One covered the Entomological Society of America's decision to stop using the terms gypsy moth and gypsy ant.

The other was about a new movie by the director Paul Verhoeven featuring an affair between two 17th-century nuns. "Forgive them, Father, for they have sinned," the article begins. "Repeatedly! Creatively! And wait until you hear what they did with that Virgin Mary statuette."

"When I read that article in the morning over my yoghurt and cranberry juice, I couldn't believe what I was reading.

"It was just disgusting," Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest and writer, told me.

He was talking about the movie, not the moths.

He found it striking that the Times would deferentially cover a language shift meant to show respect for Roma people but would also print a story that relished a film scene in which a holy Catholic object is defiled.

"Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice," he wrote on Twitter, linking to an article he wrote 20 years ago that explores why some Americans still treat Catholics with suspicion or contempt.

His argument, then and now, is that it's acceptable in secular, liberal, elite circles—such as The New York Times—to make fun of Catholicism, particularly the Church's emphasis on hierarchy, dogma, and canon law and its teachings related to sex.

Martin is well known in the American Catholic world for his relatively progressive approach to issues that have split the Church, including advocating for greater Catholic acceptance of LGBTQ people.

As a result, he's a frequent target of opprobrium from many of the conservative Catholics who tend to protest anti-Catholicism most loudly, which is why I wanted to talk with Martin.

He is deploying arguments similar to those of his critics.

We are living in an era when newsrooms are revising their style guides to be more sensitive about race, gender, and sexuality; flippant comments perceived as bigotry can cost people their job, and entomological societies are scouring their insect rosters for pejorative names.

Yet, some aspects of identity and belief still seem to be fair game for mockery.

Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Emma Green: The New York Times wrote up this new movie called Benedetta and its debut at the Cannes Film Festival. The article—written by a reporter, not a critic—is very taken with the movie's lesbian nun sex. They apparently use a statue of the Virgin Mary to do something that I can't actually say out loud to you because you're a priest. When you read this, why did it strike you as anti-Catholic prejudice?

James Martin: Well, first of all, it's very subjective. One person's critique is another person's anti-Catholicism. Second of all, we have to be careful not to label every single critique of the Church as anti-Catholicism. The Church deserves its critics, especially in the light of the sex-abuse crisis and financial scandals and other things.

What bothered me more than the film was the article. The fact that you had a hard time describing what the article said to me should be an indication of its offensiveness. What if it were directed toward another religion—something holy from Islam or Judaism being used as a sex toy—and that was made fun of in The New York Times? To me, it seemed unnecessarily mocking.

Green: Why do you think it feels more acceptable to some people for The New York Times to write like this about Catholics than about, say, Orthodox Jews?

Martin: I think anti-Catholic tropes get a pass in our culture for a number of reasons, in a way that anti-Semitism, anti-Islam, or even homophobia do not. The tone of the article was: Isn't this funny? Isn't this silly? Isn't Catholicism ridiculous?

Green: Do you think this is because people assume that the Catholic Church is powerful, and many Catholics in America are white and are part of the Christian cultural majority? Is it that making fun of powerful people or institutions doesn't seem out of bounds?

Martin: We've always lived in a largely Protestant culture that has been suspicious of Catholicism—papal infallibility, the Virgin birth, celibate priesthood. And there's a long history in the United States of anti-Catholic tropes. There are many reasons, including distrust of authority, and a misunderstanding of celibacy and chastity.

Green: I'll show my cards, which is that I don't care that much about one movie or the way it's written about in The New York Times. But this sparked my interest because it's arguably an example of the ambient cultural signals that build a sense, especially among some conservative Catholics, that they are culturally on the outs. You're not typically in that camp, grinding the axe around how oppressed Catholics are. In this instance, do you have any sympathy for that point of view?

Martin: Cries of anti-Catholicism are too frequent. Anti-Catholicism is nowhere near as prevalent as racism, homophobia, or anti-Semitism. Not every critique of the Church is an offense against religious liberty. And The New York Times is not anti-Catholic. But from time to time, it's important to remind people that anti-Catholicism is not a myth. Continue reading

A spokesperson for an organization led by young Catholics, Protège ton église (Protect Your Church) says during the pandemic attacks continued on a smaller scale.

This was despite the lockdown rules only permitting people to leave their homes for a limited number of reasons, including exercise and shopping.

"But this lull was only temporary. We deplore a ‘return to normal' of this unfortunate trend," Protège ton église says.

Since 2017, the Paris-based L'Observatoire de la Christianophobie (Observatory of Christianophobia) has recorded anti-Christian incidents in France month by month on interactive maps.

The most recent map available, for August 2020, shows 11 incidents, comprising six acts of vandalism and five thefts. At the same time last year, the Observatory recorded nine disturbances on its map.

The French Interior Ministry recorded 996 anti-Christian acts in 2019 - an average of about three per day.

Protège ton église was founded by two friends in 2019 in response to a wave of nationwide desecrations of French churches. Members hold peaceful nighttime vigils outside churches to deter potential aggressors.

Most of the group's active members are young people and those in charge of the association are very young too," a spokesperson said.

"This is significant in the sense that the youth understood that it could change things, that it carried real weight in the face of the harm that was being done to the heritage that our parents and grandparents knew."

Older supporters contribute through prayer and donations and by relaying information.

Protège ton église groups have been established across France.

The group is careful not to identify its members, asking vigil participants to publish photos with their backs to the camera. Leaders only identify themselves in public by their first names.

The Protège spokesperson also says participants have to show "great caution" during vigils, for example, by carrying cell phones in case they needed to contact the police.

Protège ton église are about to expand their role to work alongside the organization S.O.S. Calvaires.

This group, initially active in north-west France, wants to expand its work of safeguarding calvaries, oratories and chapels throughout the country.

"We recently broadcast a video of their actions," Protège spokesperson says.

"It is by seeing their work, and the goals we had in mind for the future of Protège ton église, that we launched the idea of this mutually beneficial partnership.

"This will not prevent us from continuing the evening church vigils and covering Christianophobic misdeeds on our [Facebook] page."'

Source

• Catholic News Agency
• Image: Religion News Service

She has a history of making derogatory attacks on Twitter, including telling author Cornel West to "f— off and die," and making jokes about Catholics and Catholic priests and pedophilia.

She defended herself by saying "Psychological studies show that people who swear make better friends." Read more

Folau is a rugby player who is fullback for the New South Wales Waratahs and Australia's national team the Wallabies.

Last Wednesday in an Instagram post, Folau suggested homosexuals and other groups - including drunks and atheists - were destined for hell.

In a sermon he preached recently, Folau noted that there a lot of people who go to church but do not follow the doctrine of Christ.

He critiqued the Catholic church because Catholics "baptise babies with a sprinkling of water over the top of their head, things like that, that aren't even biblical."

Folau also finds fault with the Catholic Church's devotion to Mary, the mother of God.

"What does the Catholic Church do? They create an image of Mary and Jesus and totally go against what God's word is.

"What are we putting up in front of God that are idols? In this example, I'm talking about Mary, but it could be things like money, or jobs, it could be things like our husbands or wives.

"The problem with a lot of people today is they don't read the word, they go to church on Sunday, listen to what the pastor says, and that's it," Folau said.

"They don't go back home to check for what the word of God says."

As a result of the backlash caused by Folau's Instagram post, Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union released a statement on Thursday evening saying that barring unforeseen circumstances, Folau would be sacked.

But administrators are working behind the scenes to ascertain whether they are able to sack him.

Folau grew up as a Mormon but moved to an being an active member of an Assemblies of God fellowship in 2011.

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• brisbanetimes.com.au
• smh.com.au
• Image: stuff.co.nz

Have a look at the list and decide for yourself if he is right.

Barrett, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, is a constitutional law expert who has clerked for appellate and Supreme Court judges. She is eminently qualified.

A Catholic at a Catholic university, she has helped law students and others understand how to reconcile being a good Christian and a good judge.

This should not be a problem. Article VI of the Constitution requires judges and other public officials "to support this Constitution."

It also demands that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Professor Barrett clearly subscribes to the first of these clauses. As she said at the senate hearing: "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law."

But some Democrats on the committee seemed not to have heard of the second clause.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, expressed a concern to Barrett that, based on her past speeches, "the dogma lives loudly within you."

(This strange accusation has created a wonderful backlash, as the sale of "The dogma lives loudly within me" T-shirts becomes a cottage industry among Catholics.) Feinstein implied that believers who accept their church's moral teachings are un-American.

Then came Senator Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, whose 100 percent approval rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America may make him a Catholic that Senator Feinstein can accept.

He grilled Professor Barrett on a 1998 law review article she co-authored as a student with law professor John Garvey (now president of The Catholic University of America).

That article discussed the dilemma of someone with moral or religious objections to something he or she is asked to do as a judge.

For example, authorizing an abortion for a minor girl or imposing a death sentence could present a conflict of conscience for an "orthodox Catholic" (by which, the authors explained, they simply meant someone who believes Catholic teaching on the point at issue). Continue reading

• Richard Doerflinger worked for 36 years in the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.