While saying Mass late last month, Father Jacques Hamel was murdered by two jihadists. And already some of the Catholic world wants to, whoa, pull back the reins because y'know, celebrating "martyrdom" comes too close to the jihadists themselves.
Read all of Jacobs' criticism here.
Jacobs is exactly right here and, ya' gotta admit it, part of this reticence he targets comes from the Catholic tradition itself. Or at least an interpretation of the tradition.
It's also, and this is where, if not already, I lose friends on the Left, part of the New York Times worldview: one where moral individualism reigns supreme and any claim that restricts or denies that is anathema. Furthermore, the NYT appreciates culture and learning, but only insofar as they uphold the a priori moral individualism. So something as grotesque and bloodily real as "martrydom"--by anybody--must be held at arm's length. It's easy to do this with ISIS-martyrs, but when Roman Catholic Christianity--that tradition from which the ersatz NYT worldview itself grows (and from which it, the NYT, has long since severed itself)--then distinctions and clarifications must be made. The last thing the NYT wants is for any of its oh-so-smart readers to be challenged....by something other than itself. If the NYT itself challenges, well, that's fine. But gads, not that Catholicism stuff...again.
And throughout that little rant you probably could substitute "liberal middle-to-upper class and their progressive friends." This worldview encompasses most of liberal mainstream Protestantism and not a few swaths of liberal American Catholics. This group still insists that "embracing the world" requires first bracketing one's own beliefs. So, if we're confronted with ISIS and we want their religiously-infused violence to stop (a worthy desire!), then, in this worldview, we throttle back first on our own views. With Father Hamel, that means toning down all this martrydom stuff.
There are many responses ("You're just plain wrong" comes to mind), but Karl Barth has a good one:
THE BEST APOLOGETIC IS A GOOD DOGMATIC.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it? Instead of backing up, start first with statement of belief, a credo. Then, as William Placher wrote in 1989, proceed unapologetically. Stop seeking prolegomena; you'll never find a universal common ground that includes virtually everybody. Proceed instead with the Church's beliefs and the given issue at the time. In doing so you won't insult your dialogue partner, either. Let's be honest, ISIS' notion of "dialogue" is "convert to Islam." That's just as unhelpful as the NYT worldview. For example, one of best known images of Father Hamel (seen above) came from a Muslim artist in France. Hey, that's real interreligious dialogue; the recognition and appreciation of the other's views without sacrificing your own.
Because if you start with an apology as so many of our cultural elites want, we'll end up with no ground on which to stand. We'll have backed ourselves off a cliff.
Meanwhile, pray for the respose, and intercession, of Father Hamel and all holy martyrs.