Anti-Semitism and Alleged Anti-Catholicism: Mel Gibson and Elton John

I have been away for some weeks and have had little time to write, but I can not resist responding to Father Araujo’s August 2d post about Mel Gibson, Elton John, and the Boston Globe. Father Araujo expresses concern that the Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/08/02/gibsons_ugly_passion/) was not as conciliatory as the ADL about Gibson’s apology for his drunken Anti-Semetic remarks. He then becomes curious whether the Globe has been similarly concerned about Anti-Catholic remarks by celebrities. He faults the Globe for not speaking out against the alleged Anti-Catholicism of Elton John. He finally wonders “whether the Globe’s editorial was really about Mel Gibson or was it about and directed to something else.”

 In reaction, first I resist the Gibson/John comparison for three reasons that are relevant to journalistic decisions. (a) Anti-Semitism has been associated with the enormous evil of the holocaust. Anti-Catholicism is to be deplored, but it has not been associated in our recent history with the same kinds of consequences as racism and Anti-Semitism; (b) Unlike John, Gibson had denied Anti-Semitism. He had produced a movie that many, rightly or wrongly, thought reflected Anti-Semitism. If John had denied Anti-Catholicism and then made Anti-Catholic remarks there would be a closer parallel; (c) Father Araujo says that Elton John has made remarks against the Church and Catholics. I am aware that John has sharply criticized the Vatican’s position on birth control and homosexuality. Some of these statements strike me as overly shrill, harsh, and exaggerated . But I do not regard those statements as anti-Catholic (though they are surely anti-Vatican) in the same sense as racist and anti-semetic remarks. I am not aware of John making statements that are negative about Catholics in general of the order made by racists about blacks in general or Gibson seizing on a cop because he was Jewish and believing that stood for something negative. A person at Cornell once said to me that he thought a person was rigid because of his Catholic background. That struck me as anti-Catholic.

 I think in view of the Catholic Church’s history of Anti-Semitism (and its desire to open dialogue) that Catholics have a particular responsibility not to trivialize Anti-Semitism when it occurs. I am sure that Father Araujo shares that view, but if I am right about the Gibson/John comparison I think his post inadvertently trivialized the horror of Gibson’s remarks.

 My second reaction to Father Araujo’s post is that I am puzzled by his conclusion where he wonders whether the Globe’s editorial was really about Mel Gibson. What is he suggesting?

 Finally, was the Globe insufficiently conciliatory? Here I share Father Araujo’s conclusion. The Globe made some points worth making. It suggested that prejudice is eased by absolutist views (e.g., my way is the only way to respond to God) though it did not seem to recognize the complex dynamics of prejudice beyond that. It recognized that Gibson was not representative of Catholics, citing Vatican II. It mentioned that Gibson had financial motives for a public apology though it did not adequately consider the possibility that he might be truly sorry for what he did just because it was wrong.

My belief is that Gibson probably continues to harbor prejudicial views, and that he would like to get rid of them. I do not think he is alone. I believe that most of us are quite lucky that we do not have an extreme form of Tourettes syndrome in which we speak aloud the thoughts that come into our heads. The social science evidence strongly suggests that the overwhelming majority of white Americans are embedded with racist stereotypes. Surely millions are flooded with stereotypes, try to drive them out, only to have them come back. For Gibson, alcohol was an extreme case of Tourettes syndrome (probably aggravating the latent views). The Globe did not wish him well, but it should have.