Since I can't seem to trackback to Haloscan, my post in response can be found here: http://www.massright.com/ppk/
arc...t_wont_fit.html
jrp, is your response to Parable Man's post, or to my response to his post?
If it is to me, are you aware of the Strauss connection, whereby religion is simply a story for the masses, while the 'brains' see through to the 'real' message? I see the neocan term, with that in mind, as one the speaker uses to lay claim to 'real' catholicity, as opposed to the newcomers who want to hi-jack it for their own purposes. The seem to be accusing us of being quasi gnostic phonies.
The term neocath makes me recoil a bit, while neocon I find more neutral; there can be little doubt both terms are intended to be disparaging. I did like your own description of orthodoxy, however.
Not sure what you mean by the reference to Strauss?
There are different strains of those influenced by his pointing back to political philosophy that do not disparage relgion, and the term neo-con is often woefully misused. For instance, it is a frequent charge of those who rail against neo cons that they follow Woodrow Wilson, whereas Straussians have done more to disparage Wilson and expose his progressive agenda than anyone else. Students of Strauss and neo-cons are all over the map, and by no means as related as they are cartoonishly made out to be. (I would suggest that when the Rolling Stones are using the term, "Neo-con" has lost any meaning it once had)
For an example of Straussians who aren't quite neo-cons and certainly don't disparage religion:
http://www.claremont.org
See these essays:
http://www.claremont.org/
writing...80212jaffa.html
http://www.claremont.org/
writing...0818kesler.html
Commenting by HaloScan
