« The first nine months | Main | Rumors... »
December 30, 2005
Keillor v. Pope
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8349dae0c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Keillor v. Pope:
Comments
Curious how Keillor just takes it as a given that the Church isn't doing anything for the poor and doesn't think her own teachings on social justice are a priority. And I love his assumption that the writer's a lock-step libertarian Republican: if you're not a Democrat, obviously you think Medicare cuts are a great idea. Because of course Jesus had all kinds of stuff to say about Medicaid.
Posted by: Peony Moss at Dec 30, 2005 10:43:49 AM
From Keillor's response:
Your sense of persecution is wildly misplaced. If the Democratic party is out of step with the Church, it's because the two are separate and independent, and because the church believes that its teachings on abortion and gays and contraception are more important than its teachings on social justice. Christ said a great deal about the poor, so one would think that's important in Christian theology, but you can make up your own mind about that. If you're outraged at a piece of comedy about the Pope and you accept with equanimity the people in your party cutting Medicaid, then you're a very interesting Christian indeed.
Teachings on abortion, contraception, and sexuality? Negotiable of course.
Fully funding the already bloated budget of an arm of the welfare state? Mandatory according to the Gospel of Garrison, which sadly has been grafted onto the lectionary of more than a few dioceses.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Dec 30, 2005 10:47:56 AM
Keillor: why can't Episcopalians play chess? Because they can't tell a bishop from a queen . . . snip
Must admit, this is pretty funny . . . :)
Keillor's response is not bad up to the point where he starts to offer what he thinks is serious criticism of the Church (what Rich Leonardi quotes above). His criticism is risibly bad.
But he does have a point: Catholics have to be able to take a poke now and then and not immediately scream "anti-Catholic persecution!"
Posted by: Cornelius at Dec 30, 2005 10:57:16 AM
I like Prairie Home Companion, it always brings back happy memories of sitting in the back yard in the summer twilight, listening with the family. Garrison Keillor is a talented story-teller and an entertaining chap.
I missed the piece the letter-writer refers to, where he bashed the pope, though I don't doubt it happened. Garrison is a classic liberal: so blissfully caught up in his own world that he's not only unable to apologize, he's quite unaware of how anything he says could be offensive, and genuinely surprised when anyone takes offense. Sealed in a world, surrounded by the like-minded, the only logical assumption is that there's something wrong with the person who takes offense.
But Garrison Keillor is a nice man (Minnesota-nice, even). So he couldn't just come out and say, "C. Fleischman, you're a nut!" Instead, he patronizingly compliments her (him?), admits fault in a minor matter (he got Pope Benedict's name wrong), then tries to turn the matter around upon his critic, blaming it on his (her?) anger and then taking a potshot that the Church cares more about abortion, gays and contraception than social justice (isn't defense of life matter of social justice? doesn't the umpteen millions raised by the Church for tsunami, hurricane and earthquake relief in the last year matter?) Then he drops the stereotypical Minnesota insult, saying that the writer is likely an "interesting" Christian (translation: "interesting" in Minnesota is used to describe something detestable, loathesome, ugly or unpleasant, but a proper Minnesotan is too interested in preserving a veneer of "nice" to actually say so. e.g. "Mary, that dress is certainly...interesting.")
The left just can't understand their own anti-Catholic bigotry. Certain high-society whites in the 50's would have said, "I've got nothing against the blacks, some of them are quite decent fellows, like George, the porter, Adele, the maid and Johnny the shoeshine boy." Now lefties like Garrison say, with similar aplomb, "I'm not anti-Catholic, I make fun of everyone: Norwegians, Poles, Episcopalians..."
I'm sure he has a number of Catholics among his circle of friends.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 30, 2005 10:58:36 AM
Hey, I think the papal chair was a great idea, giving Catholic men the opportunity to show their support for the successor of Peter in a very physical way.
I've noticed Conan O'Brien is able to make fun of the papacy in a way that doesn't particularly offend, though it's likely often too irreverent. Keillor's comedy, if that is the right word, tends to accompany smarmy self-righteousness and libertine-enabling talk.
It's also interesting that Keillor deliberately refuses to consider advice about how to improve the Democratic party.
Posted by: Kevin Jones at Dec 30, 2005 11:04:24 AM
In regard to Kevin Jones' last sentence above, the Church deliberately refuses to consider the left's advice as to how to improve the Church, so it shouldn't be surprising that the left, believing itself to be the supreme moral authority, reciprocates.
Posted by: Gregg the obscure at Dec 30, 2005 11:18:42 AM
You can listen to Keillor's bit here.
http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2005/12/17/
It is in Segment 1. Keillor did resort to some German sterotyping, but I think his treatment of religious folks is usually respectful. Our whole family laughed at this.
Posted by: Patrick Kinsale at Dec 30, 2005 11:29:07 AM
Keillor used to be funny intentionally. Now he is only funny unintentionally when he is attempting to channel Mark Twain and pose as a sage. He should have stayed in Denmark.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Dec 30, 2005 11:30:03 AM
I've never found him the least bit amusing, nor do I understand the appeal. My wife and several friends of hers have tried to share him with me, but I just don't get it.
Oh well. Looks like I'm not missing much.
Posted by: Flambeaux at Dec 30, 2005 11:35:17 AM
Lighten up everyone. Keillor makes fun of every religion (the most being his own, Lutheran) and every politician and every holy day and just about every thing American. He's a comic. It's his job. And I've enjoyed every minute of it for the last 20 years I've been listening.
Posted by: Brigid at Dec 30, 2005 11:39:43 AM
Keillor belongs to a group of people who believe that opposing abortion on-demand and homosexual marriage makes you a barbarian. Part of it is that simple. On the other hand, he is primarily a humorist and he certainly gets lots of mileage out of laughing at Midwestern protestants. It's his main shtick. When he states that in the response, he is pretty accurate. In opinion pieces he writes however such as the one about the election of Norm Coleman, he becomes completely unhinged and the very definition of what he opposes but then we're all hypocrites in some way.
Personally, I'm too ethnic-Catholic to get most of his humor but I love the musicians he has on.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Dec 30, 2005 11:44:01 AM
In response to an inquiry from a Jewish listener who wanted to know if there were any Jews in Lake Wobegone, and, if so, why he never talked about them, Garrison (on the PHC web page) stated that there were indeed a few Jews in Lake Wobegone but he wasn't ready to handle the massive grief he would get for talking about them on air. So he does have a line which he will not cross. I guess Catholics could take comfort that he feels at ease enough with us to make us the butt of his humor.
Posted by: sj at Dec 30, 2005 11:51:07 AM
"why can't Episcopalians play chess? Because they can't tell a bishop from a queen"
Based on the reception that Bishop Robison receives, I have the impression that gay bishops are a source of pride amongst Episcopalians. I would be hard pressed to put this joke on the same level as saying Catholics don't care about the poor.
Posted by: anon at Dec 30, 2005 11:52:06 AM
Keillor a 'nice man'? Tell that to Norm Coleman, who was victim of the darker side of Keillor's character (Keillor hinted that Coleman's family life is a sham and gave credence to rumors that Coleman may have had something to do with Welstone's death). Nice Garrison is a facade. He is a very nasty and angry man.
Something about Keillor and Coleman here:
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_11_10_archive.html#85675451
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Dec 30, 2005 11:57:52 AM
That's exactly the essence of "Minnesota nice" - smile on the surface, while sharpening your dagger underneath your parka.
Posted by: Tim Ferguson at Dec 30, 2005 12:08:13 PM
While I don't seek out Prairie Home Companion, I do hear sometimes when driving around. Yes, some of the music is great. And some of the little dramas are amusing. But I never quite relax because there will always come a moment wiht GK's reflexive liberal streak will pop out (like the creature in "Alien").
It is true that liberals are often very clueless and assume that everyone agrees with them. I have a friend who routinely sends me anti-George Bush humnor because she can't believe that one of her friends would vote for him (or any non-Democrat). I usually let her assumption go unmentioned because I like everything else about her. Occasionally, I swat back. At the same time, I never assume anyone agrees with me about anything, so most of the time I'm not disappointed and once in a while I'm pleasantly surprised.
Posted by: Mary Jane at Dec 30, 2005 12:16:16 PM
Go get'em CF!
Posted by: John E at Dec 30, 2005 12:18:01 PM
I (as an ethnic Catholic) am not his target audience and I don't particularly "get" his humor. But my husband (the Scandinavian Lutheran pastor's son from the upper midwest) is--and he can't stand him. Reluctant Penitant is correct--Keillor can be extremely mean-spirited and plain nasty; that's something that is much more obvious in his written pieces than on his show. He seems to have allowed that aspect more free rein in recent years, perhaps as his popularity fades. The comparison to Conan O'Brian is quite good; he can poke fun at Catholics without nastiness.
Posted by: C Johnson at Dec 30, 2005 12:19:48 PM
I like Garrison Keillor in general, and get really irritated by Catholics who scream "bigotry!" any time there's criticism or mockery of anything Catholic. But I must say that reading Keillor's book last year about being a Democrat was eye-opening. It was as vitriolic and nasty as anything on the Right, and that surprised me coming from a man of his temperament and stature. It was bilious.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 30, 2005 12:37:10 PM
"Lighten up everyone. Keillor makes fun of every religion (the most being his own, Lutheran)"
Actually, Keillor isn't Lutheran. He grew up in the Plymouth Brethren, a very strict sect that doesn't even have clergymen. I used to enjoy him but as of late I'm finding his humor wanting. It's starting to become Salon-esque.
I also find it most amusing that he would be so unenlightened about all the charitable works the Catholic Church does. Martin Marty, a prominent Lutheran, has remarked that Lutherans are good at works of mercy but Catholics far exceed them in works of justice.
Posted by: Christine at Dec 30, 2005 12:56:43 PM
Wow - I had no idea that my opposition to the redistribution of large sums of my money by the government (for wasteful, ineptly managed, dependency-creating and dignity destroying programs) made me a bad Christian! Thank you St. Garrison for enlightening me.
Posted by: Gretchen at Dec 30, 2005 1:05:50 PM
'Based on the reception that Bishop Robison receives, I have the impression that gay bishops are a source of pride amongst Episcopalians.'
I'd say, as a convert from the ECUSA, that 'gay bishops' are a source of pride for roughly 35-50% of Episcopalians and a far lower number if you wanted to include all Anglicans around the world. Try not to paint with so broad a brush. Episcopalians need our prayers, not our snide remarks.
Posted by: Christopher at Dec 30, 2005 1:11:14 PM
A few years ago on his NPR show on December 8, Keillor did a riff, not disrespectful, about the virgin birth of Christ, clearly having made the common mistake about what the Immaculate Conception is.
Keillor captures as well as anyone the surface and the stereotype of the Catholic Church, the Church as seen from the outside and through the prism of, say, the front page of the New York Times (whose coverage of Church matters for generations now has been dominated by its obsession with contraception -- but I digress).
I often find Keillor's satire of things Catholic to be lighthearted enough. But from his relpy to the letter-writer accusing him of anti-Catholicism, you can see that in real life he really does believe the anti-Catholic cliches of the secular left (which are different from the anti-Catholic cliches of the religious right, but do you think they share common roots?).
Now and then the likes of the Nation or the New York Review of Books will find and then give ample space to a well-informed anti-Catholic -- Paul Blanshard from outside the Church, Garry Wills from inside. On the whole, though, what characterizes the anti-Catholicism of cultural elites is ignorance, and not just ignorance but blithe ignorance.
They don't know what they don't know, and the less they know the more they are inclined to hold forth and make sweeping and shallow generalizations. They have small ears, weak eyes, and big, strong mouths.
I have lived in the Church all my life and am still discovering, and expect to continue discovering for the rest of my life, spiritual riches I never knew about but that have been on display and available to everyone for centuries.
Posted by: Nick Frankovich at Dec 30, 2005 1:20:48 PM
The irate Catholic, C. Fleischman, wrote in reference to JPII :
"No one in the history of the world has had his influence - and been as truly, personally loved and mourned as he was." Well, what about Jesus, Mohammed, and Newton ? While I'm glad that the irate Catholic is willing to stand up for the Church, I think that overblown and easily refuted statements such as that do a disservice. Any response should be more measured and have a proper regard for veracity.
And I agree with Flambeaux, who wrote about Keillor :
"I've never found him the least bit amusing, nor do I understand the appeal."
The very few times I did listen to Keillor's program I felt repulsed by the fraudulently folksy patter which just oozed smugness and smarm.
Posted by: Ed at Dec 30, 2005 1:35:09 PM
I thought Keillor creamed the poor fellow, not because Keillor is right, but simply because the letter offered so much fodder for snarky one-line retorts that could deflect from the letter's intent, which was a good intent. The writer should have focused on a constructive case.
Was it really wise to make personal attacks on Keillor's intelligence in the letter? Keillor may have many character faults, but one thing he is not is stupid.
Posted by: Jeff at Dec 30, 2005 1:36:45 PM
