www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Religious Extremism, a thoughful piece

I ran the following piece before Father Anthony and asked whether it was appropriate to post it here and he said do so. The views are those of Kathleen McGowan. Some may find her views may rattle them.

Angels and Demons and Death Threats - Oh My!
Kathleen McGowan

Posted May 5, 2009 | 12:17 PM (EST)

I was late submitting this blog, in defense of Ron Howard and Angels and Demons, because of a death threat.

A friend of mine is fond of asking, every time this happens, "What the hell? Why do people want to kill you? It's not like you're Salman Rushdie or something."

Well no, I'm not. But what I am is the author of two-bestselling works of fiction, books which deal with controversial religious themes and are distributed in about fifty languages worldwide. My work is most often compared to Dan Brown's, and I am happily sharing front-of-the-store book displays all over America at the moment with his Angels and Demons. But there is a mixed blessing with this kind of national exposure and association. Like Dan Brown and Ron Howard, I have been accused of taking an "anti-Catholic" position in my art. And the majority of the threats I receive reference this alleged anti-Catholic sentiment.

When I originally set out to write in defense of Ron Howard, who is under attack from William Donohue and his reactionary Catholic League, the tone of my piece was going to be very different. I had planned on a semi-humorous, upbeat, "Welcome to the club, Ron!" kind of article. All of us who dare to point to the bloodier aspects of Church history, including the holocausts of the Inquisition and Crusades, get slapped with the scarlet "anti-Catholic" label. It's the Crucible witch hunt mentality, Abigail Williams shouting: "Goody McGowan is a witch! I saw Ron Howard dancing with the devil in Dan Brown's garden!" It's to be expected, and in the past I have also believed that it was to be laughed at. But the events of this week have changed that. There is nothing humorous about violence in the name of religion, whether it is threatened or actualized. Neither is there anything upbeat about religious intolerance -- on either side of the question.

I have grown sadly used to the periodic threats. They have been called in to radio stations and bookstores, and delivered via post and email, since the release of my first controversial book in 2006. While the threats are always disturbing, most of them turn out to be groundless. I received one that coincided with the release date of my latest novel, The Book of Love, which contained a pernicious virus that ate through my computer's firewalls. So while it killed some of my data, it didn't kill me. This week was different, containing as it did events sinister enough to make me believe that my life was seriously at risk. Serious enough that I am going to be in hiding for another few weeks. Maybe longer.

Let me be clear here: I am not blaming the Vatican for the death threats and attacks that I have endured over my work. What I am blaming is a misplaced notion of anti-Catholic bias, which has fueled these threats. I am reasonably sure that most of the intimidation does not come from people who have even read my books, but rather from those who have been told they are objectionable by some religious authority. This is similar to what Ron Howard has encountered: he is on the receiving end of the Catholic League's lacerating criticism, and yet his critics have not viewed the film they are condemning. I see little difference between this, here in the "progressive" 21st century, and the Inquisition, where one only had to be accused of any kind of anti-Church sentiment to meet with aggressive persecution.

We live in a nation where freedom of both speech and religion are cherished rights. We should therefore have the opportunity to openly discuss the challenges we face as a result of religious intolerance in the past, present and future -- without the threat of violence. During the last eight years in American history, I was openly critical of the Iraq War and just about every action taken by the Bush Administration. Does that make me anti-American? Or does that make me a concerned American? The same argument applies to the Catholic Church. Am I anti-Catholic because I choose to write about the blood-soaked injustices of history that were perpetrated under papal dictates? Let's keep in mind that this is really not the Church as a spiritual institution that we are talking about here. This is the Church as a super power. As a force of economic and political might that has dominated a majority of the history of Western Civilization.

Yet there is one major flaw in this comparison. Those of us who were critical of the Bush administration had democratic recourse. We campaigned for Barack Obama, we marched and chanted for change -- and we were victorious. There is no such recourse for Catholics who disagree with the hard line positions or with the indefensible cover-ups of the Church, both in this century and in ages past. Catholics cannot vote out Pope Benedict XVI, and they cannot demand an explanation into the historical genocides committed with Church authority. But this doesn't mean that they don't have the right to read, learn and discuss all of the issues which have shaped their chosen religion. And they deserve to do so without being barraged by propaganda from the likes of self-appointed watch dogs like William Donohue.

Ron Howard points out that Mr. Donohue's booklet condemning Angels and Demons accuses him of lying because that movie's trailer says the Catholic Church "ordered a brutal massacre to silence the Illuminati centuries ago." This is a neat trick by Donohue, a sleight of hand by a man who is fully aware as he makes this point that the Illuminati referenced here is a fictional creation of Dan Brown. If you are distracted enough by Donahue's histrionics as he shouts down the obvious fiction element, perhaps you won't realize that the rest of the statement is true. The Catholic Church did, in fact, order a series of brutal massacres throughout the Middle Ages which ended hundreds of thousands -- arguably millions -- of lives through torture and otherwise horrific and violent means. The rest is semantics.

The great personal tragedy for me and my family in all of this is that the manufactured, anti-Catholic label which has caused me to endure acts of violence could not be further from my personal truth. I am married to a practicing Irish-Catholic, our son attends a Catholic school, and just over two weeks ago on Good Friday I spent three hours on my knees at the tre hore service in an historic Catholic Church near my home in Southern California. I attend all holy day services here with my family, in the same Catholic edifice where I was taught the Lord's Prayer at three years old. I have contributed to this church's restoration fund and a number of other "Catholic" projects in my community.

So now that we have established that I am not anti-Catholic, let's move on to establish what it is that I am. I am anti-genocide. I am anti-pedophilia. I am anti-AIDS. I am anti-intolerance. I am anti anything that restricts the rights of women. And I am anti cover-up. Therefore by default I am anti many of the political positions that the Catholic Church has taken over the last two thousand years. The actions of the Catholic Church have contributed to these issues that plague our planet and we, the Catholics and non-Catholics among us, have an obligation to discuss all of these subjects openly. I would like to think that we also have the right to do so without the risk of death.

Because most of all, I am anti-silence. Particularly when I believe that injustice has been allowed to occur without any kind of accountability -- or even proper discourse amongst concerned citizens.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-mcgowan/angels-and-demons-and-dea_b_196805.html

What is the piece but an appeal to non-religious extremism? Kathleen McGowan writes making herself and her minions the martyr; this is quite a narcissistic piece of blatant, self-justification. She lacks any sense of proportion in her appraisals of history. She is more biased than those she opposes and criticizes, but thinks that is the vey thing that makes her so wonderful. This is very much a "Mirror, Mirror on the wall" piece.

Interesting, she says:

How about anti-abortion, Ms. McGowan? Though she doesn't realize it, her list should include, to some considerable extent, anti-Truth.

Hmmmm...

I don't know if I agree with her. I don't think that anything edifying comes out of this article or, I suppose, her books (which I have not read, but assuming from her description of their purpose)...

What purpose would it have if I started writing novels about the Orthodox massacre of Latins in Constantinople, or the Latin massacre of the the infamous crusade in Constaninople. Does that foster love? Does it promote Christianity? What good would come out of it? We know that history has brutal histories which include brutal actions from Christians and Churches, the Catholic, the Anglican, the Orthodox, sometimes sanctioned by the Churches, sometimes not sanctioned by the Churches...

Also, in a world where there are far too many people's souls at risk because of them being 'scandalized' by organized Christian religion and clerics, does further scandal, dug up from the past, accomplish anything?

I almost felt for her until her last paragraph. She obviously has a personal axe to grind, despite her lengthy description of worshipping in the RC church...

She mentions paedophilia...is that to imply that paedophilia is officially sanctioned by the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox church or any other church where demonic possession has taken hold of priests in the past century to perpetrate horrible sexual crimes against children?

She mentions AIDS? Does the Catholic church not have a right to say that chastity is far more important in curtailing its spread than condoms?

She mentions restrictions on the rights of women. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what her axe to grind there is.

Yes, we have a right to say anything we want without risk of death or censorship. The funny thing is that everything she advocates wanting to say is ANTI someone or something, and that those who wish to say something in FAVOR of what is considered politically incorrect these days, and that would include organized Christianity, are censored and are curtailed, or held back in their careers, when attempting to engage in such a freedom. (I will concede one exception. Black Americans, thank God, seem to be the only ones who are allowed to speak Christ's name on public airwaves without fear of censorship or reprisal by the entertainment industry 'powers that be'...)

I much rather read about angels and demons as written by the Church Fathers and Holy Elders of Orthodoxy than her version. They may not be NY Times 'Best Sellers', but unlike her book, they may help me and others get into Heaven...our ultimate destination, of where there is no return.

I would also rather seek personal salvation than impose my 'causes' on others by scandalizing them into a state of complete rejection of any spiritual authority, because that is what she is doing.

I just don't know why disgruntled members of any organized Church simply leave or start their own faith tradition if they are so disturbed, just as many Protestants have up until this day. There is already a Church where a member was unhappy about restrictions founded, and it seems to espouse many of the liberties which she finds lacking in the RC church.

I think she adds nothing positive to the spiritual crisis the world is in, and the Church Fathers say that all positive is from God and negative is from the devil.

Alice

Alice, perhaps one ought to keep in mind the sage words of the great philosopher George Santayana, "Those who cannot study history, are doomed to repeat it.” Considering the quality of our education system, how many people study the events she speaks of? Not many.. For most people her narrative may be the only exposure they have to these events. If people do not write about them, well consider Santayana's statement.

Her purpose seems to be in this statement: " I am anti-silence. Particularly when I believe that injustice has been allowed to occur without any kind of accountability -- or even proper discourse amongst concerned citizens." You seem to be arguing against this statement. How many people actually blindly, in this day or age, accept every jot and tittle put forward by their church or government? And, if they are "cafeteria" Christians, does it make them bad Christians, no matter what brand of religion they be? In fact, does disagreeing with the powers that be in any church about current events in the church or about the way the church dealt with an issue in the past make that person a bad Christian?

Are people afraid to talk about the issues she raises even if they find them jarring? If she is to be believed (and I believe her), her life was threatened. Is that appropriate behavior for those who disagree with her? Obviously one can disagree with her, but the opinions of those who disagree with her are worth no more than hers. She wants open discourse even if it is searing. Her point of view may be different from many here.. but does that make it any less important? Should we fault her if she gores our sacred cows and makes us think more carefully about our closely heldbeliefs and think more carefully about them?

This exemplifies the issues I had with the "thoughtful piece" -- lack of thought.

Accuracy - what he actually said:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana, The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

Question: Did SHE "study the events she speaks of"? I have doubts.

Problem: "For most people her narrative may be the only exposure they have to these events." That is scarry.

And who is this objective writer, Kathleen McGowan, who finds herself so objectively in sympathy with Ron Howard and Dan Brown? She is (surprise) none other than "Kathleen McGowan, novelist and self-proclaimed descendant of a union between Jesus and Mary Magdalene." link [usatoday.com]

These are always two favorite items to use when one wants to bash the Catholic Church. First of all, the Inquisition was an institution of the Spanish government, not a part of the Catholic Church. That clerics may have been involved does not make it part of the Church. Much of the blackening of the Church with this has come from English historians after the break with Rome and it isn't hard to see the ax they wanted to grind. The Crusades, lest we forget, were the direct response to Moslem/Islamic aggression toward the Holy Land and the Christians living there. But to hear so many today tell it, it was the Christians that started this period of conflict.

So I don't think criticism of this woman is unwarranted. Death threats? Frankly I don't take this claim seriously from someone who plies in perverting the truth about historical events.

BOB

From the article link of ajk:



Unfortunately, the evil one deceives many people through wht they perceive as 'holy' visions...so many of history's psychopaths can attest to that; Mohammed's life can attest to that; horrific murders we hear in the news can attest to that; etc., etc., etc....

That is why I suggest that we read the Church FATHERS on 'Angels and Demons' rather than someone who claims a vision and the most heretical notion that she is froma blood line of descendants of a union between Jesus and Mary Magdalene! Lord have mercy. (just writing that felt sinful)...

I really feel sorry for her and for others who see such deceptive visions without a proper orthodox spiritual father/elder to guide them correctly. I can understand why people are passionate against her. NO, she should not receive death threats, but spiritually immature people, when their GOD is blasphemed, get angry and get carried away with sin. Instead, they should pray for this woman and for the blasphemy and the heresy she is promoting in a money making endeavor. A true holy person with true visions would never attempt to make money for the glory of God...oops, I forgot, however, none of this is for the glory of God!

As for the 'history' in her novels, I would rather read a history book.

Alice

Actually, ajk, the version i posted was what popped up when i did a search for the quotation on the web and three variations appeared and the sources all claimed their version was right. I won't quibble over the exact wording with you.


I never claimed she was objective and I never claimed she did not have an ax to grind. Every writer including professional historians do.

She sure sounds like she is blaming the Catholic League for death threats. There is no other reason to mention them.

Such an accusation (or very weird comparison) discredits anything Kathleen McGowan has to say. She says she has received death threats (horrible, if true – and nothing a faithful Catholic would ever do). Then she says the criticisms Ron Howard has received from the Catholic League is the equivalent of a death theat. She is not credible and should be ignored.

She also makes the mistake of comparing the Church to a democracy (as well as making other factual errors). And she forgets that freedom of speech comes with responsibility. She is free to reject anything the Church teaches (and disassociate herself from the Catholic Church). What she is not free to do is to tell the Church what it should believe. Our faith comes from Jesus Christ and is kept fast by the Holy Spirit guiding the Church. What we believe is not up for a vote. I’d say this woman needs a crash course in “Introduction to Catholicism”. And then maybe some basic history. And I pray that everyone would have the good sense to dismiss what she writes as gibberish.

Never having heard of her before, I thought this quote from an article on a book she wrote was rather interesting: "McGowan, who says she is from the 'sacred bloodline' Brown made famous in his mega-selling novel, says she's ready to cope with people who think she's crazy or a heretic" (http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2006-07-17-magdalene-book_x.htm).

She seems less sane than would be credible for an historian or an essayist. I did not see evidence of thought in the first post.

Blaspheme, demonic deception, and heresy...

that is what I think of her claims of visions and being a descendant of our Lord.

I haven't read Kathleen McGowan's books, and I really don't care about them. Her essay was excellent, and most of the responses here were not. Basically, most of the responses boiled down to this:

-- Excusing or minimizing the Catholic Church's responsibility for the moral abominations it was involved in history.

-- Disparaging the attempts to expose, criticize or even question the sins and scandals of the Catholic Church.

And, worst of all,

-- Giving an ultimatum of "take it or leave it."


As for that ultimatum -- "If you don't like it, why don't you just leave?" -- let me give you a serious reply:

People are hearing it loud and clear. They are hearing it from a pope who is a former Hitler Youth and who has offended every religious group that isn't conservative Catholic. They have heard it from a television network that is ultra conservative and that pretends to be mainstream Catholic. They hear it from bishops who teach that people will go to everlasting hell for using birth control, but who willfully turned a blind eye to child rapist priests till they were exposed. And they are hearing it from you: when they surf the internet trying to find some spirituality and balance in the Church online. They are hearing your ultimatum loud and clear: "If you don't like it, just leave."


And millions of people are taking you up on your offer.


-- Millions of Catholics (about 70% in the U.S.) don't practice their religion anymore, either regularly or at all.

-- Millions more are joining Evangelical Christianity: in part because it teaches the basic truths of the Gospel without the institutional problems and sins of the Catholic Church.

-- Worse, millions of others are becoming secularists with no religion at all.

If you keep it up, you will succeed in driving out the moderates and the liberals and the ethnics and the ordinary from the Catholic Church. Some of you would love that, I know. But God help you if that comes to pass. It would only be you. It would only be the religious conservatives left in the Catholic Church. Everyone else would be gone, somewhere else. And the Catholic Church would be reduced to cultural and social irrelevancy.

-- John

If I can interject a few thoughts here, and believe me ... this comes from a person with very little wealth of understanding of R.C., having only become Orthodox within the passed month. So, if I offend anyone, I am truly sorry ... it is ignorance, not maliciousness.
During all my years in the Evangelical/Charismatic Church, there were always those, whether in book form, public speaking, or just in speaking with another believer, who were more than willing to bash the R.C. Church. I will freely admit, that some years ago, before I studied any church history or the early church fathers, I was one of them. But, one thing both R.C. and Orthodoxy has that all of the others are lacking is a solid, historical, trail leading directly back to Christ Himself. None of the others can say that. For many, "their church" started with Luther, but for many others .. their church started when it showed up on the corner and they started going.
I know there is much to be said against R.C. and Orthodoxy ... of course, there would be ... we are all sinful and fall very easily .... but, dear friends ... you have history, you know exactly the "why" of everything you do and believe ..... you have the trail that leads directly back to our Lord Himself. Let us never, ever, lose sight of that blessing we all hold in our hearts.
abby
<*)))><

I disagree.

No one is excusing or minimizing the Catholic Church’s responsibility for its moral failings throughout history. But they need to be presented accurately. McGowan speaks of “brutal massacres throughout the Middle Ages which ended hundreds of thousands -- arguably millions -- of lives through torture and otherwise horrific and violent means”. Millions? Really? Where is the evidence? There is no hard evidence as to the numbers killed in the Crusades, and the Crusades were a defensive war against militant Islam. Sound historians estimate tens of thousands but there is nothing to suggest a million. The Inquisition was horrible and much of it morally abominable. Yet solid historians put the total numbers of those executed at about a hundred. Again, not millions. I’m racking my brain trying to add in the worst of the secular rulers who might have been baptized (and so included in McGowan’s counts) and can’t find millions. McGowan’s exaggerations render her unbelievable. If one wishes to be taken seriously one should not invent facts out of whole cloth. It is better to present one’s case based on solid evidence.

As far as criticizing the Church just look around and you will see the whole world is criticizing the Catholic Church. It is certainly true that the bishops tend to try to hide the worst of things. But look at the reaction to the scandal involving child abuse and homosexual priests and you cannot claim that those seeking to expose and seeking reform have been successfully kept from doing so by the Church.

Vote out the pope?

Genocide? Where has the Catholic Church attempted the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group? It has certainly engaged in anti-Semitism. But where has it committed genocide? Even the sacking of Constantinople (horrible as it is) does not constitute genocide.

Again, where is the Church pro-genocide? Some claim this because the Church condemns the use of condoms and preaches abstinence.

She claims the Church is pro-pedophilia? Even the worst cover up does not make it that.

She claims the Church is pro-AIDS? In what way? Again, because it opposes the use of condoms? Any medical practitioner can tell her about failure rates and how abstinence is the only way to prevent HIV.

She claims the Church is anti-woman? Is that because the Church recognizes that a child in the womb is a human deserving of the right to life?

Take it or leave it? Why is that the worst? Catholic Theology is what it is. You either accept it or reject it, especially on the moral level. The Ten Commandments are not subject to vote.

I see in her article a serious lack of education and a lack of simple logic. This is often the case with those who embrace moral relativism. They make their decisions based upon emotion and not on fact or solid science. Sadly, it is very common in societal thinking today.

I was not going to respond to this part, but it is so irresponsible I think I need to.

So the fact that Pope Benedict XVI was drafted into the Hitler Youth when he was a teenager is proof of what? What accusations are you making against him? Please specify them and provide evidence.

What television network do you consider to be “ultra conservative”? You claim that they are not mainstream Catholic. What exactly do they preach that you consider to be not mainstream Catholic? Please provide a list and support it with evidence or there is no reason to believe you, using the Catholic Catechism as the definition of mainstream Catholic Teachings.

I agree that bishops can be hypocrites. They can and do teach that using artificial birth control is immoral and can lead one to hell while they turn a blind eye to child rapists and clergy who are sexually active outside marriage (the most numerous problem in that scandal was homosexual priests going after teenage boys). What is your solution? To ask the Church to change its teaching on artificial conception control? What does one have to do with another at the level of teaching and belief? It seems to me that the failure in keeping moral standards among priests does not and should not affect teaching of moral standards. All it affects is the believability of the bishops. Or would you throw all teachings out the window that you might not agree with because the bishops have failed in one or more areas?

Spiritually and balance need to be build upon Truth. The Truth of Jesus Christ and the correct Teachings of His Church. You cannot have spirituality without Truth. When you reject Truth (the moral and other teachings of the Church) you reject salvation.

And no one is saying to leave. What the Church is saying is to change – to embrace Christ and to follow His Teachings. What McGowan is saying is to abandon two thousand years of morality and theology and put everything up to a vote, based upon what she thinks is right.

The Church does not prohibit criticism. Just look across the web and you can see many Catholic sites that engage in just criticism of the Church. But there is a difference between just (responsible) criticism and unjust (irresponsible) criticism. Just criticism involves speaking accurately, providing evidence and promoting change that leads towards a better embracement of the Gospel. Unjust criticism (like that of McGowan and Harmon3110) is immoral. It only succeeds in getting the one criticizing labeled as unbelievable (because the criticism is based upon things that are false or exaggerated). It pushes people away from Christ. Criticism must be both just and responsible.