformed folks.
KCM,Thank you very much for
June 25, 2007 - 13:25 ET by AtillaKahunaKCM,
Thank you very much for that clearly-laid-out explanation of doctrine and papal authority. Your answer was exactly what I was looking for.
I also agree with you that this would be a less-than-ideal forum for the discussion.
Kahuna
KC, Not to be nit-picky..(O
June 25, 2007 - 21:01 ET by motherbeltKC, Not to be nit-picky..(OK, so maybe it IS nit-picky), but you say you don't think a forum on media bias is the place to discuss religious questions. Then you proceed to do exactly that.
Not only that, but after I gave a brief, simple answer to the question about infallibitlity, you gave a dissertation, posting more than twice as much as myself or anyone else on the subject. So I am confused: what's your point?
No insult intended. Remember
June 26, 2007 - 00:00 ET by KC MulvilleNo insult intended.
Remember what I wrote ... I didn't want to leave the question hanging. They asked me a direct question. From my experience, when it comes to religion, you don't ignore questions. That suggests disrespect. And so, rather than ignore (him or her), I thought it showed more respect to offer an answer. However, to be honest, I started a response to the question, and then got pulled away. When I returned, I simply finished the response and posted it. Only then did I see your answer, which was (I freely admit) far more concise than mine. Sorry ... chalk it up to the perils of asynschronous conversation.
I don't know about you, but I usually don't post right away, for just that reason. I don't want to waste reader's time by simply saying what everyone else says. It's a little bit of ego, probably, but if I can't say anything different or interesting, I'm just wasting the reader's time. But in this case, I thought someone was asking me personally, so I didn't bother to look.
OK. We learn by making mistakes. It had nothing to do with your answer, however. Sorry.
OK, no offense taken. I t
June 26, 2007 - 07:17 ET by motherbeltOK, no offense taken. I too sometimes get annoyed when threads get dragged off topic, either intentionally or not. Maybe we should all make more use of the "forum" area.
Attlia--Tha Catholic Church t
June 25, 2007 - 16:21 ET by ncstevemAttlia--Tha Catholic Church teaches that the pope is infallible when (4) conditions exist.
This has only happened twice in the last 100 years. In 1950 when the Pope Pius XII declared that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. I believe the other instance is when Paul VI wrote in the encyclical Humane Vitae (1968) that artificial birth was intrinsically evil and Catholics were not allowed to use it.
I'm not 100% sure that Humane Vitae was/is an infallible teaching of the Church. However, the point is that popes rarely declare a teaching 'infallible'.
Some mistakenly believe that the Catholic Church teaches that the pope is w/o sin (i.e. impeccable). I can assure you that the Church does not teach that.
Ron Gettlefinger
June 25, 2007 - 11:37 ET by mikebromoThe Detroit Free Press calls the President of the UAW a devout Catholic. Gettlefinger endorses candidates for public office [Governor Granholm, Seators Levin and Stabenow and many others] who vote for partial birth abortion and other anti-Catholic views.
As someone who has openly adv
June 25, 2007 - 16:32 ET by BlondeAs someone who has openly advocated for the end of the religion-bashing threads here, I must comment that this is exactly the religious discussion that I find fascinating and totally appropriate on this site.
Thanks to you all for your well reasoned (and cogent) insights.
We need to be able to be open
June 25, 2007 - 19:08 ET by 4arrowWe need to be able to be openly critical of all power whether church or state.
We in the west are past the middle ages where then any individual voice could be labled heretical and the citizen burned at the stake. From what we see on the news this is still case in some societies.
That said, I was appalled by the Catholic priest "bit" on the Daly Show. There is a difference between debate and down right obscene mockery. Jon Stewart would feel the same, I am sure, if the crotch breathalizer had been on a rabbi puppet.
LA Times added the headline without authors input
June 25, 2007 - 23:57 ET by JPooleI wrote to the writer of the article Ms. Gina Piccalo, and she was very nice and professional. While I would have preferred her to explain the fact that Carroll is an anti-catholic activist, she says she never used "Devout Catholic." She told me she has no control of the headlines they put with her articles.
What this does show is that it is not just one writer who has it out to defame the Catholic Church but in fact it is people higher in the organization.
I have to say, these attacks on The Church from "devout Catholics" would be taken much less seriously if we didn't have people like Pelosi and Giuliani who publicly claim Catholicism and act directly against it's teachings.
Yes ...
June 26, 2007 - 09:28 ET by Dave PierreI, too, wrote to Piccalo, and I got the same answer: that she does not write the headlines. She thanked me for writing to her, but that was essentially her response.
As an organization that strives to be reputable and professional, the Times should issue a reply, clarification, or correction to their headline. I have written to the Readers' Rep., but I have not yet received a response.
JPoole, you are correct that the headline does not reflect well on those "higher in the organization" at the Times. Thank you.
And the Gates of Hell yadda y
June 26, 2007 - 10:11 ET by 4arrowAnd the Gates of Hell yadda yadda.!Satan and his minions pick on the true Church. Believe it or not.. Unite for the love of the Father.